CARDIFF SCHOOL OF SPORT
DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE
(HONOURS)
SPORT AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION
TITLE: Frequency and perceptions of precompetition symptoms (thoughts and feelings) in
elite and non-elite athletes.
NAME: Harriet Major
UNIVERSITY NUMBER: 09001535
NAME: HARRIET ANN MAJOR
UNIVERSITY NUMBER: 09001535
SCHOOL OF SPORT
CARDIFF METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY
FREQUENCY AND PERCEPTIONS OF PRECOMPETITION SYMPTOMS IN ELITE AND NON-ELITE
ATHLETES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
i
ii
Abstract
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Page Number
1
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction
3
2.2
Definitions of Competitive Anxiety
3
2.3
Multidimensional Anxiety Approach
4
2.4
The Competitive State Anxiety Inventory
(CSAI-2)
4
2.5
Limitations of the CSAI-2
5
2.6
The notion of directional perceptions
6
2.7
Performance studies
7
2.8
Frequency and Intensity
8
2.9
Temporal patterning
9
2.10
Hypothesises
10
2.10.1
Frequency predictions
11
2.10.2
Directional perceptions predictions
11
CHAPTER THREE
METHOD
Page Number
3.1
Participants
12
3.2
Instrumentation
12
3.3
Procedure
13
3.4
Data Analysis
14
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
4.1
Internal Reliability and Correlation Analysis
15
4.2
Data pre-screen
17
4.3
Multivariate Analysis of Variance
19
4.4
Frequency of Intrusions (three time periods)
20
4.5
Directional Perceptions of Anxiety
Frequency (three time periods)
21
4.6
Frequency of Intrusions (two time periods)
23
4.7
Directional Perceptions of Anxiety
Frequency (two time periods)
24
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
Page Number
5.1
Skill Level
25
5.2
Time-to-Competition
28
5.3
Practical Implications
31
5.4
Strengths and Limitations
32
5.5
Future Directions
33
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSION
6.1
Main findings
34
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2
APPENDIX B
Informed Consent Form
35
LIST OF TABLES
Page Number
Table 1
CSAI-2 Internal Reliability Coefficients
(Cronbach Alpha)
16
Table 2
Interrelationships between the CSAI-2
dimensions (Data set 1)
16
Table 3
Interrelationships between the CSAI-2
dimensions (Data set 2)
17
Table 4
Tests of Normality Violations across the three
time periods
18
Table 5
Tests of Normality Violations across the two
time periods
18
Table 6
Anxiety and Confidence Means and Standard
Deviations over three time periods collapsed
across all skill levels (Data set 1).
19
Table 7
Anxiety and confidence means and Standard
Deviations over two time periods collapsed
across all skill levels (Data set 2).
20
LIST OF FIGURES
Page Number
Figure 1
Change over time patterns for Frequency of
responses (Data set 1)
21
Figure 2
Change over time patterns for Directional
perceptions of frequency (Data set 1)
22
Figure 3
Change over time patterns for Frequency of
responses (Data set 2)
24
Figure 4
Change over time patterns for Directional
perceptions of anxiety frequency (Data set 2)
24
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Owen Thomas for his encouragement and guidance
throughout this study. I would also like to thank Dr. David Wasley for his support
with SPSS.
I would like to thank the participants and Rounder’s England Head Office, as
without you this study would not have been possible.
I would also like to thank my Mum, Dad and Sister for their continued love and
support. Finally, a huge thank you must go to the 161 Arabella girls as I could not
have got through this experience without you.
i
Abstract
Research has suggested that the measurement of competitive state anxiety may
benefit from applying a more detailed approach, as oppose to the traditional
intensity‐alone perspective (Jones & Swain, 1992). Thus, the purpose of this study
is to extend the competitive anxiety literature, by modifying Marten’s original
Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2), to include scales for frequency
(Swain & Jones, 1993) and perceptions of pre-competition frequency symptoms
(Jones & Swain, 1992).
This study aims to examine the differences in pre-
competition symptoms and interpretations between elite and non elite athletes,
preceding competition. Participants consisted of 93 England Rounder’s trialists,
competing for a position in England’s U14 and U16 squads. Participants were
asked to complete the 27 item questionnaire on three time periods (7 days, 1 day,
& 1 hour) pre-competition. The modified CSAI-2 was distributed to the trialists
through email, 7 days and 24 hours prior to the athlete’s trial. Participants were
handed a final copy of the questionnaire to complete, 1 hour pre-competition. It
was concluded that elite athletes do not differ from their non-elite athlete
counterparts in their frequencies or interpretations of pre-competition anxiety
symptoms. However, single time analysis suggested that elite athletes experience
greater amounts of cognitive frequency, 1 hour pre-competition. Important
practical implications emanated, particularly the need for coaches to encourage
young athletes to gain more experience in a competitive sporting environment, to
help them understand what anxiety is, and how it affects their performance.
Additionally, the current findings identify the key roles that coaches and sport
psychologists have in nurturing the athlete’s ability to redirect their symptoms of
anxiety, to facilitate their performance.
ii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
The responsibility as England’s kicker does scare me. I worry all the time about
it, but the important thing is that I know I can worry about it. It's not a bad thing,
or a detrimental thing, to worry. As long as when I go to take the kick … I can
be as fearful as I like and think: ‘I’m really, really concerned about this’. But as
long as everything is in place, the ball will go where you want it to (Jonny
Wilkinson on kicking in rugby; The Guardian, 2003).
This quote offers valuable insight into how the presence of anxiety can be used as
a motivational tool, to facilitate performance by highly elite performers. As a result,
extensive research within the topic of competitive anxiety has been conducted,
due to the potential impacts anxiety can have on an athletes’ performance (Jones,
1995; Biddle, 1997; Woodman & Hardy, 2001; Neil & Christensen, 2007).
However, before athletes can use their anxiety to enhance their performance, their
pre-competition state anxiety must be measured, to allow sport psychologists to
apply appropriate managerial and/or coping strategies, to enable athletes to reach
optimal performance. Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, and Smith’s (1990)
questionnaire; labelled The Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) has
prevailed in the competitive anxiety literature as the scale of choice when
measuring competitive state anxiety (Jones 1991; Jones & Swain, 1992; Jones,
Swain & Hardy, 1993; Jones, Hanton, & Swain, 1994; Jones, 1995; Jones &
Swain, 1995). Marten’s (1990) original CSAI-2 measured the athlete’s levels
(intensity) of anxiety symptoms. Further, in 1992 Jones and Swain advanced
Martens et al. (1990) inventory through the application of a directional perceptions
scale, which measured how athletes viewed the occurrence of their intensity
symptoms as either positive (facilitative) or negative (debilitative) towards their
upcoming performance. A large quantity of research has provided support for the
directional perceptions scale, such as Jones (1995) control model, which found
evidence to suggest that similar sporting experiences can cause performers to
respond in different ways.
One performer might be concerned about an upcoming event, to the extent that
she/he is worried and in a near panic state. Another performer who is also 'very
1
concerned' might view such a state as very necessary since it signals the
importance of the event and means that she or he will invest effort in it, thus
constituting a motivated, facilitative state (Jones, 1995, p.463).
Further researchers (e.g., Jones et al., 1994; Jones & Swain, 1995) have
suggested that the directional perceptions scale is the most important dimension
when comparing elite versus non elite performers. Although Martens directional
perception scale has received support from researchers (e.g., Jones 1991; Jones
& Swain 1992; Jones et al., 1993; 1994; Jones, 1995; Jones & Swain, 1995),
Jones (1991) reported issues within the intensity scale when measuring
competitive anxiety. Thus, through empirical research Swain and Jones (1993)
created the frequency of intrusions scale, which they defined as “the amount of
time athletes spend attending to symptoms experienced concerning competition”
(1993, p 526). Swain and Jones (1993) reported that the frequency of intrusions
scale appeared to be a more relevant scale, when measuring competitive state
anxiety through time-to-event research. However, limited research attention has
been directed towards measuring the fluctuation in an athlete’s frequency of
anxiety symptoms in the time preceding competition. Further, research that has
utilised Swain and Jone’s (1993) frequency scale has failed to measure athletes
directional perceptions of pre-competition frequency symptoms. Therefore, the
main aim of the current study was to examine the frequency and directional
perceptions of pre-competition frequency symptoms in elite and non-elite athletes,
in the time leading up to competition. To the authors’ knowledge, previous
competitive anxiety research has failed to examine skill level differences in the
frequency and perceptions of pre-competition symptoms, of cognitive anxiety,
somatic anxiety, and self confidence, in the build up to competition. Thus, the
results generated from the present study would aid sport psychologists, as it would
provide an evidence base for the timing of stress management interventions.
2
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
The literature reviewed in this chapter aims to provide the reader with an overview
of the research within the competitive state anxiety literature. This chapter will
discuss The Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) and provide an
overview of some of the modifications that have been administered to the
questionnaire. Additionally, the present study measures athletes competitive
anxiety responses over a temporal pattern, thus research examples that have
administered a temporal element will be drawn upon, to demonstrate previous
research findings.
2.2 Definitions of Competitive Anxiety
Research within the competitive anxiety domain was able to expand and progress,
once research identified anxiety to be a response to specific situations, rather than
solely a unitary phenomenon (Spielberger, 1966). As a result of this, research
conducted throughout the early nineties was devoted to exploring the structure
and measurement of competitive anxiety. Many definitions of competitive anxiety
have existed within the sport psychology literature. Initially anxiety was defined as
a negative reaction by an individual to stressful situations, with stressors as the
stimulus
(Spielberger,
1972;
Jones,
1995).
Advancements
within
the
measurement of competitive anxiety resulted in a more detailed definition of
anxiety to emerge, which Mellalieu, Hanton and Fletcher (2006) provided. They
defined anxiety as a negative emotional response to competition stressors, but
acknowledged that athletes may interpret their anxiety symptoms as beneficial to
their upcoming performance. Further, Hanton, Mellalieu, Neil and Fletcher (2008)
stated that anxiety was a specific negative emotional response which occurs when
athletes appraise competitive stressors as uncertain threats. They also indicated
that these responses may include symptoms such as worry and a heightened
perception of physiological arousal. For the purpose of guiding the present
research the definition by Hanton et al. (2008) will be adopted.
3
2.3 Multidimensional Anxiety Approach
A key movement in the competitive state anxiety literature developed once clinical
and test anxiety research acknowledged anxiety to be a multidimensional
construct, as opposed to the formerly believed uni-dimensional construct (Liebert
& Morris, 1967; Wine, 1971; Borkovec, 1976; Davidson & Schwartz, 1976;
Davidson, 1978), which resulted in the separation of competitive state anxiety into
two distinct parts; a cognitive component and a somatic component. Martens et al.
(1990) defined cognitive anxiety as reflecting upon negative expectations about
performance. More current research by Jones and Uphill (2004), expanded
Martens et al. (1990) definition, suggesting that cognitive anxiety was
‘characterised by negative expectancies and self-doubts’ (p. 203). Preliminary
research by Morris, Harris and Rovins (1981), defined somatic anxiety as the
physiological affects perceived by athletes. Further research by Martens et al.
(1990, p. 121) developed Morris’s definition, defining somatic anxiety as the
‘…physiological and affective elements of the anxiety experience that develop
directly from autonomic arousal’. The Multidimensional Anxiety Theory (Marten et
al., 1990) proposed that these two different components could be distinguished in
the anxiety response, suggesting that cognitive anxiety would display a negative,
yet linear relationship with performance (Wine, 1971; Gould, Petlichoff, &
Weinberg, 1984), whilst somatic anxiety would disappear quickly once competition
begun, and would display an inverted-U shaped relationship with performance.
2.4 The Competitive State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2)
In order to assess the multidimensional aspects of anxiety, Martens et al. (1990)
developed the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). This instrument
possessed 27 items, and measured three independent subscales; cognitive
anxiety, somatic anxiety and self confidence. Self confidence unintentionally
emerged as a third construct as a result of an exploratory factor analysis of the
CSAI-2 items (Craft, Maygar, Becker & Feltz, 2003). Martens et al. (1990)
separated cognitive anxiety into two factors, labelled cognitive anxiety and self
confidence (Woodman & Hardy, 2003) based upon the way in which the items
4
were phrased. Studies (e.g., Jones, 1991; Jones & Swain, 1992; Jones et al.,
1993; 1994; Jones, 1995; Jones & Swain, 1995; Hanton, Thomas & Manyard,
2004; Thomas, Maynard & Hanton, 2004) that have utilised Marten et al. (1990)
scale, have supported the separation of cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and
self confidence into its constituent parts, which show them to have different
temporal characteristics and respond differently to interventions.
2.5 Limitations of the CSAI-2
Although some research studies have provided support for the multidimensional
anxiety predictions (Gould et al., 1984; Martens et al., 1990), a handful of
researchers have opposed these predictions (Caruso, Dzewaltowski, Gill &
McElroy, 1990; Parfitt, Jones & Hardy, 1990). These researchers have suggested
inconsistencies within the CSAI-2, predominantly the scales failure to consider the
interactive effects of the competitive anxiety subcomponents upon performance.
Further, issues regarding the predictions of the CSAI-2 have been identified;
examples include the concept of cognitive anxiety and self-confidence being at
opposite ends of a ‘cognitive evaluation continuum’ (Jones, 1991), while other
researchers have suggested that self-confidence accounts for a greater proportion
of variance in performance than cognitive or somatic anxiety (Hardy, 1996).
What's more, the construct validity of the CSAI-2 has been questioned by
researchers (Burton & Naylor, 1997; Kerr, 1997; Lane, Sewell, Terry, Bartram, &
Nesti, 1999), with reference to the use of confusing terminology and statements
that are phrased in a too neutral manner. However, research by Burton (1988) and
Cox, Russell, and Robb (1998) reported high validity and reliability coefficients
within each of the anxiety constructs, with reliability scores attaining 0.67 for
Cognitive anxiety, 0.69 for Somatic anxiety, and 0.75 for Self-confidence. Despite
the issues p-+6roposed by researchers (Caruso et al., 1990; Parfitt et al., 1990;
Hardy, 1996), the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (Martens et al., 1990) has
prevailed in the literature as the scale of choice when measuring competitive state
anxiety, although slight modifications have been applied to Martens original (1990)
scale.
5
2.6 The notion of directional perceptions
The intensity scale, as provided within the CSAI-2, requires athletes to rate on a
four point likert scale how they feel ‘right now’, in relation to their upcoming
performance (Martens et al., 1990). The intensity scale has been criticised by
Jones (1991), who reported that essentially the intensity alone scale only
measures the level of anxiety symptoms. Jones (1991) recognised that high
intensity scores may not necessarily have negative inferences, thus he suggested
that anxiety-related symptoms could potentially be perceived by some athletes as
necessary for mental preparation and overall performance. Indeed Jones (1991)
suggested that researchers should examine the athlete’s direction of anxiety in
order to examine how individuals interpret the intensity of their pre-competition
anxiety symptoms to be either facilitative or debilitative towards their performance.
The concept of directional perceptions has been supported by the extant literature,
with researchers (Martens et al., 1990; Hanton, Jones & Mullen 2000; Thomas et
al., 2004), reporting high concurrent validity for the directional perceptions scale
for intensity. Furthermore, researchers suggested that the measurement of
directional perceptions of intensity may be more sensitive than measuring intensity
alone, when distinguishing between group differences (Jones & Hanton, 2001;
Mellalieu, Hanton & Jones, 2003).
The notion of directional perceptions was initially suggested by Mahoney and
Avener (1977), when they interviewed performers who were successful and
unsuccessful in being selected to represent the U.S. Olympic gymnastics team.
The findings from Mahoney and Avener’s research indicated that the more
successful athletes tended to use their anxiety as a stimulant to better
performance. Despite these findings, it was not until 1992 that Jones and Swain
began to investigate directional perceptions in a systematic fashion. Jones and
Swain (1992) enhanced the CSAI-2 by applying a directional perceptions scale,
alongside the intensity scale. Athletes were required to rate their anxiety intensity
over the three subscales; cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self confidence,
and rate whether they interpreted their anxiety intensity symptoms as facilitative or
deliberative towards their upcoming performance. Researchers have supported
the directional perceptions scale, reporting that the concurrent validity within each
6
of the anxiety constructs were all within suitable guidelines, whilst Cronbachs
alpha scores for the subscales were high, yielding between 0.80 to 0.89 for
cognitive anxiety and 0.72 to 0.84 for somatic anxiety (Cox et al., 1998; Hanton et
al., 2000).
2.7 Performance studies
Jones and Swain (1992) were one of the first studies to examine the differences in
intensity and directional perceptions of intensity in rugby union, basketball, soccer,
and field hockey players. Their study established no significant group differences
within the athlete’s anxiety intensity; however, they observed the highly
competitive athletes to report their symptoms of pre-competition anxiety as more
facilitative towards their upcoming performance, in comparison to the low
competitive group. Results of their study suggested that the athlete’s directional
interpretations were a function of their competitiveness.
Research by Jones et al. (1993) examined the impact of intensity and directional
perceptions of intensity upon performance, within a sample of forty eight
gymnasts. Their findings indicated that the gymnasts intensity scores did not
predict their overall performance. However, their results reported that the ‘good’
performance and ‘poor’ performance groups differed on their directional
perceptions of intensity. The findings of Jones et al. (1993) support Jones and
Swain’s (1992) proposal, suggesting that the directional perceptions scale
provided a broader understanding of competitive state anxiety responses.
Subsequent research within the competitive anxiety domain was conducted by
Jones et al. (1994), who examined the intensity and directional interpretations
between performance groups; elite and non-elite athletes. Their results suggested
that the elite athletes did not differ from the non-elite athletes in their precompetition intensity anxiety symptoms, although elite athletes had a more
positive interpretation of the symptoms they experienced. From the findings Jones
et al. (1994) reported that the athlete’s directional perceptions of intensity were a
function skill level. A further review by Mellalieu et al. (2006) supported these
suggestions, reporting that the athletes interpretations of their symptoms were
7
found to be more sensitive to the individual difference variables under examination
rather than the level at which performers experienced these symptoms.
Conclusively, these studies reported no significant differences in the intensity of
symptoms between the groups, although these studies indicated that the elite
performers, good performers, and highly competitive individuals reported
significantly more facilitative interpretations of symptoms associated with
competitive anxiety than their comparison groups (Jones & Swain, 1992; Jones et
al., 1993; 1994; Jones & Hanton, 1996). Thus, the application of the directional
perceptions scale within the competitive sport domain has provided a good
starting point for sport psychology research, in distinguishing the different ways in
which anxiety is viewed by elite and non elite athletes.
2.8 Frequency and Intensity
In order to gain a broader understanding about competitive state anxiety,
researchers began to seek alternative methods of measuring competitive anxiety,
whilst still adopting the CSAI-2. Empirical research by Swain and Jones (1993)
saw the development of a frequency approach to assessing athlete’s anxiety.
Initially, Swain and Jones (1993, p 526) defined frequency as ‘the amount of time
athletes spend attending to symptoms experienced concerning competition’, whilst
reporting the relevance of frequency, particularly through time-to-event research
(Hanton et al., 2004). Swain and Jones (1993) were the first to measure an
athlete’s frequency and anxiety intensity, which they assessed through
incorporating a percentage scoring system (alongside the traditional intensity
scale), which required athletes to state the percentage which identified how often
they thought about the competition. Their findings indicated that frequency levels
ranged between the regions of 80-90% one hour pre-competition, whereas scores
as low as 5% were experienced by the athletes one week prior to the event. Swain
and Jones (1993) then modified their approach by asking athletes to rate their
anxiety frequency following a seven point formal scale (1= never to 7= all the
time), which was added alongside the traditional intensity four point scale. Their
research suggested that the measurement of competitive state anxiety may
benefit from applying a more detailed approach such as the frequency scale, as
8
opposed to the limited intensity perspective. Further, their findings proposed that
the insertion of the frequency scale would enable sport psychologists to gain a
deeper understanding of the athlete’s anxieties. Research by Keuler and Safer’s
(1998) supported Swain and Jones (1993) notion, reporting that research using
the intensity scale failed to quantify the athlete’s ability to recall their intensity
scores across the emotions of anxiety, happiness, acceptance, sadness, anger
and fear. This was observed when they investigated the accuracy of student’s
anxiety symptoms before an academic exam. Their findings identified that once
the students were aware of their exam results, and therefore no longer anxious
about them, they tended to overestimate their pre-test anxiety intensities. Further
support for Keuler and Safer’s (1998) findings was provided by Thomas, Picknell
and Hanton (2011), who observed athletes to be less accurate in their ability to
recall their intensity of emotions, with differences between actual and recalled
scores ranging between 26%- 92%. Researchers have supported the inclusion of
the frequency scale, proposing the need for researchers to determine whether
frequency assessment predicts more performance variance than intensity or
direction (Thomas et al., 2004; Thomas et al., 2011).
2.9 Temporal patterning
Although research has examined the intensity and frequency of responses in the
time leading up to competition (Hall, Kerr, & Matthews, 1998; Hanton et al., 2004;
Thomas et al., 2004), minimum focus has been provided towards assessing how
the different dimensions of anxiety unfold in the time preceding competition. Swain
and Jones (1993) were the first to research competitive frequency anxiety
temporally, in which they explored the temporal changes in cognitive anxiety,
somatic anxiety, and self confidence over a series of time phases leading up to
competition. Swain and Jones (1993) achieved this by asking participants to
complete their actual symptom responses (displayed within the CSAI-2) at 7 days,
48 hours, 24 hours and 1 hour pre-competition. In addition, Wiggins (1998)
assessed the temporal patterns of anxiety within college athletes competing in
soccer, swimming, and track and field, following a temporal period of 24 hours, 2
hours and 1 hour before the competition. The results of Swain and Jones (1993)
9
and Wiggins (1998) studies possessed similar findings to previous studies (e.g.,
Marten et al., 1990), reporting that levels of cognitive anxiety remained relatively
stable before the competition, whereas somatic anxiety levels increased
significantly from 24 hours to 1 hour. Research conducted by Thomas et al. (2004)
followed the same temporal pattern to Swain and Jones (1993), measuring
intensity, directional perceptions of intensity and frequency, 7 days, 48hr, 24hr,
and 1hr pre-competition. Their results supported Swain and Jones (1993) findings,
suggesting that the frequency dimension appeared to be more sensitive to
temporal changes. In addition, Hanton et al. (2004) measured anxiety frequency,
intensity and directional perceptions of intensity over five time periods; 7 days, 48
hours, 24 hours, 2 hours, and 30 min prior to competition and reported similar
findings to Thomas et al. (2004), emphasising the necessity for research to assess
these constructs as processes that unfold over-time.
2.10 Hypothesises
To the authors’ knowledge, previous research has failed to examine skill level
differences of frequency of intrusions and directional perceptions of frequency in
performers, thus the present study will examine the frequency and perceptions of
pre-competition frequency symptoms (directional dimension) in elite and non elite
athletes, over a temporal element. Further, as research has failed to measure
directional perceptions of pre-competition frequency symptoms, the present
study’s predictions were formulated around competitive anxiety research that has
examined frequency and directional perceptions of intensity independently.
10
2.10.1 Frequency predictions
It was hypothesised that elite level athletes would experience less frequency of
intrusions for cognitive anxiety (Raffety, Smith & Ptacek, 1997; Hanton et al.,
2004) and somatic anxiety (Hanton et al., 2004), though, they would possess
greater frequency for self-confidence in comparison to their non-elite athletes
counterparts. Further, for the temporal element, hypotheses were based on the
initial work of Swain and Jones (1993), Hanton et al. (2004) and Thomas et al.
(2004), who proposed that cognitive and somatic frequency would increase as the
competition approached, but that self-confidence frequency would remain stable.
2.10.2 Directional perceptions predictions
It was hypothesised that elite level athletes would interpret their cognitive and
somatic anxiety as more facilitative towards their upcoming performance, whilst
non elite athletes would construe their anxiety symptoms as detrimental towards
their upcoming performance. In line with other research predictions that have
examined directional perceptions of intensity (e.g., Wiggins, 1998; Thomas et al.,
2004), the current study predicted that directional perceptions of frequency will
output similar findings to the intensity research and will not fluctuate in the time
leading up to competition (Gal-Or, Tenenbaum & Shimrony, 1986; Jones et al.,
1994; Campbell & Jones, 1997).
11
CHAPTER III
METHOD
This chapter has been separated in to four subsections; the first subsection
identifies the participants used in the present study. The second indicates the
instrument used to measure the participant’s competitive state anxiety, whilst the
third and forth sections provide a clear overview of the process used to gather the
information required for the present study, and how this information was analysed.
3.1 Participants
The sample comprised of 93 athletes, aged between 13-16 years (M = 14.90, SD=
1.00). Consent was gained from the participant’s legal guardian, in addition to
written consent from the participants (Appendix B). An inclusive approach was
administered to gather the sample, with only Rounder’s England’s U14 (n=51) and
U16 (n=42) trialists taking part in the current study. Within the sample, two sets of
data were obtained. The first set of data, coded ‘Data set 1’, consisted of 55
participants, who completed the modified questionnaire over three time periods; 7
days, 24 hours and 1 hour pre-competition. The second set of data, coded ‘Data
set 2’ contained all 93 participants, who completed the questionnaire following
only two time periods; 24 hours and 1 hour pre-competition.
3.2 Instrumentation
For the present study, a further modified version of the Competitive State Anxiety
Inventory-2 (Martens et al., 1990) was administered. The original CSAI-2 (Martens
et al., 1990) was modified to include Swain and Jones’s (1993) frequency scale
and Jones and Swain (1992) scale for directional perceptions (Appendix A).
Participants were required to rate their state anxiety across the constructs of
cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self-confidence. Participants achieved this
by working through a 27 item questionnaire, which represented nine items of each
construct. The frequency scale required the participants to read each statement
and highlight the number to the right of the statement which indicated the amount
of time the athlete spent attending to the symptoms experienced, concerning
competition. This phase measured symptom frequency levels and was rated on a
likert scale ranging from 1 (‘never) to 7 (‘all of the time). Hence, frequency scores
12
ranged from 9 to 63 for each anxiety and confidence construct. The second
section of the modified CSAI-2 rated the degree to which symptom frequencies
were regarded as debilitative (negative) or facilitative (positive) towards the
athlete’s upcoming performance. Scores ranged from -3 (very negative) to +3
(very positive) with 0 indicating an ‘unimportant’ interpretation, thus symptom
perceptions ranged from –27 to +27 for each construct of anxiety and confidence.
The frequency of intrusions scale has been administered in previous research
studies (i.e., Swain & Jones, 1993; Hanton et al., 2004; Thomas et al., 2004) and
has been reported to possess good face validity ranging between 0.87-0.92.
However, the directional perceptions scores for the frequency dimension have not
been reported in sport psychology literature. As a result of this, I will calculate the
internal consistency scores in the present study. However, the internal consistency
scores for directional perceptions of the intensity dimension have been reported
and possessed high face validity, with scores ranging between 0.67 to 0.75 (Cox
et al., 1998).
3.3 Procedure
Participants were required to register for the Rounder’s England U14 or U16 trials
on the Rounder’s England official website. The modified CSAI-2 (Martens et al.,
1990; Jones & Swain, 1992; Swain & Jones, 1993) was attached to the trialists
form, accompanied with an information sheet, consent form, letter of approval from
Rounder’s England head office and an overview of instructions. Informed consent
was required from both the athlete and their parent/guardian/carer, in order for the
participant to take part in the current study. Once the athletes and their
parent/career/guardian had read the information sheet, and signed the consent
form, they were required to return the completed Rounders England trial form and
signed consent form to the Rounder’s England head office. In line with other
competitive anxiety studies ( i.e., Jones et al., 1993; Hanton et al., 2004; Thomas
et al., 2004), a temporal element was used in the current study which required
athletes to complete the 27 questions over three time periods; 7 days, 24 hours
and 1 hour pre-competition. This timescale did not interfere with the participant’s
competition preparation time, as it was submitted to the trialists further away from
competition, in comparison to other published temporal anxiety based research
13
(i.e. Hanton et al., 2004; Thomas et al., 2004). The modified CSAI-2 was initially
distributed to the trialists through email 7 days prior to their trial date, and emailed
again 24 hours prior to the athlete’s trial. It was clarified in both of the emails that
participants were required to complete the questionnaire within 24 hours of
receipt. On the morning of the trials (1 hour pre-competition) participants were
handed a final copy of the questionnaire to fill in. Upon completion, the
participant’s three completed questionnaires were collected by the researcher,
which ended the athletes’ participation in the study. Subsequent to the trial the
researcher had confirmation of the trialists who had been selected to represent
Rounder’s England for their age group (U14 or U16) and those that had not been
successful. Hence, the athletes selected to represent England were categorized
as elite, whilst those who did not make the selection were considered non-elite.
3.4 Data Analysis
Data analysis was separated in to three sections. First, internal reliability and
correlation analysis between the dimensions at each pre competition stage were
calculated. Internal reliability was conducted to measure how closely related the
anxiety and self confidence variables were across the time periods, whilst
correlation analysis was calculated to measure the shared variance between the
anxiety and self confidence variables and the dimensions. Secondly, data was
pre-screened to test for missing cases and normality of results. Finally, to answer
the main aspect of the research question, four Group X Time-to-competition
repeated measure MANOVA’s were conducted. If the MANOVA’s proved to be
significant, a separate mixed design ANOVA was carried out on each of the
dependable variables (Cognitive Anxiety Frequency [CAF], Cognitive Anxiety
Direction [CAD], Somatic Anxiety Frequency [SAF], Somatic Anxiety Direction
[SAD], Self Confidence Frequency [ScF], and Self Confidence Direction [ScD]), to
ensure that the significant MANOVA’s were not a result of the dependent variables
representing a set of underlying dimensions, which tell between the groups (Field,
2000).
14
CHAPTER IIII
RESULTS
This chapter has been separated in to three key subsections. The first subsection
examined the internal reliability and correlation analysis of the dimensions. The
second examined the data for missing cases and tested for normality following
Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. The final section of the results examined the
interactions and main effects of the frequency and perceptions of pre-competitive
anxiety symptoms over the time periods. To reiterate, the data collated has been
separated in to two data sets. Data set 1 consisted of the athletes who completed
the questionnaire on all three time periods, whilst Data set 2 contained the
participants who completed the questionnaire following only two time periods. This
chapter has been separated in to the two data sets to provide an in-depth analysis
of results. However, internal reliability scores have been collapsed across the data
sets.
4.1 Internal Reliability and Correlation Analysis
Internal reliability analysis was conducted to measure the consistency of the
frequency and directional dimensions over the time periods. Table 1 displays the
reliability scores for frequency of intrusions and the directional perceptions
dimension, collapsed across the data sets. Scores for the frequency dimension
ranged between 0.78 to 0.89 and scores ranged between 0.84 to 0.92 for the
perceptions of pre-competition (direction) dimension. Internal consistency scores
are considered ‘acceptable’ if the values range between 0.7-0.8, scores ranging
between 0.8-0.9 are categorized ‘good’, whilst scores exceeding 0.9 are
considered ‘excellent’. Subsequently, the findings from this study confirmed that
both the frequency and directional perceptions dimension possessed acceptable
to excellent internal consistency. Correlation analysis was conducted to measure
the relationship between the CSAI-2 variables, and the temporal periods. Tables 2
and 3 display the correlation analyses between the dimensions, which identified a
maximum shared variance of 58%.
15
Table 1. CSAI-2 Internal Reliability Coefficients (Cronbach Alpha)
Symptom
7 Days
24 hr
1 hr
Cognitive
Somatic
Self-confidence
.78
.78
.86
.78
.78
.84
.83
.81
.89
Direction
Cognitive
Somatic
Self-confidence
.84
.92
.90
.86
.91
.91
.88
.86
.89
Frequency
Note. CSAI-2= Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2
Table 2. Interrelationships between the CSAI-2 dimensions (Data set 1)
Correlations (% common variance)
Construct/ Time
CA
SA
SC
7 days
-.337 (11.4%)
-.347 (12%)
.706 (49.8%)
24 hours
-.303 (9.2%)
-.408 (16.6%)
.764 (58.4%)
1 hour
-.224 (5%)
-.302 (9.1%)
.615 (37.9%)
16
Table 3. Interrelationships between the CSAI-2 dimensions (Data set 2)
Correlations (% common variance)
Construct/ Time
CA
SA
SC
24 hours
-.262 (6.9%)
-.317 (10%)
.691 (47.7%)
1 hour
-.146 (2.1%)
-.176 (3.1%)
.510 (26%)
4.2 Data pre-screen
Data within each sample was checked for missing data (Field, 2000), of which no
missing cases were identified. In addition, tests of normality were assessed
following Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the output of normal Q-Q Plot’s. The
results indicated some abnormal normalities at various times leading up to
competition when combined with cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self
confidence. The data provided for frequency over the three time periods (7 days, 1
day, and 1 hour) showed a lack of normality over the constructs of somatic
frequency at 7 days [p <.05] and 24 hours [p <.01] and self confidence frequency
at 7 days [p<.05] (Table 4). Furthermore, data gained for the directional dimension
over the three time periods highlighted abnormal data for cognitive direction
anxiety at 7 days [p<.01]. Abnormal data was also found over the constructs of
somatic direction at 7 days [p<.01], somatic direction at 24 hours [p<.01] and self
confidence direction at 7 days [p<.05] (Table 4). The data obtained from the
frequency dimension over the two time period sample (1 day and 1hour) displayed
inconsistencies with normality. Abnormal normality scores were found for somatic
frequency at 24 hours [p<.01] and 1 hour [p<.05] pre competition (Table 5). This
inconsistency was replicated for somatic direction as the scores reported
inconsistent normality results at 24 hours [p<.01] and 1 hour [p<.05] precompetition (Table 5).
The remaining data was consistent with normality values, in line with the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test and output from normal Q-Q Plot’s. Due to the lack of
normality identified within some aspects of the data (See tables 4 & 5), issues
17
regarding the robustness of the test violations were presented. Thus, as the
assumptions of homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices were violated (See
tables 4 & 5), Pillai’s criterion was used to permit the application of parametric
tests (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).
Table 4. Tests of normality violations across the three time periods
Tests of normality violations
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Statistic
df
3 time periods
Sig.
Somatic Frequency 7 days
.128
55
.025
Somatic Frequency 24 hours
.144
55
.006
Self confidence Frequency 7 days
.129
55
.022
Cognitive Direction 7 days
.139
55
.010
Somatic Direction 7 days
.149
55
.004
Somatic Direction 24 hours
.145
55
.006
Self Confidence Direction 7 days
.134
55
.015
Table 5. Tests of normality violations across the two time periods
Tests of normality violations
2 time periods
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Statistic
df
Sig.
Somatic Frequency 24 hours
.129
93
.001
Somatic Frequency 1 hour
.105
93
.013
Somatic Direction 24 hours
.151
93
.000
Somatic Direction 1 hour
.105
93
.013
18
4.3 Multivariate analysis of variance
Four Group X Time-to-Competition repeated measure MANOVA’s were computed.
One MANOVA was carried out on each anxiety dimension (frequency and
direction) within each of the two samples. Skill level was utilised as the
independent variable whilst cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self confidence
acted as the dependent variables over all the time periods in the analysis. One
interaction effect was noted (p<.05) for cognitive frequency over the two time
period analysis (data set 2). This was followed with a Post Hoc ANOVA which
found a significant difference for cognitive anxiety frequency over 1 hour between
the performance groups. Following these findings, an Independent Sample t-test
was administered which reported no significant differences between the elite and
non-elite athletes. Further analysis saw the application of a Paired Sample t-test,
which confirmed that there was an increase in cognitive anxiety frequency at 1
hour for elite athletes, although no significant differences for non-elite athletes
were found whilst abiding by the principles identified by Bonferroni’s correction
factor. Several significant main effects for time-to-competition were found, of which
follow up repeated measure ANOVA’s were conducted. The ANOVA’s were then
followed by Paired sample t-tests with Bonferroni’s correction factor being applied
when appropriate (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996; Field, 2000).
Table 6. Anxiety and confidence means and standard deviations over the three
time periods, collapsed across all skill levels (Data set 1)
Component
CA-F
SA-F
SC-F
CA-D
SA-D
SC-D
Seven days M (SD)
27.73
21.44
43.02
2.84
5.31
10.58
(8.41)
(6.89)
(8.89)
(8.92)
(9.89)
(8.53)
One day M (SD)
31.20
24.60
38.78
0.60
4.96
8.16
19
(8.83)
(8.11)
(8.59)
(8.74)
(9.59)
(9.02)
1 h M (SD)
35.13
29.64
37.84
0.91
2.58
7.55
(9.52)
(8.51)
(9.04)
(9.35)
(8.74)
(8.41)
Table 7. Anxiety and confidence means and standard deviations over the two time
periods, collapsed across all skill levels (Data set 2)
Component
CA-F
SA-F
SC-F
CA-D
SA-D
SC-D
One day M (SD)
31.61
25.11
38.08
0.46
3.66
7.20
(8.40)
(7.98)
(8.69)
(8.06)
(8.81)
(8.46)
1 h M (SD)
34.56
29.48
37.15
0.53
2.04
6.11
(8.94)
(8.21)
(8.98)
(8.00)
(7.48)
(7.89)
4.4 Frequency of intrusions (three time periods)
No main effects were found for frequency for group by time (Pillais trace_0.0979,
F6, 210_1.80, p>.05), or skill level categorization (Pillais trace_ 0.9627, F3,51_1.81,
p>.05). However, main effects were reported for time-to-competition (Pillais
trace_0.537, F6,210_12.85, p<.001), with follow up repeated measure ANOVA’s
identifying significant changes of cognitive anxiety (F2,52_ 0.468, p<.001) , somatic
anxiety (F2,52_0.52, p<.001) and self confidence (F2,52_0.312, p<.001). Follow up
Paired Sample t-tests confirmed that athletes experienced more cognitive anxiety
1 hour pre competition, than they experienced 7 days pre competition (t (54) = 6.966, p<.001). Additionally, it was found that athletes cognitive anxiety frequency
at 24 hours pre-competition was significantly higher than athletes cognitive anxiety
frequency at 7 days (t (54) = -4.239, p<.001). Furthermore, athletes experienced
higher levels of cognitive anxiety frequency 1 hour pre-competition than they
experienced 24 hours pre performance (t (54) = -4.455, p<.001). Findings for
somatic frequency anxiety indicated that statistically the athletes levels of somatic
frequency enhanced as the competition drew closer (Table 6). Athletes
experienced higher levels of somatic anxiety frequency, 1 hour pre competition,
when compared to their somatic anxiety frequency 7 days pre-competition (t (54) =
-7.570, p<.001). In addition, higher levels of somatic frequency were experienced
at 24 hours pre competition, when compared to athletes somatic anxiety frequency
20
at 7 days (t (54) = -3.651, p<.001). Athletes somatic frequency anxiety continued
to increase, as athletes experienced higher levels of somatic anxiety 1 hour pre
competition, than they experienced 24 hours prior to competition (t(54)= -5.828,
p<.001). Finally, the results gathered for self confidence frequency indicated that
the athlete’s degree of self confidence decreased as the event drew closer, this
was apparent between 7 days and 1 hour pre-competition (t (54) = 4.329, p<.001).
Further statistics supported the reduction of self confidence between 7 days and
24 hours (t (54) = 4.869, p<.001). However, no significant differences were
reported for self confidence frequency between 24 hours and 1 hour precompetition.
Frrequency of Intrusions
45
40
35
Cognitive anxiety
30
Somatic Anxiety
Self confidence
25
20
7 days
1 day
Temporal period
1 hour
Fig 1. Change over time patterns for frequency of responses (data set 1).
4.5 Directional perceptions of anxiety frequency (three time periods)
No main effects were found for anxiety direction for group by time (Pillais
trace_0.793, F6,
210_1.444,
p>.05) or skill classification (Pillais trace_0.012,
F3,51_0.209, p>.05). However, main effects were noted for time-to-competition
anxiety direction (Pillais trace_0.139, F6,
210_2.621,
p<.05). Follow up repeated
measure ANOVA’s indicated significant changes of somatic anxiety (Pillais
trace_0.100, F2,
52_
2.901, p>.05) and self confidence (Pillais trace_ 0.104, F2,
21
52_3.005,
p>.05) over time. Results generated from the Paired sample t-tests
suggested that statistically, athletes perceived their somatic anxiety to be less
facilitative towards their upcoming performance as the competition drew closer
(t(54)= 2.325, p<.05). This can be supported by the mean scores generated from
7 days to 1 hour pre competition (Table 6). However, no significant differences
were observed between 7 days to 24 hours and 24 hours to 1 hour pre
competition. The results reported for self confidence direction indicated that
athletes perceived their self confidence to be less facilitative towards their
upcoming performance when they completed the CSAI-2 1 hour pre-competition,
in comparison to their 7 days pre-competition scores (t(54)= 2.630 p<.05).
Furthermore, it can be statistically confirmed that athletes perceived their self
confidence to be less facilitative towards their upcoming performance 24 hours pre
competition when compared to 7 days (t (54) =2.112, p<.05). The results
generated from the t-tests confirmed that there were no significant differences for
self confidence direction between 24 hours to 1 hour, pre competition.
Directional perceptions of anxiety
Frequency
12
10
8
Cognitive anxiety
6
Somatic anxiety
Self confidence
4
2
0
7 days
1 day
1 hour
Temporal Period
Fig 2. Change over time patterns for directional perceptions of frequency (data set
1)
22
4.6 Frequency of intrusions (two time periods)
A significant interaction was found in group by time (Pillais trace_0.0848,
F3,89_2.747, p<.05), with repeated measure ANOVA’s reporting skill level
differences for cognitive anxiety frequency (Pillais trace_0.085, F1,91_8.401,
p<.005). A Post hoc ANOVA was then carried out, which established a significant
difference at time 2 (1 hour pre-competition) for cognitive anxiety frequency (Pillais
trace_.255, F1,91 _26.47, p<.001). Further results generated from the Independent
Sample t-test stated that there were no significant difference between skill level
and time, whilst abiding by Bonferroni’s guidelines (t (91) = 1.918, p>.05). Finally,
a paired sample t-test was conducted for cognitive frequency anxiety at 1 hour,
specifically focusing on individual performance groups. The results reported that
there was an increase in cognitive anxiety frequency for elite athletes between 24
hours and 1 hour pre-competition (t (43) = -4.622, p<.001), but no difference for
non-elite athletes. In addition, a main effect for time-to-competition was found
(Pillais trace_0.3795, F3,89_18.146, p<.001), with follow up repeated measure
ANOVA’s reporting significant differences for cognitive frequency anxiety (Pillais
trace_0.225, F1,91_ 26.468, p<.001) and somatic frequency anxiety (Pillais trace_
0.351, F1,91_ 49.218, p<.001). Follow up Paired Sample t-tests established that
statistically athletes experienced more cognitive frequency at 1 hour pre
competition than they did 24 hours pre competition (t(92)= -4.807, p<.001). Finally,
the results gathered for somatic anxiety frequency reported that athletes
experienced higher levels of somatic frequency 1 hour pre-competition than they
experienced at 24 hours (t(92)= -.922, p<.001). No main effects were found for self
confidence.
23
40
Frequency of Intrusions
38
36
34
32
30
Cognitive anxiety
28
Somatic anxiety
26
Self confidence
24
22
20
1 day
1 hour
Temporal period
Fig 3. Change over time patterns for frequency of responses (data set 2)
4.7 Directional perceptions of anxiety frequency (two time periods)
No main effects were noted for group by time (Pillais trace_0.0192, F3,89_0.5805,
p>.05) skill level (Pillais trace_0.01131, F3,89_0.339, p>.05) or time-to-competition
(Pillais trace_0.0729, F3,89_2.336, p>.05).
Directional perceptions of anxiety
frequency
8
7
6
5
4
Cognitive anxiety
3
Somatic anxiety
2
Self confidence
1
0
1 day
Temporal Period
1 hour
Fig 4. Change over time patterns for directional perceptions of anxiety frequency
(data set 2)
24
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The present study examined the frequency and directional perceptions of precompetition symptoms in elite and non elite athletes within a temporal framework.
The current study abided by the principles of previous frequency and directional
based studies (i.e., Jones et al., 1993; 1994), by incorporating a temporal element
whilst following similar time periods to those utilised in previous studies (Hanton et
al., 2004; Thomas et al., 2004). Further insight into the differences between elite
and non-elite performers was provided by the explanatory skill level effects utilised
in the current study. This section aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the
results obtained from the present study whilst integrating the current findings with
the hypotheses identified in the literature review. Further, this chapter will critically
discuss the practical implications and strengths and weaknesses derived from the
study. Finally, this chapter will close by suggesting future developments for
research.
5.1 Skill level
The in-between subject factor that was explored in the current research was skill
level. The most interesting finding was for group by time, which was observed for
the cognitive frequency dimension, opposing the researcher’s hypothesis. The
performance groups reported no noteworthy differences of cognitive frequency in
the time preceding competition. However in comparison to the single time analysis
(Jones review, 1995), the present study observed a significant difference within
the performance groups at one hour pre-competition. Elite athletes displayed
greater amounts of cognitive frequency in the hour preceding competition, in
comparison to their non-elite counterparts. It should be noted that this interaction
was only significant for those athletes who completed the modified CSAI-2 at only
two time periods (data set 2). The current findings for cognitive frequency could
lend support to the anxiety intensity research which, collectively categorized group
differences based upon the athlete’s skill level (Gal-Or et al., 1986; Jones et al.,
1993; 1994; Campbell & Jones, 1997; Hanton et al., 2004). These researchers
reported that the higher skilled performers, elite performers and highly competitive
individuals thought more about the competition, in comparison to the lower
levelled performers, non-elite performers and less competitive performers, in the
build up to competition. Possible explanations for the reasons why the elite
25
performers thought more about the competition one hour pre-performance could
be explained by Kerr (1997) and Lane et al. (1999) research findings. These
studies observed similar findings to the current study and questioned whether the
athletes involved in their studies misinterpreted high anxiety symptoms for other
emotions, such as excitement, motivation and arousal, which resulted in the
athletes reporting higher cognitive frequency scores than they were experiencing.
Kerr (1997) and Lane et al. (1999) concern was supported by subsequent
research studies such as Jones and Hanton (2001) and Jones and Uphill (2004)
who also suspected that the athletes involved in their studies misconstrued other
emotions for cognitive anxiety. Group findings for somatic and self confidence
frequency suggest no main effects between the performance groups. Additionally,
no hypothesis was suggested for group differences of self confidence due to the
lack of sport psychology research within this construct (Raffety et al., 1997). The
current study’s findings for somatic anxiety frequency and self confidence
frequency are similar to the results obtained by Hanton et al. (2004), who also
reported no skill level differences between the performance groups in their study.
Similar observations were established in the intensity research, such as the
observations by Hanton and Connaughton (2002) and Hanton, Evans, and Neil
(2003) who identified no differences in the elite performer’s somatic anxiety and
self confidence intensities, in comparison to their non-elite counterparts.
Unfortunately, comparisons to Jones and Swain (1993) and Jones et al. (1994)
state level research cannot be made, due to the way in which Jones and
colleagues categorized their performance groups. However, research by
Chamberlain and Hale (2007) supported the findings of Jones and colleagues’,
which opposed the present study’s findings. Conclusively, Chamberlain and Hale
(2007) indicated that self confidence in itself is an important predictor of
performance.
The directional perceptions scale has prevailed in the sport psychology literature
as the scale of choice when comparing competitive state anxiety in elite versus
non elite athletes (e.g., Jones et al., 1994; Jones & Swain, 1995; Swain & Jones,
1996; Jones & Hanton, 2001; Mellalieu, et al., 2003). However, in contrast to the
proposed hypothesis, this study established no skill level differences for directional
perceptions of cognitive, somatic, or self confidence frequencies. This study was
26
the first to measure perceptions of pre-competitive symptoms of frequency; hence,
the present study could only compare its findings to the perceptions of precompetitive intensity research. The lack of findings for skill level differences for
directional perceptions is not supported by researchers (Jones et al., 1994; Jones
& Swain, 1995) who observed elite athletes to interpret their cognitive and somatic
intensity symptoms as more facilitative towards their upcoming performance. On
the contrary, the performance variance study results such as Swain and Jones
(1996), Jerome and Williams (2000) and Chamberlain and Hale (2007) support the
present study’s findings, collectively reporting a positive linear relationship with
cognitive and somatic perception and performance. Further, Swain and Jones
(1996) and Jones and Uphill (2004) indicated that the directional perceptions scale
will predict more variance in basketball performance than the traditional intensity
dimension. Thus, they suggested that the directional perceptions dimension was a
more reliable scale for measuring and comparing the skill levels of athletes.
However, the results from the current study do not support Jones and colleague’s
concept, as the present study observed no skill level differences between the skill
level groups. Further, the results for self confidence direction reported no
significant differences between the performance groups. This finding is supported
by a number of empirical studies (i.e., Jones et al., 1993; Jones & Hanton, 1996;
Ntoumanis & Jones, 1998; Hanton et al., 2003; O’Brien, Hanton, & Mellalieu,
2005). Potential explanations for the lack of findings between the performance
groups could be explained through Jones’s (1995) control model. Jones model
proposed that performers who perceive themselves to be able to cope and control
their anxieties, whilst possessing positive expectations regarding goal attainment,
are predicted to interpret their symptoms as more facilitative towards performance.
Conversely, Jones stated that those athletes who perceive themselves to not be in
control of their emotions and fail to possess the required coping tools will interpret
their symptoms as debilitative.
Taken collectively, it appears that elite and non-elite level performers do not differ
in their frequency anxiety. However, group differences for cognitive frequency
were apparent one hour pre-competition. In contrast to the proposed hypothesis
the current study observed elite level athletes to think or experience more often,
27
the symptoms associated with cognitive anxiety in the hour preceding competition.
5.2 Time-to-Competition
The second aim of the present study was to examine the temporal changes of
frequency and directional perceptions in the lead up to competition. A significant
pattern was displayed for frequency of intrusions noted for both performance
groups. The results supported the proposed hypothesis, displaying a main effect
for cognitive frequency in the time leading up to competition. Specifically, the data
obtained from data set 2 (2 time periods) displayed significant increases in the
athlete’s cognitive frequencies between 24 hours and 1 hour pre-competition
(Table 7). The data obtained from data set 1 (3 time periods) supported these
findings, demonstrating similar patterns across the performance groups (Table 6).
Support for the current findings is provided by Swain and Jones (1993) and
Hanton et al. (2004), although not wholly consistent with Kais and Raudsepp
(2005) findings. Taken at an applied level, it appears that the results show
consistencies with other frequency based research (i.e., Hanton et al., 2004;
Thomas et al., 2004), suggesting that frequency data is more sensitive to
symptom changes over time, in comparison to intensity data (Kardum, 1999).
Temporal patterns for somatic anxiety indicated that somatic anxiety frequency
increased in the build up to competition. The present study observed a significant
increase between 24 hours and 1 hour pre-competition for both data sets (Table 6
& 7). This finding agrees with the somatic frequency findings in Hanton et al.
(2004) study, which observed an increase in the athlete’s somatic frequencies
between seven days and two days, and 2 h to 30 min in the pre-competition
stages. In addition, the current study’s findings concur with research that has
explored the temporal patterning of somatic intensity (i.e., Jones & Swain, 1992;
Jones et al., 1993; 1994; Jones & Swain, 1996; Hanton et al., 2002; 2004;
Thomas et al., 2004), suggesting that somatic frequency scores are akin to
intensity.
Although the patterns for the current study do not observe the athletes somatic
frequency at the onset of competition, it can be predicted that the athlete’s somatic
frequency will pursue the same trends as somatic intensity and follow Martens et
28
al. (1990) Multidimensional Anxiety Theory predictions. This theory hypothesised
that somatic anxiety will decline quickly, once competition begins (Wine, 1971;
Gould et al., 1984). In line with the proposed hypothesis and the findings of Swain
and Jones (1993), the patterns displayed within the current study reported an
increase in the athlete’s somatic frequency between 7 days and 1 hour precompetition. Temporal patterns for self confidence were evident for the athletes
who completed the questionnaire on three separate occasions (data set 1).
However, it should be noted that no main effects for time-to-competition were
found for the athletes who completed the questionnaire on only two occasions
(data set 2). Specifically, the general trend observed for data set 1 displayed a
general decrease in the athlete’s self confidence frequencies, from 7 days to 1 day
and 1 day to 1 hour preceding competition. This finding contradicts the proposed
hypothesis and the findings of Hanton et al. (2004) who observed an increase in
self-confidence frequency throughout the time leading up to competition. Possible
explanations for the decrease in the athletes self confidence frequency could be
related to the sporting successes and/or failures the athletes experienced in the
week leading up to the competition (Hanton & Jones, 1999a). Research by Hanton
and Jones (1999a) has suggested that the more negative sporting experiences
athletes experience in the run up to the competition can be detrimental to their self
confidence (Hanton & Jones, 1999a). In addition, the athlete’s sporting history
within the sport utilised in the present study is unclear, thus it can be suggested
that the athletes who took part in the current study may not have been
experienced to highly competitive environments, such as the environment
measured in the present study. Indeed, this would lead to a reduction in the
athletes self confidence (Jones & Swain, 1992).
Time-to-competition effects were noted for somatic direction for those athletes
involved in data set 1 (3 time periods), although no time-to-competition somatic
direction effects were present for the athletes involved in data set 2. Additionally,
no time-to-competition effects were noted for cognitive direction. Taken
collectively, the current findings for cognitive and somatic anxiety perceptions are
not wholly consistent with the intensity findings, as proposed by Swain and Jones
(1993). Swain and Jones (1993) noted an increase in cognitive and somatic
directional perceptions in the elite athletes, particularly at times close to
29
competition. Further, qualitative research by Hanton et al. (2002) identified that the
athletes interpretations of cognitive symptoms can change in the build up to
competition. The findings of Hanton et al. (2002) were supported by Hanton et al.
(2004) quantitative research, which also established a fluctuation in the athletes
perceived directional perceptions in the time leading up to competition. At an
applied level, it would appear that the current findings lend support to Hanton and
colleagues (2002;2004) suggesting that once athletes have interpreted their
anxiety symptoms as either facilitative or debilitative, these interpretations remain
relatively stable throughout the build up to competition. Conclusively, the data
gathered from the present study reinforces the initial findings of researchers i.e.
Wiggins, (1998), Thomas et al. (2004) and Chamberlain and Hale (2007) who
suggested that directional frequency will output similar findings to the directional
intensity research.
Additionally, it is interesting to note that a main effect for time-to-competition was
observed for self confidence for the athletes involved in data set 1. Conversely, no
time-to-competition effects were found for data set 2. The results for data set 1
portrayed a general decrease in the athlete’s directional perceptions as the
competition approached. However it should be noted that both performance
groups perceived their self confidence frequency symptoms to be facilitative
towards their upcoming performance. Thus it can be questioned as to whether the
high correlations between self confidence frequency and direction are a result of
the scales measuring the same thing? This notion would lend support to the
intensity and direction concerns as advocated by Jones and colleagues (Jones et
al., 1993; 1994), who suggested that the separation of self confidence intensity
and direction may not be necessary. The present study supports this notion, as
the correlation analysis detected high shared variance scores (Table 2 & 3)
between the two scales for self confidence. Hence, it can be argued that similar
scores for self confidence have been observed throughout the present study as a
result of the high correlations.
30
5.3 Practical implications
A number of practical implications emerged from the present study. At an applied
level, the information derived from this study could be used to further the
competitive anxiety research and aid numerous sports practitioners, in particular
sports coaches and psychologists who work with young athletes (<16 years). It is
evident that coaches should educate performers from a young age about anxiety
and how anxiety can be used to facilitate optimal performance. In addition,
coaches should encourage athletes to gain more experience in the competitive
sport environment in order for athletes to grasp a true understanding of what
anxiety is and how anxiety affects them. Sport psychologists should administer
appropriate anxiety coping tools and strategies to help athletes learn how best to
control their anxiety, in order to positively affect the athletes sporting performance.
This will positively affect the athlete’s long-term coping mechanisms, control and
overall player development. Furthermore, the present study reported that there
seems to be an underlying assumption that elite athletes possess higher levels of
self confidence and view this as more facilitative towards their upcoming
performance (Jones et al., 1994; Jones & Swain, 1995; Hanton & Jones, 1997;
Perry & Williams, 1998). However reflection upon the current study’s self
confidence mean scores (Table 6 & 7), suggest that the elite athletes utilised in
this study lacked self confidence. The information derived from the current study
identifies the key role that coaches and sport psychology practitioners play in
nurturing the athlete’s ability to redirect their symptoms of anxiety to better their
performance. In addition, sport psychologists and coaches should implement a
series of intervention confidence management strategies early in the athletes
career such as mental rehearsal, thought stopping, and positive self talk, to
enhance the athletes self confidence (Hanton & Jones, 1999b).
31
5.4 Strengths and Limitations
It is important to establish the present study’s strengths and limitations so that if
this study was to be repeated by future researchers, they could apply the
necessary modifications to improve the quality of the study. The initial strength of
the present study was that it was the first research study within the competitive
anxiety literature to measure directional perceptions of frequency. In addition, the
temporal approach to the study allowed a thorough examination of how anxiety
frequency and directional perceptions of frequency unfold over time. Another
major strength of the current study was that it offered a further insight into how
often the thoughts and feelings of anxiety are held by elite and non-elite athletes.
Finally, the present study provided further comparisons between elite and nonelite performers concerning directional perceptions of anxiety symptoms and how
these interpretations develop in the time preceding competition.
Despite the wealth of information gathered from the current study, three key
limitations should be considered. First, the key underlying limitation of the study
was the sample used. Unfortunately, only fifty five (U14n= 27; U16n= 28) athletes
completed the questionnaire on the three time periods (7 days, 24 hours, & 1
hour) outlined by the researcher, whilst 38 athletes completed the questionnaire
over only two time periods (24 hours and 1 hour). Therefore all 93 athletes (U14n=
51; U16n= 42) competitive state anxiety scores were collated together across the
two time periods (24 hours and 1 hour). Thus, data sets were categorized as data
set 1 and data set 2, in order to answer the research question in as much detail as
possible. However, limited results were gathered for the current study due to the
lack of power behind the three point time analysis study (data set 1) whilst, results
gathered from the two point time analysis (data set 2) did not measure competitive
anxiety over a significant changeable time period.
Second, the issue regarding the athlete’s understandings and interpretations of
anxiety is not known. Research by Hanton and Jones (1999a) assessed athletes’
interpretations of pre-competition cognitive and somatic anxiety symptoms, with
reference to age and experience. Their research observed young and less
experienced athletes (<19 years of age) to interpret their pre-competition anxiety
symptoms as negative towards performance. Hanton and Jones (1999a)
32
suggested that this was a result of the lack of knowledge and understanding in
which the athletes were exposed to within their sporting careers. Taken in
conjunction with Hanton and Jones (1999a) findings, it can be suggested that the
athletes in the present study lacked what Hanton and Jones referred to as the
‘knowledge’ and ‘understanding’ to view the onset of anxiety symptoms as positive
towards their upcoming performance. As highlighted throughout this study, further
questions regarding whether or not the athletes in the current study misconstrued
anxiety symptoms with other emotions such as excitement, arousal or motivation
is not known. However, this notion would lend some support to researchers (i.e.,
Lane et al., 1999; Jones & Uphill, 2004), who suggested that an increase in the
athletes cognitive anxiety may actually be a reflection upon the athlete’s
excitement and not anxiety. Hence, issues regarding the size and age of the
participants should be considered when interpreting the findings.
Additionally, this study failed to take in to account other possible emotions, such
as the emotions outlined in Jones and Hanton (2001), Mellalieu et al. (2003) and
Jones, Lane, Bray, Uphill, and Catlin (2005) research studies. These emotions
included dejection, frustration, fear, anger, excitement and happiness, all of which
athletes experience alongside anxiety.
5.5 Future Directions
The interesting between-subject findings for frequency of intrusions and
perceptions of pre-competitive anxiety symptoms, suggest that these dimensions
must receive more research attention. Additionally, there is still a need for
research to determine whether frequency predicts more performance variance in
comparison to the intensity and direction scales. Furthermore, in relation to the
change-over-time patterns, there is still a need for future research to solely
examine frequency of intrusions and directional perceptions over a longer
temporal pattern, as utilised in Hanton et al. (2004) or Thomas et al. (2004)
studies. Finally, future research should be centred around understanding more
about the relationship between experience and age, and its impact on precompetition anxiety.
33
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
6.1 Main findings
In summary, these findings suggest that elite performers do not differ from nonelite athletes in their frequencies of pre-competition anxiety symptoms. However,
when examining the independent anxiety variables (CAF, CAD, SAF, SAD, ScF,
ScD) with the independent temporal elements (7 days, 1 day, 1 hour), the results
suggested that elite athletes experienced greater amounts of cognitive anxiety
frequency (CAF) in the hour preceding competition. The results also suggest that
elite athletes do not differ from non-elite athletes in their interpretation of
frequency symptoms. Research by Jones and colleagues (1996; 2004) has
indicated that the directional perceptions scale is a more valid scale for comparing
skill level, although the current study’s findings do not lend support to this notion.
However, the findings of this study have supported Thomas et al. (2004) notion
which suggested that the directional perceptions scale for frequency will output
similar findings to the directional intensity research. Finally, time-to-competition
effects were found for both performance groups. The research findings observed
athletes to display increases in cognitive and somatic anxiety frequencies and
decreases in self confidence frequency as the competition drew closer. Further,
the results suggest that as the frequencies for these constructs changed in the
time preceding competition, these changes were viewed by the athletes as more
deliberative towards their upcoming performance. Thus, this study provides a
stronger rationale for sport practitioners to intervene and implement appropriate
intervention strategies in the lead up to competition.
34
REFERENCES
References
Biddle, S. J. H. (1997). Current trends in sport and exercise psychology research.
The Psychologist, 46, 63-69.
Borkovec, T. D, (1976). Physiological and cognitive processes in the regulation of
anxiety. In G.E. Schwartz and D. Shapiro (Eds.), Conscious and self-regulation:
Advances in research. New York: Plenum, pp. 216-312.
Burton, D. (1988). Do anxious swimmers swim slower? Re-examining the elusive
anxiety performance relationship. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10,
45-61.
Burton, D., and Naylor, S. (1997). Is anxiety really facilitative? Reaction to the
myth that cognitive anxiety always impairs performance. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 9, 295-302.
Campbell, E., & Jones, G. (1997). Pre-competition anxiety and self-confidence in
elite and non-elite wheelchair sport participants. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 14, 95–107.
Caruso, C.M., Dzewaltowski, D.A., Gill, D.L., and McElroy, M.A. (1990).
Psychological and physiological changes in competitive state anxiety during noncompetition and competitive success and failure. Journal of Exercise Physiology,
12, 6-20.
Chamberlain, S.T., & Hale, B.D. (2007). Competitive state anxiety and selfconfidence: Intensity and direction as relative predictors of performance on a golf
putting task. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 20, 197–207.
35
Cox, R H, Russell, W. D., and Robb, M. (1998). Development of a CSAI-2 short
form for assessing competitive state anxiety during and immediately prior to
competition. Journal of Sports Behaviour, 21, 30-40.
Craft, L. L., Magyar, M., Becker, B.J., and Feltz, D.L. (2003). The relationship
between competitive state anxiety inventory-2 and sport performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 44-65.
Davidson, R. J. (1978). Specificity and patterning in bio-behavioural systems.
American Psychologist, 33, 430-436.
Davidson, R. J. and Schwartz, G. E. (1976). The Psychobiology of Relaxation and
Related States: A Multiprocess Theory. In D. I. Motofsky (Ed.). Behaviour Control
and Modification of Psychological Activity, pp.399-442. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice
Hall,
Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics: Using SPSS for windows. London: Sage.
Gal-Or, Y., Tenenbaum, G., & Shimrony, S. (1986). Cognitive behavioural
strategies and anxiety in elite orienteers. Journal of Sport Sciences, 4, 39-48.
Gould, D., Petlichoff, L., and Weinberg, R.S. (1984). Antecedents of temporal
changes in and relationship between CSAI-2 subcomponents. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 6, 289-304.
36
Hall, H.K., Kerr, A. W., and Matthews, J. (1998). Precompetitive anxiety in sport:
The contribution of achievement goals and perfectionism. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 20, 194-217.
Hanton, S., and Connaughton, D. (2002). Perceived control of anxiety and its
relationship with self-confidence and performance: A qualitative explanation.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 87-97.
Hanton, S., Evans, L., and Neil, R. (2003). Hardiness and the competitive trait
anxiety response. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 16, 167-184.
Hanton, S., and Jones, G. (1997). Antecedents of competitive state anxiety as a
function of skill level. Psychological Reports, 81, 1139-1147.
Hanton,S., and Jones, G. (1999a). The acquisition and development of cognitive
skills and strategies. I: Making the butterflies fly in formation. The Sport
Psychologist, 13, 1-21
Hanton, S., and Jones, G. (1999b). The effects of a multimodal intervention
program on performers. II: Training the butterflies fly in formation. The Sport
Psychologist, 13, 22-41.
Hanton, S., Jones, G., and Mullen, R. (2000). Intensity and direction of competitive
anxiety as interpreted by rugby players and rifle shooters. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 90, 513- 521.
37
Hanton, S., Mellalieu, S.D., and Hall, R. (2004). Self-confidence and anxiety
interpretation: a qualitative investigation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5,
379-521.
Hanton, S., Mellalieu, S.D., Neil., R., and Fletcher, D. (2008). Competitive
experience and performance status: An investigation into multidimensional anxiety
and coping. European Journal of Sport Science, 8, 143-152.
Hanton, S., Mellalieu, S.D., and Young, S.G. (2002). A qualitative investigation of
the temporal patterning of the precompetitive anxiety response. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 20, 911-928.
Hardy, L., (1996). Testing the predictions of the Cusp catastrophe of anxiety and
performance. The Psychologist, 10, 140-156.
Jackson, J, (2003). How to be the best kicker in the world. The Guardian, [online].
Avaliable at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003/oct/05/rugbyworldcup2003.rugbyunion13
[Accessed 31st January 2012].
Jerome, G.J., and Williams, J.M. (2000). Intensity and interpretation of competitive
state anxiety: Relationship to performance and repressive coping. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 12, 236-250
Jones, G. (1991). Recent issues in competitive state anxiety research. The
Psychologist, 4, 152-155.
Jones, G. (1995). More than just a game: research developments and issues in
competitive state anxiety in sport. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 449-478.
38
Jones, G., and Hanton, S. (2001). Pre-competition feeling states and directional
anxiety interpretations. Journal of Sports Science, 19, 385-395.
Jones, G., Hanton, S., and Swain, A.B.J. (1994). Intensity and interpretation of
anxiety symptoms in elite and non-elite sports performers. Personality and
Individual Differences, 17, 657-663.
Jones, M.V, Lane, A.M., Bray, S., Uphill, M.A. & Caitlin, J. (2005). Development
and validation of the Sport Emotions Questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 27, 407-431.
Jones, G., and Swain, A.B.J. (1992). Intensity and direction dimensions of
competitive state anxiety and relationships with competitiveness. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 74, 467- 472.
Jones, G., and Swain, A.B.J. (1995). Predispositions to experience facilitating and
debilitating anxiety in elite and non-elite performers. The Sport Psychologist, 9,
201-211.
Jones, G., Swain, A.B.J., and Hardy, L. (1993). Intensity and direction dimensions
of competitive state anxiety and relationships with performance. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 11, 533-542.
Jones, M.V., and Uphill, M. (2004). Responses to the Compeititive State Anxiety
Inventory-2(d) by athletes in anxious and excited scenarios, Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 5, 201-212.
39
Kais, K., and Raudsepp, L. (2005). Intensity and Direction of competitive state
anxiety, self-confidence and athletic performance. Kinesiology, 37(1), 13-20.
Kardum, I. (1999). Affect intensity and frequency: their relation to mean level and
variability of positive and negative affect and Eysenck’s personality traits.
Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 33–47.
Kerr, J. H. (1997). Motivation and emotion in sport. East Sussex: Psychology
Press.
Keuler, D. J., & Safer,M. A. (1998). Memory bias in assessment and recall of preexam anxiety: how anxious was I? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 127–137.
Lane, A. M., Sewell, D. F., Terry, P. C., Bartram, D., & Nesti, M. S. (1999).
Confirmatory factor analysis of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 17, 505–512.
Liebert, R. M. and Morris, L. W. (1967). Cognitive and Emotional Components of
Test Anxiety: A Distinction and Some Initial data. Psychological Reports, 20, 975978.
Mahoney, M. J., & Avener, M. (1977). Psychology of the elite: An exploratory
study. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 135-141.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R. Bump, L. and Smith, D. (1990). The
Development of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). In R.
Martens, R. S. Vealey and D. Burton (Eds.). Competitive Anxiety in Sport, pp.117190. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
40
Mellalieu, S.D. Hanton, S., and Fletcher, D. (2006). A competitive anxiety review:
Recent directions in sport psychology research. In: S. Hanton & Mellalieu (Eds.).
2006. Literature reviews in sport psychology, pp.1-45.Hauppauge: Nova Science.
Mellalieu, S. D., Hanton, S., and Jones, G. (2003). Emotional labelling and
competitive anxiety in preparation and competition. The Sport Psychologist, 17,
157-174.
Morris, L., Harris, and Rovins, D. S. (1981). Interactive Effects of Generalised and
Situational Expectancies on Cognitive and Emotional Components of Anxiety.
Journal of Research in Personality, 15, 302-311.
Neil, A. L., & Christensen, H. (2007). Australian school-based prevention and
early intervention programs for anxiety and depression: A systematic review.
Medical Journal of Australia, 186, (6), 305-308
Ntoumanis, N. and Jones, G. (1998). Interpretation of competitive trait anxiety
symptoms as a function of locus of control beliefs. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 29, 99-114.
O’Brien, M., Hanton, S. and Mellalieu, S. D. (2005). Intensity and direction of
competitive state anxiety as a function of perceived control and athlete input into
the generation of competitive goals. Australia Journal for Science and Medicine in
Sport, 8, 418-427.
Parfitt, C.G., Jones, G., and Hardy, L. (1990). Multidimensional anxiety and
performance. In G. Jones and L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and performance in sport,
pp.43-80. Chichester: Wiley.
41
Perry, J. D., and Williams, J.M. (1998). Relationship of intensity and direction of
competitive trait anxiety to skill level and gender in tennis. The Sport Psychologist,
12, 169-179.
Raffety, B.D., Smith, R.E., and Ptacek, J.T. (1997). Facilitating and debilitating trait
anxiety, situational anxiety, and coping with an anticipated stressor: A process
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 892-906.
Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Theory and research on anxiety. In: C. S. Spielberger
(Ed.), (1966) Anxiety and Behaviour, pp.3-20. New York: Academic Press.
Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research: I. New
York: Academic Press.
Swain, A.B.J., and Jones, G. (1993). Intensity and frequency dimensions of
competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sports Science, 11, 533-542.
Swain, A.B.J., and Jones, G. (1996). Explaining performance variance: The
relative contributions of intensity and direction dimensions of competitive state
anxiety. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 9, 1-8.
Tabachnick, B.G., and Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariance statistics (3rd ed).
New York: Harper Collins.
42
Thomas, O., Maynard, I., and Hanton, S., (2004). Temporal aspects of competitive
anxiety and self confidence as a function of anxiety perceptions. The Sport
Psychologist, 18, 172-188.
Thomas, O., Picknell, G., & Hanton, S. (2011). Recall agreement between actual
and retrospective reports of competitive anxiety: A comparison of intensity and
frequency dimensions. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29, 495-508.
Wiggins, M.S. (1998). Anxiety intensity and direction: Pre-performance temporal
patterns and expectations in athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10,
201-211.
Wine, J. D. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin,
76, 92-104.
Woodman, T., and Hardy, L. (2001). Stress and anxiety. In R. Singer, H.A.
Hausenblaus, and C.M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport
psychology, pp. 290-318. New York: Wiley.
Woodman, T., and Hardy, L. (2003). The relative impact of cognitive anxiety and.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, (1), 443–457.
43
44
APPENDICES
Appendix A
INSTRUCTIONS:
REACTIONS TO COMPETITION
A number of statements that athletes have used to describe their thoughts and feelings before or during competition are
listed below. Read each statement and then circle the number to the right of the statement that indicates how you feel
right now in relation to the upcoming trial. The inventory is divided into 2 sections. Section 1 asks you to rate how
often the symptoms (thoughts and feelings) are occurring, and section 2 asks you to rate whether you rate the occurrence
of these symptoms as positive (facilitative) or negative (debilitative) towards your upcoming performance. Some athletes
feel they should not admit to feelings of nervousness or worry, but such reactions are actually very common, even among
professional athletes. There are, therefore, no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement.
SECTION 1
Never
SECTION 2
All of
Very
Unimportant
Very
I am concerned about this competition
1
2
3
4
5
Negative
6 the time
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1 Positive
+2
+3
I feel nervous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I feel at ease
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I have self doubts
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I feel jittery
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I feel comfortable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I am concerned that I may not do as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
wellbody
in this
competition
as I could
My
feels
tense
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I feel self-confident
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I am concerned about losing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I feel tense in my stomach
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I feel secure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I am concerned about choking under
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
Pressure
My
body feels relaxed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I am confident I can meet the challenge
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I am concerned about performing poorly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
My heart is racing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I’m confident about performing well
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I’m worried about reaching my goal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I feel my stomach sinking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I feel mentally relaxed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I’m concerned that others will be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
disappointed
my performance
My
hands arewith
clammy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I’m confident because I mentally picture
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
myself
reachingI won’t
my goal
I’m
concerned
be able to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
concentrate
My
body feels tight
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
I’m confident at coming through under
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-3
-2
-1
0
+1
+2
+3
pressure
Appendix B
CONSENT FORM
Name of project: Frequency and perception of pre-competition symptoms (thoughts and
feelings) in elite and non-elite athletes
Reference Number:
Researchers Name: Harriet Major
Participants Name:
Please circle the squad you are trialling:
U14
U16

I confirm that I have read and fully understood the information sheet for
the above study.

I have had the opportunity to consider the information, ask any questions
which I have had, and have had these answered satisfactory.

I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to
withdraw at any time, without giving any reason, without my medical
care legal rights being affected.

I understand that I may only participate in this study if;
a) I am trialling for the Rounders England U14 or U16 squad
Signature:
Parent/Guardian Printed Name:
Signature: