The Sport Psychologist, 1998,12,169-179
O 1998 Human Kinetics Publishers,Inc.
Relationship of Intensity and Direction
of Competitive Trait Anxiety to Skill Level
and Gender in Tennis
John D. Perry and Jean M. Williams
University of Arizona
The purpose of this study was to examine the intensity of competitive trait
anxiety and self-confidence and interpret whether these symptoms facilitated
or debilitated performance in three distinct skill-level groups in tennis for both
males and females. Advanced (n= SO), intermediate (n = 96), and novice (n=
79) tennis players completed a modified Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. The three groups did not differ for somatic anxiety intensity, but the
novice group reported less cognitive anxiety intensity and the advanced group
higher self-confidence levels. Only advanced players reported more facilitative interpretations versus the hypothesized progressive increase across skill
level. Males and females did not differ on self-confidence and anxiety intensity, but males reported a more facilitative interpretation of anxiety. Analyses
of subjects who reported debilitating effects for cognitive and somatic anxiety
revealed higher intensities on both anxiety subscales and lower self-confidence levels. The discussion addresses implications for the practitioner.
Elite athletes and novice players alike face pressure situations when competing, yet relatively little is known about whether these athletes have the same or
different anxiety responses when anticipating competitive situations. For example,
novice and top amateur or college tennis players may be equally nervous and tense
when preparing to serve at an important point in a match. Even if athletes experience the same intensity of anxiety symptoms, they may interpret quite differently
the potential performance effect. Contrasting novice competitors' precompetition
psychological states to those of athletes with progressively increasing skill levels
might provide insight about the general development of psychological states and
the inherent role of skill level. Such research might also indicate whether sport
psychology interventions are warranted at the novice level and whether the need
for different physical and cognitive interventions vary across skill levels.
John D. Perry was at the University of Arizona at the time of this study. Jean M.
Williams is with the Department of Psychology at the University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
85721.
170
Perry and Williams
A significant advancement occurred in anxiety theorizing when clinicians
and researchers distinguished between the cognitive and somatic components of
anxiety (Davidson & Schwartz, 1976; Liebert & Morris, 1967). Equivalent multidimensional theorizing and assessment within sport psychology was marked by
the development of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) in the
early 1980s (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1982, 1990). CSAI-2 is a
questionnaire designed to measure self-perceived state cognitive anxiety, somatic
anxiety, and self-confidence in competitive sport contexts. CSAI-2 developers
deserve credit for providing the impetus for much competitive anxiety research,
but widespread CSAI-2 usage also may have hindered knowledge advancement.
Some researchers (e.g., Parfitt, Jones, & Hardy, 1990; Jones, 1991, 1995a,
1995b; Jones & Swain, 1995) argued that research using CSAI-2 is limited, because the questionnaire measures only the presence and intensity of anxiety symptoms. These researchers suggested studying additional dimensions of the anxiety
response, such as whether athletes interpret their anxiety symptoms as helpful (facilitative) or hannful (debilitating) to performance. For instance, two athletes might
experience identical high-intensity responses on the cognitive anxiety CSAI-2 item,
"I am concerned about this competition," but one athlete interprets the concern
negatively and feels panic while the other interprets it as positive, because it shows
motivation to properly prepare for competition. Regarding physiological anxiety,
Jones (1995b) quoted Schachter's (1964) statement that "precisely the same state
of physiological arousal could be labeled 'joy' or 'fury' or any of a great diversity
of emotional labels, depending on the cognitive aspects of the situation" (p. 53). In
other words, physical symptoms that are debilitating for one athlete may be experienced as excitement for another (Jones & Swain, 1995).
Several recent studies have addressed competitive anxiety and directional
interpretation of those symptoms. In each study, the participants completed a modified version of the CSAI-2 (Jones & Swain, 1992), which included the original
intensity scale and a new directional scale for rating whether the experienced intensity of each symptom facilitated or debilitated subsequent performance. Using
the Sport Orientation Questionnaire (Gill & Deeter, 1988) to distinguish between
intramural athletes with low and high competitive orientations, Jones and Swain
(1992) found differences in neither perceived intensities of cognitive and somatic
anxiety symptoms nor directional interpretation of somatic anxiety. However, the
higher competitive group rated cognitive anxiety symptoms as more facilitative to
performance compared to the less competitive group. The same anxiety results
occurred when Jones, Swain, and Hardy (1993) compared club-level gymnasts,
who were divided into good and poor performance groups based on beam competition scores. In a related study, Jones and Hanton (1996) established equivalent
intensity levels between goal attainment expectancy groups, but the favorable group
reported more facilitative interpretations for both cognitive and somatic anxiety
compared to performers who did not expect to achieve goals.
In two later studies, Jones and colleagues tested whether intensity and direction scales could differentiate elite and nonelite skill level groups. In the first study,
Jones, Hanton, and Swain (1994) compared elite swimmers who had achieved an
Olympic Trials qualifying time with nonelite swimmers who had not qualified.
Researchers found no differences in perceived intensity of cognitive and somatic
anxiety, but compared to nonelite athletes, elite performers interpreted that both
states were more facilitative to performance. Elite performers also reported higher
CompetitiveAnxiety
171
self-confidence. Elite and nonelite swimmers were further divided as facilitators
and debilitators within respective skill levels based on whether athletes interpreted
both anxiety components as facilitative or debilitating. Significant interaction effects indicated that nonelite debilitatorshad lower self-confidencelevels and higher
cognitive and somatic anxiety intensities compared to nonelite facilitators. Similar
differences did not occur between the debilitators and facilitators in the elite group.
Jones and Swain (1995) tried to replicate these findings with cricket players,
but they examined competitive trait rather than state anxiety responses. Using the
modified directions developed by Albrecht and Feltz (1987), the CSAI-2 was converted to a general measure of competitive anxiety. Comparisons between elite
(full-time professional) and nonelite (semi-professional and club) cricket players
produced the same results as found by Jones et al. (1994), with the following exceptions. Elite and nonelite cricket players had the same self-confidence levels, a
result that conflicts not only with the earlier swimming findings but with Williams
and Krane's (1998) review of peak-performance research, which concluded that
the most consistent peak-performance finding was higher self-confidence levels
among more successful competitors. Jones and Swain also failed to find that nonelite
debilitators experienced higher self-perceived somatic anxiety intensity and lower
self-confidence levels than nonelite facilitators. Instead, the facilitators generally
experienced higher self-confidence levels compared to debilitators.
Although these studies contain many commonalities, differences necessitate
more research on the relationship between skill level and anxiety and whether
facilitators and debilitators experiencethe same self-confidence and anxiety symptom intensity. The preceding skill level research also excluded novice competitors
and did not compare males and females. Numerous sport psychologists (Krane,
1995; Vealey & Garner-Holman, 1998) have called for more inclusive sport psychology research and practice. For example, in her Harris Young ScholarPractitioner Lecture on anxiety and stress, Krane stressed that research should not
focus so exclusively on intercollegiate, elite, and white athletes. In turn, research
on self-confidence and anxiety intensity suggests that gender can influence responses. When gender differences occurred, females were more likely to indicate
higher anxiety levels and lower confidence levels (Martens et al., 1990). Whether
gender influences how athletes interpret the effect of anxiety symptoms (i.e., as
facilitative or debilitating) on performance remains to be seen.
Tennis is ideal for examining the effect of gender and multiple skill levels,
because males and females play tennis equally and distinct standardized skill-level
classifications exist. The United States Tennis Association uses the National Tennis Rating Program (NTRP) to rate players from 1.0 (beginning player) to 7.0 (a
world class professional) based on standard stroke and game characteristics. Certified professional instructors rate the tennis players to ensure that players participate in leagues, tournaments, and classes at appropriate ability levels.
The purpose of this study was to replicate and extend Jones et al.'s (1994)
and Jones and Swain's (1995) work by examining the intensity and direction of
competitive trait anxiety and self-confidence symptoms in three distinct skill levels of tennis players and across males and females. We hypothesized that the three
skill groups would not differ in cognitive or somatic anxiety intensities, but that as
skill level increased from novice to intermediate to advanced, self-confidence level
and interpretations of anxiety as facilitative would progressively increase. Further,
we hypothesized that either differences would not occur between genders or females
172
* Pery and Williams
would report lower self-confidence levels and higher cognitive anxiety intensity
levels and interpret cognitive anxiety symptoms as more debilitating. Because the
present advanced group did not reach the elite criteria in the two earlier skill level
studies, we hypothesized that debilitators would have higher cognitive and somatic symptom intensities and lower self-confidence levels compared to facilitators.
Method
Participants
Participants were 225 male (n = 106) and female (n = 119) tennis players, ages 1845 (M = 21.9, SD = 4.89). Players were drawn from two Division I women's tennis
teams (one ranked in the top five nationally), a Division I men's tennis team, a topfive nationally ranked junior college women's team, and local amateur tournaments, leagues, tennis clubs, and university classes. Eligible players held current
NTRP ratings or were enrolled in a university class and had a professional
instructor's NTRP skill rating. Skill ratings ranged from 1.5 to 6.5 (M = 3.4, SD =
1.33), where 1.0 was the minimum possible rating and 7.0 the maximum.
Measures
We used the trait version of the modified CSAI-2 intensity and direction scales.
The CSAI-2 measures competitive state anxiety, but previous researchers (Albrecht
& Feltz, 1987; Jones & Swain, 1995) have used it as a trait measure by modifying
test instructions, with respondents rating each item according to how they usually
feel. The resulting scale measures the intensity of precompetition trait cognitive
anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence, with nine items in each subscale.
Cognitive anxiety examples include "I am concerned about this competition" and
"I am concerned about performing poorly." Somatic anxiety items include "I feel
nervous" and "My body feels tense," while self-confidence items include "I feel at
ease" and "I'm confident about performing well." Respondents rate each symptom intensity on a scale from 1 (not a t all) to 4 (very much so), with intensity
scores for each subscale ranging from 9 to 36. Jones and Swain (1992) modified
the CSAI-2, adding direction scales for rating whether the intensity of the experienced symptoms usually facilitated or debilitated performance. Scores ranged from
-3 (very debilitating) to +3 (veryfacilitative), with possible scores for each direction subscale ranging from -27 to +27.
Procedure
Participants were divided into three skill groups. The advanced skill group (n =
50) had a skill rating 25.0; the intermediate group (n = 96) 3.0 to 4.0, and the
novice group (n = 79) 1 2.0. These cutoffs and the one-point gap between skill
groups were chosen to help assure more distinct skill levels while maintaining
sufficient numbers in each group.
Participants were administered the modified CSAI-2 with instructions that
followed Martens et al.'s (1990) recommendations to emphasize confidentiality of
responses at an individual level, honesty on the inventory, and the assurance that
answers could not be "wrong." However, rather than indicating current feelings,
participants reported the thoughts and feelings that they usually experience immediately prior to an important tennis match.
Competitive Anxiety
173
Results
Psychometric Data on the Modified CSN-2
Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients were conducted on the three original CSAI2 subscales and two new direction subscales. The Cronbach alphas were .78, 3 4 ,
3 4 , .79, and 3 3 , respectively, for cognitive intensity, somatic intensity, selfconfidence intensity, cognitive direction, and somatic direction, with values above
.70 considered the accepted standard for reliability estimates.
Modified CSM-2 Scores, Skill Level, and Gender
To examine skill level and gender differences in intensity and direction scores of
the modified CSAI-2, separate 3 X 2 multivariate analyses of variance were conducted. Cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence intensity served
as dependent variables for the first MANOVA, and cognitive anxiety direction and
somatic anxiety direction were dependent variables for the second.
Intensity. Only skill level had a significant main effect, with Wilks's lambda
= .79, F(2, 219) = 9.22, p c .001. Univariate analyses showed significant differences for the cognitive anxiety (p < .001, ES = .51) and self-confidence subscales
(p < .001, ES = 3 4 ) but not for somatic anxiety. According to follow-up Scheffe
test results, the novice skill group reported significantly less cognitive anxiety
symptoms compared to the intermediate and advanced skill groups (p < .01). Significant differences did not emerge between the latter two groups. Advanced group
scores were significantlyhigher for self-confidence levels compared to intermediate and novice skill groups (p c .001).Again, we did not find differences between
the latter two groups. See Table 1 for intensity means and standard deviations by
skill level and gender.
Direction. Two-way direction MANOVAresults revealed significant main
effects for skill level, where Wilks's lambda = 3 9 , F(2,219)= 6.40,p < -001,and
gender, where Wilks's lambda = .97, F(l, 219) = 3.87, p < .05, but a significant
interaction effect was not found. Follow-up ANOVAs indicated significant skill
level main effects for cognitive anxiety (p < .05, ES = .50) and somatic anxiety ( p
c .05, ES = .49). Skill-level Scheffe test results revealed that the advanced group
reported significantly greater facilitative interpretations for cognitive and somatic
direction compared to the intermediate and novice skill groups (p < .001). The
intermediate and novice skill groups did not have different directional responses.
Follow-up ANOVAs also indicated significant gender main effects for cognitive
anxiety (p < .05, ES = .30) and somatic anxiety (p c .05, ES = .42). Male tennis
players reported more facilitative interpretations for cognitive anxiety (M = 1.12,
SD = 8.32) and somatic anxiety symptoms (M = 3.31, SD = 8.51) compared to
female players' interpretations of cognitive anxiety (M = -1.18, SD = 8.41) and
somatic anxiety symptoms (M = -0.10, SD = 8.70).See Table 1 for direction means
and standard deviations by skill level and gender.
Comparing Debilitators and Facilitators
Players who reported negative direction scores on the cognitive and somatic
subscales were classified as debilitators, while those who reported positive scores
on both subscales were labeled facilitators. Employing the same procedure used
by Jones et al. (1994)and Jones and Swain (1995),we eliminated from our analysis
174
Perry and Williams
Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for Cognitive Anxiety, Somatic
Anxiety, and Self-Confidence Intensity Scores and Cognitive Anxiety and
Somatic Anxiety Direction Scores by Skill Level and Gender
Novice
M
SD
Intermediate
M
SD
Advanced
M
SD
Cognitive anxiety intensity
Males
Females
Total
Somatic anxiety intensity
Males
Females
Total
Self-confidence intensity
Males
Females
Total
Cognitive anxiety direction
Males
Females
Total
Somatic anxiety direction
Males
Females
Total
players with a score of zero or both a positive and negative subscale score (n = 71).
The new subsample contained 154 players (novice = 51, intermediate = 69, advanced = 34). We did not examine gender when looking at facilitators and
debilitators due to the small player numbers in each group.
Frequency and Skill Level. To determine whether the frequency of
debilitators and facilitators differed due to skill level, a 2 X 3 chi-square analysis
was performed. A significant difference was found among the observed occurrences in the six cells (x2= 15.4, p < .001; see Table 2). The advanced group had
the most facilitators, the intermediate group more debilitators than facilitators, and
the novice group slightly more facilitators.
Across all skill levels, 80 players reported facilitative effects (facilitators),
74 players debilitating effects (debilitators), and 71 subjects (32%) were eliminated from the analysis. Of those subjects excluded because one anxiety component had a debilitating effect, the other facilitative, more than twice as many players reported debilitating effects for cognitive anxiety (n = 34) compared to somatic
anxiety symptoms (n = 16).
Intensity and Skill Level. To examine whether intensity of symptoms differed between facilitators and debilitators for each skill level, a two-way MANOVA
Competitive Anxiety
175
was conducted with direction (debilitatedfacilitated) and skill level (novicelintermediateladvanced) as independent variables and the intensity scales for cognitive
anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence as dependent variables. Results revealed significant main effects for direction, where Wilks's lambda = .90, F(2,
148)= 5.18, p < .01, and skill level, where Wilks's lambda = 3 7 , F(2,148) = 3.50,
p < .01, but a significant interaction effect was not found. Follow-up two-way
ANOVAs indicated significant direction main effects for cognitive anxiety @ <
.01, ES = .46), somatic anxiety (p < .01, ES = .59), and self-confidence (p < .01, ES
= .71) intensities. Players who viewed anxiety symptoms as debilitating reported
higher intensity levels for cognitive and somatic anxiety symptoms and lower selfconfidence levels. In contrast, players who viewed cognitive and somatic anxiety
symptoms as facilitative reported higher self-confidence levels and lower levels of
cognitive and somatic anxiety symptoms.ANOVAs also indicated significant skill
level effects for cognitive anxiety ( p < .01, ES = .54) and self-confidence (p < .05,
ES = 2 6 ) intensities. According to follow-up Scheffe test results, novice players
reported lower cognitive anxiety intensities compared to intermediate and advanced
players, and advanced players reported higher self-confidence levels. See Table 3
for means and standard deviations.
Table 2 Contingency Table of Observed Frequencies of Debilitated and
Facilitated Subjects as a Function of Skill Level
Novice
Debilitators
Facilitators
24
27
Total
51
(47%)
(53%)
Intermediate
Advanced
43
26
7
27
(62%)
(38%)
69
(21%)
(79%)
Total
74
80
154
34
Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations for Cognitive Anxiety, Somatic
Anxiety, and Self-Confidence Intensity of Debilitated and Facilitated Groups
Novice
Facilitators
Debilitators
Intermediate
Facilitators
Debilitators
Advanced
Facilitators
Debilitators
Congitive anxiety
intensity
M
SD
Somatic anxiety
intensity
M
SD
Self-confidence
intensity
M
SD
17.21
21.33
4.13
7.31
15.42
18.70
5.17
6.08
24.21
21.56
4.91
4.33
20.38
22.86
4.49
5.47
15.65
19.61
6.22
4.91
24.07
21.40
5.48
4.80
23.07
24.29
4.29
5.82
17.52
20.29
5.35
4.42
27.37
24.57
5.55
4.16
176
Perry and Williams
Discussion
The overall findings of this study reinforce the need to measure both perception
and directional interpretation of anxiety symptoms. The moderate to large effect
sizes, if replicated, also support the importance of considering skill level in consulting practices and in anxiety and confidence research. The relatively low gender effect sizes suggest that further research should precede making practical applications from the gender findings.
Only partial support existed for the hypothesis that the three skill level groups
would not differ on intensity of cognitive and somatic anxiety. Although we found
no somatic anxiety intensity differences, novice tennis players reported less cognitive anxiety than the higher skill groups. This finding conflicts with competitive
trait anxiety research that assessed trait anxiety with the Sport Competition Anxiety Test (SCAT; Martens, 1977). Martens et al.'s (1990) review of the SCAT research did not indicate a relationship between competitive trait anxiety and ability.
The SCAT, however, is a trait unidimensional anxiety measure that relies heavily
on somatic items, and thus, findings may not generalize to cognitive anxiety results from the trait CSAI-2.
Lower cognitive anxiety intensity in the novice group may result from individuals' relative lack of experience and a corresponding lower emotional investment or personal expectations about successful performance. The result may also
be a function of using the CSAI-2 as a retrospective trait measure versus assessing
actual feelings immediately prior to competition. Novice players may be less aware
of precompetitive states and, therefore, less accurately recall anxiety symptoms.
Thus, using the state CSAI-2 to ask novice players to report how they feel "right
now" could reveal higher intensities than the trait CSAI-2. More research with
novice skill level athletes will further clarify these findings.
Results also partially supported the hypothesis that self-confidence intensity
would progressively increase with skill level from novice to intermediate to advanced. AS expected, the advanced group reported significantly higher selfconfidence levels compared to intermediate and novice skill groups. This finding
supports Jones et al.'s (1994) results rather than Jones and Swain's (1995) findings. The novice group's reported self-confidence levels, however, did not differ
significantly from those of the intermediate group. Although Williams & Krane's
(1998) review indicated higher confidence levels in more successful athletes, rising to an intermediate skill level may not represent "successful" tennis performance compared to novice players. In contrast, reaching an advanced skill level
clearly represents "success" and thus may account for the higher self-confidence
intensity in advanced players.
We found only partial support for the hypothesis that facilitative interpretations
of anxiety symptoms would progressively increase as skill level moved from novice
to intermediateto advanced.Although advanced players reported more than the lower
groups that cognitive and somatic anxiety symptoms had a more facilitative effect on
tennis performance, differences did not occur among lower groups. In fact, the intermediate players actually reported more debilitating interpretations for cognitive and
somatic anxiety than the novice group. This result may relate to novice players' reported lower intensity of cognitive anxiety, or perhaps these novice players simply
had less experience in feeling negative effects from cognitive or somatic anxiety.
Gender did influence anxiety responses, but only partly as hypothesized.
Females did not report higher intensities in cognitive anxiety symptoms but
Competitive Anxiety
177
interpreted symptoms as more debilitating compared to male players' responses.
We also found unexpected somatic anxiety results. Males more often interpreted
somatic and cognitive anxiety as facilitative. The moderately low effect sizes associated with these findings preclude practical usage but indicate that future researchers will need to consider gender when examining directional anxiety interpretations. If the present findings replicate, they also suggest that females need
more interventions to help them handle anxiety responses more positively.
The advanced skill level group's facilitative anxiety interpretations may relate to this sample's significantly higher self-confidence levels. Hardy and Jones
(1990) suggested that self-confidence may buffer potentially harmful anxiety effects. Also, Jones et al. (1993) found that cognitive and somatic anxiety direction
correlated with self-confidence intensity more than cognitive and somatic intensities. Thus, having higher self-confidence levels might mediate more facilitative
anxiety interpretations. These findings suggest that sport psychology practitioners
and researchers should examine whether interventions to increase self-confidence
also result in decreased anxiety symptoms or related interpretations of anxiety
symptoms as more favorably affecting performance.
The present results and other findings (Jones et al., 1994; Jones & Swain,
1995) suggest that all athletes may not have different somatic anxiety intensities,
and highly and intermediate skilled athletes may have similar cognitive anxiety
intensities. However, compared to lower skilled athletes, those with higher skills
generally perceive anxiety symptoms as more beneficial to performance. Future
researchers might examine whether these interpretation differences occur because
higher skilled athletes employ certain cognitive strategies or whether the difference simply results from increased success (Jones, 1995).
Further analyses, with subjects dichotomized into groups based on whether
they reported both cognitive and somatic anxiety levels as positively (facilitators)
or negatively (debilitators) affecting performance, reveal additional information.
As hypothesized, the majority of facilitators (79%) were in the advanced skill
group. Unfortunately, the scope of this investigation did not permit determining
whether these differences are a cause or result of achieving a higher skill level.
Future researchers should address this question, which has major implications for
the sport psychology practitioner.
Findings revealed that within each group, participants classified as debilitators
reported higher cognitive and somatic anxiety intensities and lower self-confidence.
Thus, for the tennis players in this study, response intensities did influence interpreting how anxiety symptoms affected performance. Jones et al. (1994) reported
the same findings but only for nonelite athletes. The present results still directly
parallel these findings, because our advanced level competitors failed to reach
elite level criteria (i.e., swimmers who qualified for the Olympic trials). Only professional players (NTRP rating = 7.0) would have equaled their elite level. Jones
and Swain (1995) obtained the same results for cognitive anxiety but failed to find
any difference in somatic anxiety. Also, all facilitators, whether elite (i.e., professional level) or nonelite, had higher self-confidence levels compared to debilitators.
Over half of all subjects interpreted anxiety symptoms, including cognitive
anxiety, as facilitative. Similar to Jones & Swain's (1995) results, these interpretations occurred even though the cognitive anxiety mean value for intensity exceeded
Martens et al.'s (1990) norm value. The high percentage of subjects labeling cognitive intensity positively challenges the negative linear performance relationship
predicted by multidimensional anxiety theory (Martens et al., 1990). Swain and
178
Perry and Williams
Jones (1996) further support the failure of cognitive anxiety symptoms to always
harm performance and consequently require reduction. They found an inverted-U
rather than negative linear relationship between cognitive anxiety intensity and
performance, suggesting that cognitive anxiety enhances performance up to a point,
but further increases debilitate performance. Jones and Swain (1995) commented
that cognitive and physiological symptoms interpreted as facilitating performance
are "unlikely to represent 'anxiety' at all. Instead, it will probably be labeled as a
positive state by the performer, such as 'excitement,' 'psyched up,' 'motivated,'
and the like." (p. 209).
Eliminating a substantial percentage of the participantsbecause they reported
facilitative or debilitating effects on only one anxiety subscale limits analyzing
debilitators and facilitators. For instance, although 79% of the 34 advanced players were facilitators, they represent only 53% of all advanced players. Also, among
excluded subjects, over twice as many reported debilitating effects for cognitive
rather than somatic anxiety. In the future, researchers might include individuals
who have both a positive and debilitating interpretation or who indicate that cognitive and somatic anxiety symptoms neither facilitate nor debilitate performance.
This design would be particul&ly relevant when determining the relative role of
intensity and directional anxiety components in performance. This investigation
has potential implications for the sport psychology practitioner.
When providing interventions to groups, the largest percentage of athletes
would benefit from interventions that target increasing self-confidence, decreasing cognitive anxiety symptoms, or reinterpreting cognitive anxiety symptoms as
facilitative rather than debilitating to performance.The best effect, however, would
come from sufficient knowledge and the opportunity to individualize interventions. To provide these, practitioners need to know individual intensity and direction scores. For example, if two athletes report similar intensities for somatic symptoms, but one interprets that the symptoms negatively affect performance, then
relaxation skills or cognitive restructuronly that athlete needs training in
ing techniques, which are designed to enhance accepting the somatic symptoms as
a normal response when preparing for the upcoming competition challenges. In
contrast, athletes who report debilitating performance effects for both cognitive
and somatic anxiety symptoms may require a dual intervention that addresses both
physical and mental precompetitive states.
In summary, the results of this study further support measuring both intensity
and direction of competitive anxiety symptoms and show that using the CSAI-2 without a direction scale may provide potentially misleading results. Findings also support considering skill level and gender in anxiety research and consulting practices.
References
Albrecht, R.R., & Feltz, D.L. (1987). Generality and specificity of attention related to competitive anxiety and sport performance.Journal of Sport Psychology, 9,23 1-248.
Davidson, R.J., & Schwartz, G.E. (1976). The psychobiology of relaxation and relaxed
states:A multiprocess theory. In D.I. Mostofsky (Ed.), Behavioral control and modification ofphysiological activity (pp. 399-442). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gill, D.L., & Deeter, T.E. (1988). Development of the Sport Orientation Questionnaire.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59, 191-202.
Hardy, L., &Jones, G. (1990). Future directions for research into stress in sport. In G. Jones &
Competitive Anxiety
179
L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress andperformance in sport (pp. 281-296). Chichester, UK: Wlley.
Jones, G. (1991). Recent developments and current issues in competitive state anxiety research. The Psychologist, 4, 152-155.
Jones G. (1995a). Competitive anxiety in sport. In S.J. Biddle (Ed.), Europeanperspectives
on exercise and sport psychology (pp. 128-153). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jones, G. (1995b). More than just a game: Research developments and issues in competitive anxiety in sport. British Journal of Psychology, 88,449-478.
Jones, G., & Hanton, S. (1996). Interpretation of competitive anxiety symptoms and goal
attainment expectancies. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18,144-157.
Jones, G., Hanton, S., &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, G., & 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., & Swain, A.B.J. (1995). Predispositions to experience debilitative and facilitative anxiety in elite and nonelite performers. Z'he Sport Psychologist, 9, 201-211.
Jones, G., Swain, A.B.J., & Hardy, L. (1993). Intensity and direction dimensions of competitive state anxiety and relationships with performance. Journal of Sports Sciences,
11,525-532.
Krane, V. (1995, September). Anxiety and stress: Reflections of the past and visionsfor the
$&re. Paper presented as the Dorothy Harris Young Scholar-PractitionerLecture at
the meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology,
New Orleans, LA.
Liebert, R.M., &Morris, L.W. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety:
A distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20,975-978.
Martens, R. (1977). Sport competition anxiety test. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R.S., Bump, L.A., & Smith, D.E. (1982, May). Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. Symposium conducted at the Annual Conference for
the North American Society for Sport and Physical Activity, College Park, MD.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R.S., Bump, L.A., & Smith, D.E. (1990). Competitive
anxiety in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Parfitt, C.G., Jones, G., & Hardy, L. (1990). Multidimensionalanxiety and performance. In
G. Jones & L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress andperformance in sport (pp. 43-81). New York:
Wiley.
Schachter, S. (1964). The interaction of cognitive and physiological determinants of emotional state. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol.
1, pp. 49-80). New York: Academic Press.
Swain, A.B.J., &Jones, G. (1996). Explaining performance variance: The relative contribution of intensity and direction dimensions of competitivestate anxiety.Anxiety, Stress,
and Coping, 9,l-18.
Vealey, R.S., & Garner-Holman, M. (1998). Applied sport psychology: Measurement issues. In J. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp.
4 3 3 4 6 ) . Morgantown, WV: FIT.
Williams, J.M., & Krane, V. (1998). Psychological characteristics of peak performance. In
J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sportpsychology: Personal growth topeakperfomzance
(3rd ed., pp. 158-170). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
Manuscript submined: May 20, 1996
Revision received: September 22, I997