CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
PRE-COMPETITION ANXIETY CONTAGION AMONG COLLEGIATE MALE
VOLLEYBALL PLAYERS
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of Master of Science in Kinesiology
By
Jeff Baxter
May 2014
i
Copyright by Jeff Baxter 2014
ii
The thesis of Jeff Baxter is approved:
________________________________________
Dr. Mark Otten
__________________
Date
________________________________________
Dr. Ashley Samson
__________________
Date
________________________________________
Dr. Nick Galli, Chair
__________________
Date
California State University, Northridge
iii
Acknowledgement
Thank you Dr. Galli, for your tireless efforts in helping me strive for perfection.
iv
Dedication
This thesis is dedicated to my parents, John and Karen Baxter, for always guiding me
towards my dreams.
v
Table of Contents
Copyright Page
ii
Signature Page
iii
Acknowledgement
iv
Dedication
v
Abstract
ix
Chapter 1: Introduction
1
Anxiety: Types, Symptoms, Pre-Competition
1
Anxiety and Performance
2
Emotional Contagion
3
Self-Confidence
4
Purpose of Study
4
Chapter 2: Review of Literature
6
Stress
6
Arousal
7
Anxiety
8
Anxiety-Performance Relationship
9
vi
Anxiety and Self-Confidence
13
Emotional Contagion
14
Measuring Emotional Contagion
16
Summary
16
Chapter 3: Methods
18
Participants
18
Measures
18
Interview Guide
19
Procedures
20
Data Analysis
22
Chapter 4: Results
24
Chapter 5: Discussion
28
Limitations
31
Future Research
32
Practical Implications
32
Conclusion
33
References
34
vii
Appendix A: Tables
42
Appendix B: Statement of Informed Consent for Research Participants
45
Appendix C: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI Y-1)
48
Appendix D: State Sport-Confidence Inventory (SSCI)
49
Appendix E: Interview Guide (Players)
51
Appendix F: Interview Guide (Coaches)
52
Appendix G: Participant Debriefing Form
53
viii
ABSTRACT
PRE-COMPETITION ANXIETY CONTAGION AMONG COLLEGIATE MALE
VOLLEYBALL PLAYERS
By
Jeff Baxter
Master of Science in Kinesiology
Emotional contagion refers to the tendency to “catch” the emotions of others (Hatfield,
Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). The purpose of this study was to explore anxiety contagion
in a team sport setting. Specifically, whether anxiety contagion exists, the influence of
team role on perceived anxiety contagion, and whether sport-confidence predicted the
amount of anxiety contagion perceived. Eleven players and two coaches from an NCAA
Division I men’s volleyball team retrospectively completed the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory (STAI) in reference to their best performance in order to establish their
individual zone of optimal functioning (IZOF; Hanin, 2000), and again two days and one
hour prior to a competition in reference to how they felt at that moment. Seven of the 13
participants recorded scores below their IZOF prior to competition. Semi-structured
interviews with participants were conducted within one hour post-competition. Players
were asked to rank various interpersonal factors that affected their game anxiety on a 1
(very little) to 10 (very much so) scale. Results suggest anxiety contagion prior to the
game did exist. Coach anxiety was the top ranked factor perceived to influence anxiety.
Self-confidence was not a significant predictor of anxiety contagion perceived. Results
reveal a need for coaches to monitor their anxiety to not affect players’ IZOF.
ix
Chapter 1
Introduction
After five years as a volleyball player, one year as a coach, and countless hours in
a cramped locker room during pre-game, I wondered if - as players and coaches - our
moods spread to one another. Since anxiety level is linked to performance (Hanin, 1980),
investigating anxiety contagion, the idea that anxiety is contagious, becomes important
because (a) athletes experience anxiety at all age levels and skill ranges, (b) anxiety
effects athletes’ performance outcomes (Hanin, 1980), and (c) this anxiety may be
contagious among teammates.
Anxiety: Types, Symptoms, and Pre-competition
It is human nature to experiences bouts of anxiety from time to time, but how
athletes deal with that anxiety may affect their outcomes. Anxiety can be divided into two
components: state and trait anxiety. Trait anxiety is how anxious a person is in general,
their everyday life (Weinberg & Gould, 2007). State anxiety, a temporary and ever
changing mood, breaks down into two groups: cognitive and somatic (Weinberg &
Gould, 2007). Cognitive state anxiety refers to the level of worry or negative thoughts
one has with regard to a specific situation, while somatic state anxiety refers to the
physiological responses the body has to nervousness and how they are interpreted by the
individual (Weinberg & Gould, 2007). Somatic responses can include an increase in heart
rate, perspiration, and shallow breathing. Pre-competition cognitive and somatic state
anxiety represents the level of worry or doubt a player has just prior to their game or
match. For the purpose of this study, the focus will be on cognitive and somatic state
anxiety.
1
Anxiety and Performance
An extensive amount of research has been conducted on the effect that state
anxiety levels have on performance within the athletic domain (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908;
Seward, 1956; Weinberg & Gould, 2007). The first of these theories was the Drive
Theory (Seward, 1956). Drive was defined as “excitatory state produced by homeostatic
disturbance” (Seward, 1956). Psychologists observed a positive linear link between
arousal and athletic performance in well-trained athletes (Spence & Spence, 1966). For
example, a runner with higher arousal will run a faster time than when she has lower
arousal. However, this idea is rarely supported in sports that require finesse movements;
such as golf or basketball (Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990). A more recently supported
theory is the Inverted-U hypothesis which was derived from Yerkes-Dodson’s 1908 ideas
view arousal as being intertwined with state anxiety. Hardy’s Catastrophe Model, which
also correlates arousal with anxiety up to an optimal point, prior to becoming detrimental
to performance. Arousal is a state of alertness both mentally and physically. Anxiety is
the physiological or psychological reaction when a threat is perceived (Weinberg &
Gould, 2007). According to the Inverted-U, athletes need to have a moderate level of
arousal, or performance will suffer. This theory has more research support (Weinberg &
Gould, 2007); however it lacks the ability to account for individual differences between
athletes. These theories suggest sports psychologists believe that there is one optimal
anxiety point that applies to everyone.
One of the more recent theories is Hanin’s (1980) Individualized Zones of
Optimal Functioning (IZOF). The IZOF is a globally utilized theory in regard to anxiety
and performance (Woodcock, Cummings, Duda, & Sharp, 2011). According to the IZOF,
2
athletes have a zone of optimal state anxiety levels in which their best performance
occurs. In a study done by Raglin & Morris (1994), the research found that female
college volleyball players had specific anxiety levels for optimal functionality. These
levels were categorized by player IZOF. This zone was found by taking players scores
from the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) in regards to their “best game,” then
adding and subtracting four anxiety units from the “best game” score (Hanin, 1980;
Raglin et al., 1994). The researchers used Spielberger's (1966) state-trait anxiety
inventory (STAI) to measure the state anxiety of players. Raglin et al. (1994) identified
players zone of optimal functioning utilizing a STAI questionnaire in regards to their best
performance they have ever had. Zones were identified by finding players STAI scores in
terms of their “best performance” they have had and adding and subtracting four anxiety
units to it (Hanin, 1986; Raglin et al., 1994). The researchers observed that different
players had their best performances when they landed consistently in their optimal zones.
Woodcock, Cumming, & Duda (2011) observed support for the application of IZOF
framework as cross-country runners perceived better emotional regulation following an
IZOF intervention that had athletes closely revisit a previous experience and reevaluate it
from an emotionally removed position.
Emotional Contagion
Emotional contagion is defined as “the phenomenon whereby an emotion initiated
by an individual extends to other individuals who are in his or her proximity as a certain
time” (Larousse, 2006, p. 256). Research on emotional contagion suggests that the
contagion takes place at an unconscious level, transferring a certain emotional state from
one person to another (Dimberg, Thunberg, & Elmehed, 2002). Other research on
3
contagion found positive links between workers’ emotions and coworkers’ emotions
(Barsade, 2002). Gonzalez, Castillo, & Swinkles (2002) found that of the 25 emotions
tested, anxiety was perceived to be the ninth most contagious. Most contagion research
has been done within the business world, with little attention towards the athletic domain
(Volmer, 2012; Apitzsch, 2009; Anghel, 2010). Of the few athletic-emotional contagion
studies, none have focused on competitive state anxiety, during the pre-performance
period, which would have implications for athletes’ and teams’ performance (Anghel,
2010; Apitzsch, 2008; Volmer, 2012).
Self-Confidence
Self-confidence is defined by sports psychologists as the belief that one has the
ability to perform a desired skill or behavior (Weinberg & Gould, 2007). Similar to
anxiety, self-confidence can be looked at as both state and trait. Self-confidence can have
a multitude of positive influences on the athlete including: facilitating concentration,
increasing effort, gain psychological momentum, and better performances (Weinberg &
Gould, 2007). Jones and Swain (1995) observed that confidence can lead to a more
positive interpretation of anxiety, along with arousing more positive emotions.
Study Purpose
The purpose of this study is to explore the interpersonal effects of an individual’s
pre-competition cognitive (mental) and somatic (physiological) state anxiety levels on
their teammates’ anxiety. Studies on emotional contagion have been performed, but
rarely within the realm of team sport athletics and none focused on anxiety (Anghel,
2010, Apitzsch, 2008, Volmer, 2012). Since competitive anxiety can have an effect on
4
performance (Jones, 1995; Woodman & Hardy, 2003), it seems important to investigate
whether anxiety experienced by individual players can spread to their teammates. Thus,
this study will explore the interpersonal effects of anxiety within a team, and determine
whether a contagion effect exists. Knowing this information can assist a coach or sport
psychologist with the anxiety contagion effect, and inform efforts to help prevent
negative effects of anxiety on performance. Four questions will be addressed: (a) Do
athletes perceive an anxiety contagion from teammates and coaches? Hypothesis: Yes,
due to the close proximity in the locker room as well as players relationships with one
another. (b) What affects an athlete’s ability to get into IZOF? Hypothesis: perceptions of
teammates’ anxiety will influence athletes’ level of anxiety. (c) Does team role have an
effect on the amount of anxiety contagion that is perceived. Hypothesis: Players and
coaches roles on the team will be a significant predictor of the amount of anxiety
perceived as contagious to team members. (d) Does self-confidence play a role in the
amount of anxiety contagion perceived? Hypothesis: Self-confidence is a factor for how
much anxiety is perceived by the participant. Specifically the higher the self-confidence,
the lower the players perceived anxiety contagion and vice versa.
5
Chapter 2
Review of Literature
Stress, Arousal, and Anxiety
In this section, the theoretical constructs of stress, anxiety, and arousal are
discussed in depth. Often times the terms stress, anxiety, and arousal are used
interchangeably, when in fact they are distinct.
Stress
High level sports are stressful by nature, and the competitive surroundings they
present place psychological demands on athletes (Jones, 1995). Stress is defined as an
imbalance of physical or psychological demand compared to the ability of the performer
to respond and failure to meet the demand has serious consequences (McGrath, 1970, p.
20). Stress has been conceptualized as a process consisting of four sequential stages
(McGrath, 1970). The first stage, environmental demand, is brought on by external
factors, and occurs when a demand is placed on an individual by his or her surroundings.
This demand can either be physical or psychological in nature and will require a coping
behavior (McGrath, 1970). An example of environmental stress may be an athlete who
has to make a time on a running test or the whole team will be punished. In the next
stage, individual perception, the individual perceives demand placed upon themselves.
Stage two varies from person to person because individuals have different innate levels of
trait anxiety (Spielberger, 1966). Stage three of the stress process examines the stress
response of the individual. These responses include both physical and psychological. If
the demand of the stressor is viewed with fear or as a threat, it may increase the person’s
level of worry and increase his or her state anxiety. However, if the stress is viewed as
6
non-threatening, worry and state anxiety levels will remain constant (McGrath, 1970).
The final stage is behavioral consequence. In relation to the stage three stress responses,
this is how the individual actually behaves under the stress. Stress may increase
performance by increasing effort, or decrease performance by decreasing motor ability
and concentration (McGrath, 1970).
Arousal
Arousal is defined as the level of activation within the individual, and may be
psychological, physical, or both depending on the situation (Gould, Greenleaf, & Krane,
2002). Arousal takes place on a continuum scale that ranges from low levels (i.e., a
sleeping state), to highly aroused levels (i.e., a frenzied state) (Weinberg & Gould, 2007).
Individuals on the high end of the spectrum have increased rates of heart beat,
perspiration, and respiration (Weinberg & Gould, 2007). It is important to note that
arousal levels are not predicted by positive or negative situations. A person in a coma has
low arousal levels, but so does an individual getting a restful night’s sleep. High arousal
is gained when winning a championship with players being excited by the victory, but it
can also be attained when one witnesses a horrific accident due to the horror of the scene
(Gould, Greenfield, & Krane, 2002). Arousal is interpreted differently based on an
individual’s current state (Apter, 1982).
Arousal can be measured in a multitude of ways. These include and are measured
by: heart rate levels (pulse), breathing rates (breathes per minute), and perspiration (skin
conductivity measures on a voltage meter). Arousal can also be seen and measured in a
qualitative manner by examining an individual’s perception of arousal, through interview
7
questions. These methods of measuring arousal are known as self-report scales
(Weinberg & Gould, 2007).
Anxiety
The interpretation of arousal may cause an individual to experience anxiety.
When an individual doubts his or her ability to deal with stressful situations, anxiety is
present (Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996). Weinberg & Gould (2007) state that anxiety “is a
negative emotional state characterized by nervousness, worry, and apprehension,” (p. 78).
However, other research suggests that not all anxiety is interpreted as a negative. In fact,
successful athletes have the ability to view anxiety as being an asset (Humara,
1999).Trait anxiety refers to the individual’s personality; it is described as an individual’s
normal preferences or perceptions overall, trait anxiety is not situation specific. These
traits are predisposed to the person, to perceive non-threatening situations as being a
threat, and then respond to them with unnecessarily high state anxiety levels (Spielberger,
1966, 17). State anxiety is a “right-now” feeling, as it is constantly changing moment to
moment, situation to situation (Weinberg & Gould, 2007). Spielberger (1966) describes it
as an emotional state of anxiety, a moment that brings about thoughts of worry and
activation of the somatic factors associated with worry (Spielberger, 1966, p.17).
Two types of state anxiety symptoms are cognitive and somatic. Cognitive state
anxiety is a temporary worry level affected by thoughts, while somatic state anxiety
levels are how physiological changes are being perceived based on new situations that are
presented to an individual (Weinberg & Gould, 2007). Cognitive anxiety examines the
amount of negative thoughts that one is experiencing, both somatic and cognitive state
anxiety levels will be examined in this study. Researchers have investigated the stress
8
responses of athletes during pre-competition time; it has been observed both cognitive
and somatic anxieties play a role. Research also has shown state anxiety to be the
appropriate measure of pre-competition anxiety, due to its momentary nature (Martens et
al., 1990).
Competitive anxiety is experienced as a result of participation in competition.
Competitive anxiety is influenced by players’ interpretation of their anxiety (Weinberg &
Gould, 2007). Players can view anxiety as a positive contributing factor to their
performance, or anxiety can be viewed as debilitative for performance (Jones, 1995).
Other factors that have shown to influence competitive anxiety include: performance
level (Jones, Hanton, Swain, 1994; Guillen & Sanchez, 2009), level of competitiveness
(Jones & Swain, 1992), gender of the participant (Perry & Williams, 1998), amount of
playing time the player receives (Guillen & Sanchez, 2009), as well as the performance
itself (Jones & Swain, 1992). Guillen & Sanchez (2009) found mental and physical
preparedness to be the largest predictor of competitive anxiety.
The Anxiety- Performance Relationship
Sport psychologists have sought to understand and explain the nature of the
relationship between anxiety, arousal, and performance. The search for an explanation
has led to the development of multiple theories of competitive anxiety and arousal
(Weinberg & Gould, 2007).
The aptly named Drive Theory hypothesized a positive linear correlation between
player’s arousal levels and performance levels. The theory basically states that as players
became more aroused, their performance increases (Spence & Spence, 1966). The theory
was developed by Zanjonc (1965) who demonstrated that a performer’s arousal level
9
rises when an audience is present which corresponds with a subsequent improvement in
performances. Although, the Drive Theory has support for performance that involves
gross motor movements, little correlation has been found with fine motor tasks
(Weinberg & Gould, 2007). The aspects absent in the theory are a major reason why the
Drive Theory has very little support (Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990).
As the flaws with the Drive Theory became more evident, researchers directed
their attention to the Inverted-U Hypothesis, to explain the performance anxiety
relationship (Landers & Arent, 2001). The Inverted-U Hypothesis, earlier termed the
Yerkes-Dodson (1908) Effect, found that the Drive Theory was appropriate up to a
certain point. According to the Inverted-U, arousal and performance are positively
related; however, if a player becomes overly aroused the effect on performance is
negatively linear (Yerkes-Dodson, 1908). This rise and fall in performance level gives the
hypothesis its graphical shape and appropriate name. Easterbrook, (1959) created a
variation of the Inverted-U, the Cue Utilization Hypothesis, in which he suggested that
the reasons for the inverted-u relationship between arousal and performances are related
to the performer’s attention levels at different levels of arousal. Research has been found
to support both of these theories (Arent & Landers, 2003).
Another model related to the Inverted-U, is the Cusp Catastrophe Model (Hardy,
1990, 1996). The Inverted U and Catastrophe models both predict positive correlations
between arousal and performance up to an optimal mid-point, however, after this
midpoint, the two theories differ (Gould & Krane, 1992). Weinberg & Gould (2007)
state that unlike the inverted-U’s steady decline, the Catastrophe Model depicts a sharp
drop after the point of over arousal is reached. The Catastrophe Model states that athletes
10
with high levels of state anxiety will pass the optimal level, and the results will be a
“catastrophic decline in performance” (Hardy & Fazey, 1987, p.9). However, if the
athlete has low levels of worry, the arousal and performance that results will follow more
of an inverted-U pattern (Hardy, 1990). Researchers are not sure if the Inverted-U or
Catastrophe Model are individual specific, or that everyone’s optimal point of
performance always happens at a midway point of arousal (Hardy, 1990; Gould & Udry,
1994).
As Gould and Udry (1994) argued, the Inverted-U and the Catastrophe Model do
not account for individual differences in performers. The Reversal Theory tries to explain
these individual differences and how they occur. Kerr’s (1990) Reversal Theory contains
two major differences from the previous models mentioned. First, the theory posits that
everyone experiences arousal and anxiety, but not everyone interprets them in the same
way (Kerr, 1997). Second, this theory suggests that athletes have the power to quickly
change their views of arousal from positive to negative or vice versa. The theory gives a
quality answer to individual differences, but does not have much research support at the
present time (Weinberg & Gould, 2007).
Performance under pressure deals with in-performance anxiety and performance
effects. Two major theories of choking have been developed and examined; The Explicit
Monitoring Theory and the Distraction Theory. The Explicit Monitoring Theory states
that pressure makes performers pay too much attention to the process of a movement and
it effects the movement outcome. Masters (1992) found that the way the performer
learned the skill had an effect on the autonomy of the movement. Performers who learned
how to putt implicitly, without boundaries or rules, were less likely to experience
11
disruption of the motor movement learned when pressure is applied. While participants
who learned to putt explicitly, with knowledge of the rules, were more likely to lose the
automaticity of the movement when put in a pressure situation. The reasons for pressure
having an effect have tried to be resolved in the Distraction Theory; a distracting
environment that takes the performers attention away from the task at hand can have
negative effects on performance as has been seen in previous research (DeCaro, Thomas,
Albert, & Beilock 2011; Wine, 1971). Beilock & Carr (2001) found that later in learning;
players who are trained in a dual task environment will actually become accustomed and
therefore will not be affected by pressure.
Hanin (1980) developed a theory that accounted for differences in individual’s
optimal performance levels of anxiety. The Individual Zones of Optimal Functioning
(IZOF) was developed by examining ski jumpers, divers, rowers, and gymnasts’ and their
levels of anxiety prior to competitions in which they performed well (Hanin, 1980).
Hanin found that the athletes varied in the reported levels of anxiety prior to good
performances; with some performing best when highly anxious and others best
performances occurring with low levels of competitive anxiety (Hanin, 1980). A
correlation was found between these different optimal levels and the specific task the
athlete had to perform. For example, rowers who were the pace setters performed best
with lower levels of anxiety (Hanin, 1980). An applied IZOF study featuring female
volleyball players found that of the nine participants, two performed optimally while in a
low IZOF level, four found the most playing success at a moderate anxiety level, and
three performed their best with high levels of anxiety during pre-competition (Raglin et
al., 1994).
12
Raglin et al., (1994) examined the level of perceived match difficulty in relation
to players’ optimal zone. Prior to “easy” matches only two of the nine participants were
in their optimal zones, while seven of nine players were in their optimal zones prior to a
“difficult” match (Raglin et al., 1994). The IZOF has been supported in other studies,
including application of the IZOF within athletic consultation (Gould & Tuffey, 1996;
Woodcock, Cumming, & Duda, 2011). The IZOF concept can prove helpful to coaches
as well, possibly assisting player’s into their optimal zones as well as keeping them there
(Weinberg & Gould, 2007; Hanin & Stambulova, 2003; Robazza & Bortoli, 2003).
Raglin et al. (1994), showed that female college volleyball players have an Zone
of Optimal Functioning (IZOF), while athletic success proved not to be significant with
players whom fell within their zone, match difficulty was a factor for the players to enter
their IZOF. Raglin et al. (1994) found that of his nine team members, just two fell within
their IZOF prior to an easy match, while seven were in their IZOF prior to the difficult
match. Raglin et al. (1994) did not account for player experience in his research.
Experience has been found to have the strongest relationship to performer’s anxiety
levels Gould, Petchlikoff, &Weinberg (1984), the older the athlete, the lower the
cognitive anxiety level. Possible attributions for this correlation include previous arousal
exposure and having dealt with the arousal in the past providing confidence. Similar
anxiety observations were made in swimmers and tennis players (Perry & Williams,
1998; Jones, Hanton, & Swain, 1994).
Anxiety and Self-Confidence
Jones & Swain, (1995) noticed that athletes’ self-confidence levels relate to their
emotions. That is, the higher the confidence, the greater the activation of positive
13
emotions. Jones & Swain, (1995) also examined confidence levels directly relating to
anxiety. Athletes who had higher levels of confidence, tended to see anxiety as more
positive than a negative (Wiggens & Brustad, 1996). Thus, research should take an
account of individual’s self-confidence levels, since it correlates directly with
competitive anxiety.
Athletes in individual sports tend to have lower reported levels of self-confidence
and more anxiety than athletes in team sports. Kirby & Liu (1999) found this same trend
while comparing team and individual sport athletes. Higher anxiety has also been seen in
figure skaters during pre-competition, Hardy, Mullen, & Martin (1997), attributed this to
the lack of other individuals to take responsibility for failures.
Emotional Contagion
“Emotional contagion is the phenomenon whereby an emotion initiated by an
individual extends to others” (Larousse, 2006, p. 256). Emotional contagion refers to a
person’s tendency to “catch” the emotions of surrounding persons (Hatfield, Cacioppo, &
Rapson, 1994). Two identified parts within emotional contagion have been examined.
“Emotional comparison,” which involves the brain doing purposeful mimicry, and
“primitive emotional contagion,” which is automatic nonverbal mimicry along with
feedback (Hatfield et al., 1994). Emotional contagion may be sparked by verbal tones or
selected words, body language, or facial patterns (Dinberg, Thunberg, & Elmhead, 2000).
Contagion has been explained by four different processes: “conscious cognitive process,
conditioned responses, unconditioned responses, and mimicry and feedback” (Hatfield et
al., 1994). Like many other contagion researchers, Barsade (2002) utilized college
students and a confederate in an attempt to spread contagion. His study revealed that
14
participants who interacted with the positive confederate had signs of an increase in their
own positive moods over time, and subjects who interacted with a negative confederate,
showed signs of a more negative mood.
Results from a study with college students showed that emotional contagion was
evident no matter the person’s relationship (Kimura & Yogo, 2008). In order to find
which relationship of college students yielded the greatest emotional contagion, Kimura
(2008) compared friends, junior (younger students), senior (an older student), and
acquaintances. Friends showed the highest scores of emotional contagion, allowing the
authors to state that relationship factors had an influence on emotional contagion.
Gonzales, Castillo, and Swinkles (2002) research revealed that of the twelve
interpersonal relationships that participants were questioned on, close friends carried the
most perceived contagion, with parents, and dating partners coming next. In sports, team
leader emotions are especially contagious, it is important for captains and coaches to
watch their emotions to help reach desired outcomes (Volmer, 2012). However, Volmer
(2002) only examined emotions in two groups, positive and negative, the study does not
cover specific emotions (i.e. happy, sad, or anxious).
Previous research on emotional contagion examined happy and sad emotion
transfers (Kimura et al., 2008; Elfenbein et al., 2007; Barsade, 2002). However, the
Gonzales, Castillo, and Swinkles (2002) study asked participants to rank what they
perceived as the twenty most contagious emotions. The top five most perceived
contagious emotions were happiness, excitement, sadness, anger, and fear. Both
happiness and sadness were viewed by the subjects as highly contagious (Gonzales et al.,
2002). Gonzales, Castillo, and Swinkles (2002) had participants label what emotions
15
were in their top ten that they considered most contagious, 46% of participants had
anxiety in their top ten. Overall, it came in as the ninth most perceived contagious
emotion as determined by participants. Takahashi et al. (2005) investigated whether
anxiety had contagious qualities towards people around the anxious individual. The
research showed significant positive correlations while comparing anxiety and autonomic
reactivity, suggesting the possibility of anxiety from one individual spreading to others.
Measuring Emotional Contagion
Team emotion recognition accuracy (TERA), is the ability of teammates to
recognize the emotions of one another (Elfenbein, Polzer, & Ambady, 2007). Elfenbein
et al., (2007) observed TERA to have positive correlation with team members on both
positive and negative emotions. This was examined using the qualitative method of
personal interviews. The Emotional Contagion Scale ECS: (Doherty, 1997) is a measure
of emotional contagion, and examines contagion susceptibility of four emotions,
happiness, sadness, anger, and love, while anxiety is absent from the assessment.
Emotional contagion studies conducted outside of the sports setting commonly utilize the
use of confederates and the ECS (Barsade, 2002). Research examining contagion within
sports has taken on a qualitative perspective on the research (Elfenbein et at., 2007).
Elfenbein et al. (2007) found that TERAs four negative emotions were able to predict
poorer performances, and a similar pattern within positive emotions and quality outcomes
within the workplace.
Summary
Whereas anxiety refers to stress is an imbalance of perceived demand and
perceived ability, and arousal is the activation response of the body and how the
16
individual perceives it. The IZOF anxiety model describes that individual players have
optimal levels of state anxiety in which their best performances occur. Other factors have
been shown to have an effect on anxiety levels, including an individual’s self-confidence.
Emotional contagion is the transfer of mood states from one individual to another and has
been seen within sports, social groups, and the workplace.
Previous research on competitive anxiety has revealed that anxiety has an effect
on players’ performances. A variety of emotions may be contagious among people with a
variety of interpersonal relationships. The present study in order to determine if
competitive anxiety contagion exists, to what extent does pre-game interactions allow it
to happen, and if it influences players’ arousal level. The knowledge brought about by
this study may reveal the need to develop techniques to contain pre-game competitive
anxiety.
17
Chapter 3
Method
Participants
Participants consisted of 11 (Mage = 20 years) male I volleyball players on a
Division I National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) volleyball team. . The
sample included five starters and six non-starters, with an average playing experience of
2.6 collegiate seasons. Coaches (n=2) average age 30.5 years old and average college
coaching experience 6.5 collegiate seasons, were recruited from the CSUN team.
Participants were on the active roster for the university. Players and coaches were
recruited at a team meeting, where the study and protocols were presented.
Measures
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)(Spielberger, 1983)
Spielberger’s (1983) State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (Appendix D) is a
globally utilized tool for the assessment of anxiety and will be used to measure precompetition individual’s cognitive and somatic anxiety. Concurrent validity of the STAI
Anxiety Scale and the Anxiety Scale Questionnaire (ASQ) along with the Manifest
Anxiety Scales (MAS) have positive correlations of .73 with the ASQ and .85 with the
MAS (Spielberger, Reheiser, Ritterband, Sydeman, & Unger, 1995).
IZOF studies have utilized the STAI successfully, by finding athletes IZOF based
on STAI scores (Hanin, 1986). The STAI has been utilized in many IZOF studies because
of a correlation found between the IZOF and scores on “best performance” STAI (Raglin
et al., 1994). The STAI consists of 40 items, however since this study examined only
18
state anxiety, only these 20 questions from the STAI were examined on the test that
viewed player’s cognitive and somatic state anxiety levels. Intensity levels for each
question (e.g., “My heart is racing,” “I feel nervous”) measured on a scale from ‘1’ (not
at all) to ‘4’ (‘very much so’). STAI scores range from 20-80, higher scores indicate
higher anxiety (Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970). Test retest reliability
coefficients ranged from .65 to .75 during a two month interval (Spielberger et al, 1983).
Spielberger (1989) found sizeable evidence indicating the construct and concurrent
validity of the STAI scale.
State Sport Confidence Inventory (SSCI)(Vealey, 1986)
Vealey’s (1986) State Sport Confidence Inventory (SSCI) (Appendix E) is a sport
specific measure of athlete’s self-confidence. The SSCI consists of 13 items that are
scored on a nine point Likert scale. Questions compare players to “the most confident
athlete they know.” For example “Compare the confidence you feel right now in your
ability to execute the skills necessary to be successful to the most confident athlete you
know.” The SSCI has been validated along with the Competitive Orientation Inventory
(COI), results showed the SSCI demonstrated consistency at .95; re-test reliability,
concurrent and content validity has been established for young adult athletes (Vealey,
1986; Martin & Gill, 1991).
Interview Guide
Interview Guide (Appendices B and C) - Questions were directed at measuring
the athletes self-perceived causal anxiety attributions (e.g., internal, external, contagion,
situation, and opponent). The researcher responsible for giving the interviews had
19
knowledge in proper interviewing techniques. After training, mock interviews were
conducted to pilot test the questions and interviewers technique, searching for bias or
leading questions, none were found. All interviews were finished within one hour from
the end of the match. Data provided by participants in Open-Ended Interviews are rich
and full with qualitative data (Turner, 2010). Questions examined anxiety attributions
during pre-competition of that day’s match. The researcher asked participants to rank
how much each of several different factors (i.e. crowd, rejection, fear of failure, fear of
injury, letting your teammate down, letting your coach down, teammates anxiety level,
coaches anxiety level, and the perceived level of the opponent) affects their personal
anxiety levels. Questions were answered on a Likert Scale from one to ten, with one
meaning ‘not at all’ and ten meaning ‘very much so.’
Procedures
Approval from the International Review Board (IRB) was obtained before the
study began. In compliance with IRB requirements, participants were informed of the
nature of the study. Potential participants were recruited during a team meeting on the
California State University, Northridge campus. Due to the nature of this study some
deception was implemented in order to answer the research question. Players and coaches
were not informed that the study was examining anxiety contagion until after data
collection. After an explanation of the study along with the test procedures, players who
agreed to participate were asked to sign informed consent forms (Appendix A) (15
minutes). After predetermined practices the researcher administered the STAI.
Participants completed all STAI testing and interview sessions in the men’s volleyball
team room, within Redwood Hall on the California State University, Northridge campus.
20
The STAI was delivered at the same time intervals Martens, Burton, Vealey,
Bump, & Smith (1990) found appropriate for the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2
(CSAI-2) (Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990). Post competition assessments of precompetition state anxiety have found low similarities with responses, more so if the
player’s performance levels are higher, the recall ability is lower (Annesi, 1997). Other
research has found that a five day recall of both the STAI (r=0.93) and CSAI-2 (r=0.94)
were significantly correlated to actual pre-competition levels of anxiety (Wilson, et al,
2000).
The first STAI, examining players’ optimal anxiety, was given five days prior to
one of the team’s matches (10 minutes). This initial STAI was filled out in regards to
how the player felt prior to their best competition, giving the researcher the players IZOF
range, their best game score plus and minus four anxiety units (Hanin, 1986). A second
STAI test was given two days prior to competition (10 minutes). The second STAI was
given for the researchers to find a baseline score prior to their actual pre-competition.
Players answered questions in regards to the match in two days. A pre-competition STAI
was given just one hour prior to the same competition (10 minutes) along with Vealey’s
(1986) State Sport Confidence Inventory questionnaire (SSCI) (10 minutes). The last
STAI was given to obtain players feelings just prior to the match. After the match had
taken place post-competition interviews were administered using a causal anxiety
attributions interview questions within one hour of the end of the competition (5
minutes).
Interviews were audio recorded, and done so in entirety immediately following
the competition. Researchers used direct dictation to transcribe their data (Thomas,
21
Hayton, & Maynard, 2007). The ethnographic nature of these interviews yielded quality
data to help answer our research questions, ergo simple note taking would not yield the
sufficient data needed for qualitative research (Bailey, 2008). Deception was utilized;
players and coaches were not informed that the study was specifically examining anxiety
contagion to help avoid leading players in their answers. This is another reason why
ethnographic interviews were deemed appropriate, due to the need for the interviewee to
respect and trust the interviewer. Due to the deception once all the data was collected and
analyzed a debriefing form was sent to all participants (Appendix F).
Data Analysis
In order to answer the questions of whether anxiety contagion existed in a
pre-game setting, and what factors effect athlete’s ability to enter their IZOF, qualitative
analysis was performed using inductive content analysis modeled after research by
Scanlan, Ravizza, and Stein (1989). Questions included: “can you identify when a
teammate is nervous?” “If you can identify a teammate’s anxiety level, do you do
anything about it?” “Does their anxiety level have an effect on your anxiety level?” These
questions searched at finding if anxiety contagion existed in pre-competition settings.
Players were questioned about each of the following factors (crowd, rejection, fear of
failure, fear of injury, letting your teammate down, letting your coach down, teammates
anxiety level, coaches anxiety level, and the perceived level of the opponent) to uncover
which factors contributed the most to the athletes anxiety level. Interview responses were
transcribed and analyzed by author for validation. After transcription, the analysis
searched for raw themes in the interview responses to gain understanding on what
participants said. First, themes were identified from raw data in regards to each interview
22
question. Next the quotes were coded and sorted into one of the appropriate determined
data themes utilizing like-terms coding. Finally, personal participant checks were used
for validation; the researcher had follow up sessions with certain participants to ensure
what he interpreted the player’s words to mean, were indeed what the athlete intended.
Quantitative analysis used descriptive statistics, to determine which players fell
outside of their IZOF when comparing their best performance score with the pre-game
STAI score. Since this study examined state anxiety, only these 20 questions from the
STAI were examined. Each player and coach IZOF was calculated utilizing this score by
adding and subtracting four anxiety units to find the zone (Hanin, 1980; Raglin et al.,
1994). Players were asked if they felt that their arousal was in their IZOF prior to the
match.
To better understand if the individual’s role on the team had an effect on the
amount of anxiety contagion that was perceived descriptive statistics and an independent
samples t-test were used comparing player role (starter or non-starter) with amount of
anxiety contagion reported along with examining specific open ended questions in which
players were asked to explain why they gave the anxiety factor the score they did.
To understand if self-confidence played a role on the amount of anxiety contagion
that was perceived, players’ ratings of anxiety contagion for both coaches and teammates,
were analyzed with their scores on the SSCI using multiple regression calculations. SSCI
scores were the independent variable while contagion factor scores were the dependent
variable. To find if player self-confidence was a predictor of either coach or teammate
contagion or both that were perceived from participant.
23
Chapter 4
Results
This study was guided by four questions: (a) Do athletes perceive an anxiety
contagion from teammates and coaches? (b) What affects an athlete’s ability to get into
IZOF? (c) Does team role have an effect on the amount of anxiety contagion that is
perceived? (d) Does self-confidence play a role on the amount of anxiety contagion
perceived?
The first research question examined whether anxiety contagion is present in a
pre-competition setting. Post-match interview questions revealed that ten out of the 12
participants were able to identify when they have an anxious teammate. One player could
identify an anxious teammate some of the time, and another player said they couldn’t
identify if they had a teammate that was nervous. The data revealed that one player or
9.11% of the participants were never able to identify a teammate’s anxiety. Out of the ten
who indicated that they can always identify if a teammate is nervous, all ten responded
that they try to do something about it (try to calm down or excite the teammate they’ve
identified). Eight players (72.7%) felt that their teammate’s anxiety had an effect on
themselves and their anxiety level, two said maybe, and two said it has no effect on them.
The second research question focused on the factors that had the greatest effect on
the athletes’ ability to get into or stay within their IZOF. Player IZOF was determined by
adding and subtracting four anxiety units from their “best performance” STAI (Hanin,
1986, Raglin et al., 1994), for example, if athlete “X” scored a 34 on their “STAI,” their
IZOF would be in the 30-38 range. When compared with the STAI participants took two
days prior to the competition, scores revealed that six of the players were not in their
24
IZOF, with two being over aroused and the other four being under aroused as seen in
table 2b. These six had a mean score of 3.42 for teammates anxiety contagion and 5.0 for
coach anxiety contagion. When the IZOF was compared with the pre-game STAI, five
players were found outside their IZOF, with all five under aroused. These five had a
mean score of 3.7 for teammate anxiety contagion and 4.0 for coach anxiety contagion.
The interviews revealed similar numbers, when asked if they were in their optimal zone
prior to the match selected six players stated that they were lower than their IZOF as seen
in table 1. Coaches had similar results, with both coaches scoring lower than their IZOF
during the pre-game STAI. One coach was in his IZOF during the two day test with the
other below his IZOF. The interview questions revealed that out of the ten possible
causes of anxiety the participants were questioned about teammate’s anxiety (M = 3.95,
SD = 1.68) came in as the sixth most influential factor, while coaches’ anxiety was the
number one perceived cause anxiety for our participants (M = 4.91, SD = 2.23). Table 2a
has the ten factors in order from highest perceived effect to lowest.
The third research question concerned the relationship between team role and the
amount of anxiety contagion perceived. Utilizing like terms coding, the researcher
matched responses that were similar in context, from the coach anxiety and player
anxiety factor questions (Creswell, 2007). Questions examined if a player or coaches role
on the team affected the amount of anxiety contagion that was perceived by participants.
Within the two questions that specifically examined the aspect of anxiety contagion, a
trend was found with the players who felt that teammates and or coaches anxiety was a
factor on their own anxiety. Some players felt that if the other person had a large team
25
role in terms of stature (coach, captain, starter, etc.) that they were more likely to catch
their anxiety.
TEAM ROLE AND TEAMMATE ANXIETY CONTAGION
(31% of participant’s responses identified team role as a factor)
“It’s up there, if it’s a senior or a captain for sure.”
“If it’s someone I look up to it (their anxiety) has an effect.”
“If it’s someone in the starting line up or a captain.”
TEAM ROLE AND COACH ANXIETY CONTAGION
(31% of participant’s responses identified coach role as a factor)
“It’s a hierarchy effect; coaches are on a different level.”
“Why are they nervous? They need to be leading us”
This question was also addressed using an independent samples t-test that
compared a player’s role on the team (i.e., starter versus non-starter), on the amount of
anxiety contagion that they perceive from other players and coaches, numbers derived
from questions seven and eight in the post-match interview. As seen in Table 3, starters
answering the player contagion question revealed relatively low perceived contagion
effect from teammates anxiety (M = 3.3, SD = 2.28), while bench players perceived a
stronger effect from teammates nerves on their own (M = 4.5, SD = .8). Starters
answering the coach contagion question revealed relatively low perceived effect (M =
3.8, SD = 2.77), while non-starters again perceived a stronger effect (M = 5.83, SD =
1.47). However, player anxiety contagion was not significant in relation to player role (p
> .05) (F = 16.93, p = .003, t = 1.21) explaining that player role starter or non-starter did
not play a factor in the amount of anxiety contagion the player perceived from
teammates. Player’s role was not significant when concerned with coach anxiety
26
contagion that was perceived (p > .05) (F = 2.80, df = 10, p = .13, t= 1.56) explaining
that coach anxiety contagion was perceived similarly regardless of player role, starter
versus non-starter.
The last question examined the relationship between confidence and anxiety
contagion. The SSCI scores for all of the participants were relatively high (M = 94.54, SD
= 5.12). On a scale from one to ten, player contagion scores (M = 3.95, SD = 1.68), were
nearly a full point less than coach contagion (M = 4.91, SD = 2.32). Exposing coach
anxiety contagion, as having a greater effect on participant’s own anxiety levels
compared with player anxiety contagion. Two multiple regressions with SSCI scores
(self-confidence) as the predictor and player anxiety contagion scores with coach anxiety
contagion scores as the dependent variables was conducted to test whether selfconfidence levels predicted anxiety contagion. As shown in Table 4, the results of the
SSCI and player contagion regression did not predict athlete contagion (df, = 10, R2
change = .224, p = .14). Similarly, the SSCI scores did not predict coach contagion (df,
= 10, R2 change = .05, P=.51).
27
Chapter 5
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore the interpersonal effects of volleyball
player’s pre-competition state anxiety on their teammates’ anxiety using the STAI, SSCI,
and interview sessions. The researcher set out to answer the following questions: (a) Do
athletes perceive an anxiety contagion from teammates and coaches? (b) What effects an
athletes’ ability to get into their IZOF? (c) Does team role have an effect on the amount
of anxiety contagion that is perceived? (d) Does self-confidence play a role in the amount
of anxiety contagion perceived?
The first research question addressed was: Do athletes perceive an anxiety
contagion from teammates and coaches? The researcher hypothesized that anxiety
contagion did exist during pre-game interactions, due to players’ relationships and
proximity to one another in the locker room. In our sample of 11 collegiate volleyball
players and two coaches, existence of anxiety contagion was observed, with the majority
n=11 (84.6%) of the participants saying they could identify a teammate’s anxiety. Of
those who could identify a teammate’s anxiety, eight (66.67%) said it had an effect on
their own anxiety levels. This result is consistent with Gonzales et al.’s, (2002) study,
which found anxiety to be the ninth most contagious emotion. Contrary to previous
research that suggests emotional contagion takes place at an unconscious level (Dimberg,
Thunberg, & Elmehed, 2002), many of our participants felt that they could identify it.
Of the seven participants who found themselves outside of their IZOF during pregame testing, all seven were below their optimal zone, meaning majority of the team was
under aroused. Of the six players who were inside their IZOF at pre-game, four had the
28
lowest identified IZOF zones on the team. Perhaps the teams overall low arousal levels
had a contagion effect on these players which kept them in their ideal zone. Or the
opposite may be the explanation players with the lower IZOF had a contagion effect on
their teammates, lowering the team’s pre-game arousal levels. Another explanation could
be that since the both coaches and four of the five starters tested scored lower than their
IZOF on the pre-game STAI, this allowed the low IZOF players to get in their zone,
while lowering the rest of the team’s arousal. These results stay consistent with our
interview results, which found role on team has an impact on the amount of anxiety
contagion that is perceived to take place.
The second research question explored what factors most affected an athlete’s
ability to get into their IZOF on game day. The researcher hypothesized that teammate’s
anxiety levels would play a significant role in athlete’s pre-game anxiety relative to their
IZOF. Out of the ten causes of anxiety that explored, teammate’s anxiety came in as the
sixth largest factor among all participants, M= 3.9, compared with the mean score for
players outside of their IZOF perceived teammate contagion was similar M= 3.7.
Coaches’ anxiety resulted as the number one cause of anxiety for our participants M=4.9
and came in higher for players outside of their IZOF optimal to two day scores M=5.
Table 2b shows players who fell outside of their IZOF and the wide variety of things that
these players attributed this to. For example participant three gave coach and teammate
anxiety contagion a score of one, stating either has little or no effect, but they assigned a
score of seven to match importance. While participant nine who fell outside of his IZOF
on both the two day and pre-game test, gave coach anxiety contagion an eight and was
his highest anxiety causing factor. It is important to understand that although coach and
29
teammate anxiety contagion were not always the number anxiety causing factor, they
were only assigned a score of one from one participant. Both factors are being perceived
by players and coaches as anxiety causing and in some cases, enough to take players out
of their IZOFs. If coaches and players are unable to regulate their anxiety, it may have
detrimental effects on the anxiety level of their players and teammates. Player anxiety
can have a direct effect on player performance if they are outside of their IZOF (Hanin,
1980). As a result, it is reasonable to state that coach anxiety level can have an indirect
effect on the performance of their players outside of skills and tactics.
The third research question concerned the relationship between role on the team
and the amount of anxiety contagion that was perceived by others on the team. It was
predicted that the anxiety of higher profile team members and coaches would be more
contagious than the anxiety of others on the team. The results from the interview were
consistent with the researcher’s hypothesis. Players and coaches whom were considered
to have crucial team roles (i.e. captain, head coach, senior, starter), were perceived to be
more contagious with their anxiety. This is consistent with the previous research done by
Volmer (2002), who found that in sports, team leader positive and negative emotions are
especially contagious; it is important for captains and coaches to watch their emotions to
help reach desired outcomes. These results could be derived from the expectations of
people in these roles from their teammates and players. If team leaders are perceived as
being nervous or apathetic it can cause worry or lethargy in others.
There were no differences in the amount of player anxiety contagion perceived
from starters versus non-starters, with non- starters perceiving significantly more anxiety
contagion from teammates. This could be attributed to players’ locus of control, players
30
feel that they have more control of the game outcome. There was also no significance,
however, between player role and the amount of coach anxiety contagion that was
perceived. Thus coaches’ anxiety did not have a significantly different effect on their
players based on player role. This may be caused by the fact that coaches have a direct
effect on all of their players and player successes- whether they play in the match or not.
The final research question, showed no relationship between participants’ level of
self-confidence as measured by the SSCI, and the amount of player and coach anxiety
contagion that they perceived. Research has revealed a positive correlation between
higher levels of self-confidence and a greater activation of positive emotions (Jones &
Swain, 1995). However, previous research has not addressed whether self-confidence
levels predict emotional contagion. The results of this study suggest that anxiety
contagion, and perhaps emotional contagion, affect everyone regardless of their
confidence levels. Jones and Swain, (1995) observed self-confidence directly relating to
anxiety, and other emotions experienced. However, this research did not take into
account the effect that self-confidence had on emotional contagion.
Limitations
Despite adding to professionals; knowledge of anxiety contagion in team sports,
the limitations of this study should be noted. The study focused on identifying how
contagious anxiety was for players, however, there is no current scale for measuring
anxiety contagion. Doherty’s (1997) Emotional Contagion Scale does measure emotional
contagion, but is limited to five basic emotions: sadness, fear, anger, happiness, and love.
Players were asked questions about events that had taken place two to three hours earlier,
player recall and retention is a possible limitation in any of the research questions.
31
Another limitation of this study is the relatively small sample size. With the focus of the
research being centered on just one competition, player STAI, SSCI scores, along with
their interview answers may have been skewed based on the opponent.
Future Research
Future research is needed to determine the extent to which pregame anxiety level
carries over to the beginning of the actual game. A study like this would need approval to
test the athletes during the competition, however testing player’s anxiety within a game
setting would be difficult to gain review board approval for ethical purposes. This study
identified some factors that played a role on player and coaches’ anxiety levels; however,
the responses were given in terms of the factors raising their anxiety levels. It would be
beneficial for future research to identify factors that are able to lower anxiety (e.g.,
others’ ability to control their anxiety). Given the small sample size, replication of this
study with a larger sample would be beneficial; this could be implemented utilizing all
the teams at a university regardless of gender or team sport. Also, development of an
emotional contagion scale which accounts for anxiety would allow researchers to utilize
more of a quantitative approach when measuring anxiety contagion.
Practical Implication
The existence of anxiety contagion in a pre-match setting has implications for
coaches and players. If players can “catch” the anxiety of a teammate and different
players have different optimal levels of anxiety, their IZOF, it behooves coaches to
arrange player’s lockers in the locker room according to those whom have similar IZOFs.
The players themselves may benefit from being made aware that their anxiety is visible to
32
their teammates. If players had this knowledge, perhaps it would be easier for them to
regulate how they are displaying themselves to their teammates during a pregame setting.
Conclusion
The results revealing that a coaches’ anxiety had the highest impact on player
anxiety levels have large ramifications for coaches and leaders, inside and outside of a
sports setting. Coaches need to be more self-aware of their own anxiety level, rather than
just taking a pulse of the team’s anxiety. Knowing that their own anxiety can sway
player’s anxiety levels means the coach needs to find ways to help regulate his or her
own anxiety. Coaches may also be able to use this knowledge to get players into his or
her IZOF, by identifying if the player is too low or too high on the IZOF and interacting
with them in the opposite manner. For example, if a player operates best with a medium
IZOF and they appear to be at high level of arousal, the coach could utilize an interaction
in which they are addressing the player in a very calm manner. Finally, the research
suggests coaches need to be aware of their anxiety and arousal levels even when they are
in the presence of a player that has high levels of self-confidence.
33
References
Adler, P. A., Adler, P. (1987). Membership roles in field research. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781412984973
Anghel, A. (2010). Emotional contagion in a cohesive rugby team. Sport Science
Review, 21(3-4), 165-178. doi: 10.2478/v10237-011-0024-9
Annesi, J. J. (1997). Three-dimensional state anxiety recall: Implications for individual
zone of optimal functioning research and application. The Sport Psychologist,
11(1), 42-53.
Apitzsch, E. (2009). A case study of a collapsing handball team. Dynamics within and
outside the lab, 35-52. doi:10.1080/1612197x.2013.804287
Apter, M.J. (1982), The experience of motivation: The theory of psychological reversal.
London and New York: Academic Press.
Arent, S. M. & Landers, D.M. (2003). Arousal, anxiety, and performance: A
reexamination of the inverted-U hypothesis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sports, 74(4) , 436-444.
Auerbach, C. F. & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding
and analysis. New York: New York University Press.
Bailey, J., (2008). First steps in qualitative data analysis: Transcribing. Family
Practice ; 25: 127–131.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group
behavior. Administration Science Quarterly, 47, 644-675.
doi:10.2139/ssrn.250894
Beilock, S. L. & Carr, T. H. (2005). When high powered people fail. Psychological
Science, 16(2), doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00789.x
Blasquez, J., Font, G., & Ortis, L. (2009). Heart-rate variability and precompetitive
anxiety in swimmers, Psicothema, 21(4), 531-536.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
Culver, D. M., Gilbert, W. D., & Sparkes, A. (2012). Qualitative research in sport
psychology journals: The next decade and beyond. The Sport Psychologist, 26,
261-281. doi: 10.1080/026404101317015438
Currell, S.C., Hammer, T.H., Baggett, L.S., & Doniger, G.M. (1999). Combining
qualitative and quantitative methodologies to study group processes: an
illustrative study of a corporate board of directors. Organizational Research
Methods, 2, 5-36. doi: 10.1177/109442819921002
34
Decaro, M. S. & Albert, N. B. (2011). Choking under pressure: Multiple routes to skill
failure. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 140(3), 390-406. doi:
10.1037/a0023466
Doherty, R. W. (1997). The emotional contagion scale: A measure of individual
differences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21, 131-154. doi:
10.4135/9781412958479.n160
Dimberg, U., Thunberg, M., & Elmhead, K. (2000). Unconscious facial reactions to
emotional facial expressions. Psychological Science, 11, 86-89. doi:
10.1111/1467-9280.00221
Dunbar, C., Rodriguez, D., Parker, L., (2001). Race, Subjectivity, and the Interview
Process. (pp. 279-298). doi:10.4135/9781412984492.n7
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). "The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization
of behavior". Psychological Review 66(3): 183–201. doi: 10.1037/h0047707
Elfenbein, H. A., Polzer, J. T., & Ambady, N. (2007) Team emotion recognition accuracy
and team performance. 3(87-119). doi: 10.1016/s1746-9791(07)03004-0
Emerson, R.M., Fretz, R.I., & Shaw, L.L. (1995). Writing ethnographic eldnotes.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.4324/9780203320068_chapter_8
Esfahani, N. & Soflu, H.G.(2010). The comparison of pre-competition anxiety and state
anger between female and male volleyball players. World Journal of Sport
Sciences, 3(4):2237 242. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.462
Forsyth, D. (1999). Group dynamics (3rd ed.). New York: Brooks/Cole-Wadsworth. doi:
10.4135/9781412958479.n248
Flick, Uwe (1998). An Introduction to Qualitative Research London: Sage. doi:
10.1080/14780880701473623
Gonzales, J., Castillo, M., & Swinkels, A. (2002). Perceptions of contagious emotions
and contagious people. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 7(4), 185191.
Gould, D. & Tuffey, S., (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis players: II.
Qualitative content analysis and case studies. The sport psychologist , 11, 257276. doi: 10.1249/00005768-199405001-00935
Gould, D., Greenleaf, C., & Krane, V. (2002). The arousal athletic performance
relationship: Current status and future directions. In T. Horn, Advances in sport
psychology (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL; Human Kinetics.
Gould, D., & Krane, V. (1992). Advances in sport psychology. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics Publishers.
35
Gould, D., Petlichkoff, L. & Weinberg, R.S. (1984). Antecedents of, temporal changes in,
and relationships between CSAI-2 subcomponents. Journal of Sport Psychology,
6, 289-304.
Gould, D. & Udry, E. (1994). Psychological skills for enhancing performance: Arousal
regulation strategies. Medicine and Science in sports and Exercise, 26(4), 478485. doi: 10.1249/00005768-199404000-00013
Gould, D. & Tuffey, S. L. (1996). Zones of optimal functioning research: A review and
critique. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 9, 53-68. doi: 10.1080/10615809608249392
Greene, S. (2005). Researching children’s experience: Conceptual and methodological
issues. In S. Greene & D. Hogan (Eds.),Researching children’s experience (pp. 1–
21). London: SAGE Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781849209823.n1
Guillen, F., & Rosaura, S. (2009). Competitive anxiety in expert female athletes: Sources
and intensity of anxiety in natinoal team and first division Spanish basketball
players. Peceptual and Motor Skills , (109), 407-419. doi:
10.2466/pms.109.2.407-419
Hackfort, D. & Spielberger, C. D. (1989). Anxiety in sports. New York: Hemisphere. doi:
10.1002/smi.2460050413
Hanin, Y. L. (1980). A study of anxiety in sports. In W.F. Straub (Ed.), Sport psychology:
An analysis of athlete behavior (pp. 236-249). Ithaca, NY: Movement.
Hanin, Y. L. (1986). State-trait anxiety research on sports in the USSR. In C. D.
Spielberger, & R. Diaz-Guerrero (Eds.), Cross cultural anxiety, Vol. 3 (pp. 45–
64). Washington: Hemisphere
Hanin, Y.L. & Stambulova, N. (2003). Metaphoric description of performance states. The
Sport Psychologist, 16(4), 396-415. doi: 10.1080/10413200490498366
Hardy, Y. L. (2008). The development and maintenance of mental toughness:
Perceptions of elite performers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26, 83–95.
Hardy, L. (1990). A Catastrophe Model of Performance in Sport. In J. G. Jones & L.
Hardy (Eds.), Stress and Performance in Sport (pp. 81-106). Chichester, England:
Wiley. doi:10.1080/02640410701310958
Hardy, L. & Fazey, J. (1987, June).The inverted-U hypothesis: A catastrophe for sport
psychology? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the North American
Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity,Vancouver.
Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for
sport: Theory and practice for elite performers. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/choice.35-0972
36
Hardy, L., Mullen, R., & Martin, N. (1997). Effect of task relevant cues and state anxiety
on motor performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, (92), 943-936.
doi:10.2466/pms.2001.92.3.943
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. SUNY
Press.
Hatfield, F., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L., (1994). Emotional contagion. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Humara, M. (1999). The relationship between anxiety and performance: A cognitivebehavioral perspective. Athletic Insight, 1(2), NP.
Jones, G. (1995). More than just a game: research developments and issues in
competitive anxiety in sport. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 449–478.
Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Swain, A. B. J. (1994). Intensity and interpretation of anxiety
symptoms in elite and nonelite 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. The Sport Psychologist, 9,
202–212. doi: 10.1080/17461390500238499
Kerr, J. H. (1990). Motivation and emotion in sport: Reversal theory. Hove, England:
Psychology Press.
Kimura, M., Yogo, M., I. (2008). The expressivity halo effects in the conversations about
emotional episodes: A measurement by the between participants psuedosychrony
experimental paradigm. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 115-126.
doi:10.1007/s10919-006-0011-5
Kirby, R. J., & Liu, J. (1999) Precompetition anxiety in chinese athletes. Perceptual and
Motor Skills. 88, 297-303. doi: 10.2466/pms.1999.88.1.297
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. CA:
Sage.
Landers, D. M., & Arent, S. S. (2001), Physical activity and mental health. Handbook of
sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 740-765). New York: Wiley. doi:
10.1002/9781118270011.ch21
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. doi: 10.1080/026404199365812
37
Larousse. (2006). Marele Dictinar al psihologiei. Grand dictionary of psychology.
Bucuresti: Trei.
Martens, R., Burton, D. & Vealey, R.S (Eds.). (1990). Competitive anxiety in sport
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Martin, J. J. & Gill, D. L. (1991). The relationships among competitive orientation, sportconfidence, self-efficacy, anxiety, and performance. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 13(2), 149-159. Available at:
http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/coe_khs/1
Masters, R. S. W. (1992). Knowledge, nerves, and know how: The role of explicit versus
implicit knowledge in the breakdown of a complex motor skill under pressure.
British Journal of Psychology, 83,343-358. doi: 10.1111/j.20448295.1992.tb02446.x
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand
Oaks, Calif: SAGE.
McGrath, J. E. (1970) . Major methodological issue. In J.E. McGrath, Social and
psychological factors in stress (pp.19-49). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Merton, R. K. & Kendall, P. L. (1946). The focused interview. American Journal of
Sociology, 51, 541-557. doi: 10.1086/219886
Meuser, M. & Nagel, U. (1991). Expert Inneninterviews – vielfach erprobt, wenig
bedacht. Ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion. In Detlef Garz &
Klaus Kraimer (Hrsg.), Qualitative empirische Sozialforschung: Konzepte,
Methoden, Analysen (S.441-471) Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Morris, L. W., Davis, M. A., & Hutchings, C. J. (1981). Cognitive and emotional
components of anxiety: Literature review and a revised worry-emotionality scale.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 541-555. doi: 10.1037/00220663.73.4.541
Ortiz, S. (2010), Competing with her mother-in-law: The intersection of control
management and emotion management in sport families, in Norman K. Denzin
(ed.) 35 (Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 35,
pp.319-344. doi: 10.1108/s0163-2396(2010)0000035021
Patton MQ. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications; 2002.
Perry, J. D., & 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.
Raedeke, T., Thomas D., Lunney, K., Venables, K., Understanding athlete burnout:
Coach perspectives. Journal of Sport Behavior, 01627341, June 2002, 25, Issue 2
38
Raglin, J. S., & Morris, M. J. (1994). Precompetition anxiety in women volleyball
players: a test of zof theory in a team sport. Britain Journal of Sports
Medicine, 28(1), 47-51. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.28.1.47
Raglin, J. (1992). Overtraining and staleness: Psychometric monitoring of endurance
athletes. In R. Singer, M. Murphey and K. Tennant, Handbook of sport
psychology (pp. 840-850). New York: Macmillan. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.21.3.107
Robazza, C. & Boroli, L. (2003). Intensity, idiosyncratic content and functional impact of
performance-related emotions in athletes. Journal of Sport Sciences, 21, 171-189.
doi: 10.1080/0264041031000071065
Saldana, J. 2008. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: SAGE.
Scanlan, T.K. (1986). Competitive stress in children. In M.AR. Weiss and D. Gould,
Sport for children and youths (pp. 113-118). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
doi: 10.1080/07303084.1982.10629343
Scanlan, T. K., Stein, G. L., & Ravizza, K. (1989). An in-depth study of former elite
figure skaters: II. Sources of enjoyment. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
11, 65-83.
Scheele and Groeben (1988) Dialog-Konsens-Methoden zur Rekonstruktion Subjektiver
Theorien. Tübingen: Francke.
Seward, J. (1956). Drive, incentive, and reinforcement. Psychological Review, 63, (19)
doi: 10.1037/h0048229
Spence, J. T., & Spence, K. W. (1966). The motivational components of manifest
anxiety: Drive and drive stimuli. In C.D. Spielberger, Anxiety and behavior. New
York: Academic Press. Spielberger, C.D. (1966) Theory and research on anxiety.
doi: 10.1037/h0044881
Spielberger (Ed.), (1966) Anxiety and behavior. New York: Academic Press, Naditch,
mp, Gargan, M. A,, & Michael, L, B, Denial, Anxiety
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologist Press. doi: 10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0943
Gorsuch, R. L. & Spielberger, C. D. (1965). Predictive and concurrent validity of the
altus information inventory with high school students. Psychological Reports,
16(2), 633-636. doi:10.2466/pr0.1965.16.2.633
Spielberger, C. D., & Reheiser, E. C. (2005). Occupational stress and health. Edward
Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781845423308.00038
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
doi: 10.2307/2392270
39
Stage, F. K. & Manning, K. (1992). Enhancing the Multicultural Campus Environment:
A Cultural Brokering Approach. New Directions for Student Affairs, 60. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Takahashi T, Ikeda K, Ishikawa M, Kitamura N, Tsukasaki T, Nakama D, & Kameda T.
(2005). Interpersonal trust and social stress-induced cortisol elevation.
Neuroreport. 8;16(2):197-199. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200502080-00027
Tenenbaum, G., Edmonds, W., & Eccles, D. (2008). Emotions, coping strategies, and
performance: A conceptual framework for defining affect-related performance
zones. Military Psychology, S12-S37. doi: 10.1080/08995600701804772
Thomas, O., Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (2002). An alternative approach to short-form selfreport assessment of competitive anxiety. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, (33), 325-336. doi: 10.1080/026404101300149348
Thuot, S., Kavouras, S. & Kenefick, R. (1998). Effect of perceived ability, game location,
and state anxiety on basketball performance. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21, 311321.
Turner, D. W., III (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice
investigators. The Qualitative Report,15 (3), 754-760. Retrieved from
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-3/qid.pdf
Vealey, R. (1986). Conceptualization of sport-confidence and competitive orientation:
Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Sport
Psychology,8, 221-246. doi: 10.1002/9781444303650.ch5
Volmer, J. (2012). Catching leaders' mood: Contagion effects in teams. Administrative
Sciences, (2), 203-220. doi: 10.3390/admsci2030203
Weinberg, R., & Genuchi, M. (1980). Relationship between competitive trait anxiety,
state anxiety, and golf performance: A field study. Journal of Sports
Psychology, 2(2), 148.
Weinber & Gould, R. (2007). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology. (4 ed., Vol.
1, pp. 79-99). Champaign, IL : Human Kinetics. doi: 10.1037/14251-003
Weinberg, R.S., & Hunt, V.V. (1976). The interrelationships between anxiety, motor
performance, and electromyography. Journal of Motor Behavior, 8(3), 219-224.
doi: 10.1080/00222895.1976.10735075
Wiggins, M.S. (1998). Anxiety intensity and direction: performance temporal patterns
and expectations in athletes. Journal of Applied Sports Psychology, 10, 201-211.
doi: 10.1080/10413209808406388
Wiggins, M., & Brustad, R. (1996). Perception of anxiety and expectations of
performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83. doi: 10.2466/pms.1996.83.3.1071
40
Wilson, G. S., Raglin, J. S. & Harger, G. J. (2000). A comparison of the STAI and CSAI2 in five day recalls of precompetition anxiety in collegiate track and field
athletes. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 10, 51 – 54.
doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0838.2000.010001051.x
Wine, J. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 76,
92-104. doi: 10.1037/h0031332
Witzel, A., (1982). Verfahren der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Überblick und
Alternativen Qualitative social research methods. Survey and alternatives.
Frankfurt/M.: Campus. doi: 10.1007/978-3-663-12336-1_4
Woodcock, C., Cumming, J., Duda, J., & Sharp, L. (2011). Working within an individual
zone of optimal functioning (izof) framework: Consultant practice and athlete
reflections on refining emotion regulation skills, Sport and Exercise Science,
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. doi:
10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.11.011
Woodman, R., & Hardy, L. (2003). A case study of organization stress in elite sport
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 207-236. doi:
10.1080/104132001753149892
Yerkes RM, Dodson JD (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit
formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology 18: 459–482. doi:
10.1002/cne.920180503
Zajonc, R.B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, (269-274). doi:
10.1126/science.149.3681.269
41
Appendix A: Tables
Table 1
Means and Scores for Player’s STAI
#
S/NS
Experience
"Best
Game"
IZOF
PreGame
2 days
Optimal-2
day
OptimalPregame
1
S
4
22
18-26
23
23
-1
-1
2
NS
1
29
25-33
32
33
-4
-3
3
S
1
41
37-45
34
36
5
7
4
NS
2
40
36-44
40
68
-28
0
5
NS
3
30
26-34
26
28
2
4
6
S
5
39
35-43
33
35
4
6
7
NS
2
45
41-49
41
54
-9
4
8
S
5
47
43-51
30
39
8
17
9
S
2
44
40-48
38
38
6
6
10
NS
2
44
40-48
23
36
8
21
11
NS
2
33
29-37
35
35
-2
-2
Best
Game M
37.64
IZOF M
35.6-39.6
PreGame M
32.27
2 day
M
38.64
Opt-2day M
-1.18
Opt-Pregame
M
5
Note. S (Starters), NS (Non-starters)
Table 2a
Means and Standard Deviations for Possible Anxiety Causing Factors (n=11)
Rank
1
2
3
3
Factor
Coaches Anxiety
Letting Coaches Down
Match Importance
Letting Teammates
Down
Fear Failure
Teammates Anxiety
Level of Opponent
The Crowd
Letting Parents Down
Fear of Injury
Mean
4.9
4.8
4.7
S.D.
2.2
1.9
1.8
4.7
2.7
2.4
4.4
1.6
3.9
1.5
3.9
0.9
3.3
1.8
2.4
0.7
1.5
Possible anxiety causing factors were rated on a scale 1 (not at all) to 10 (very much so).
5
6
7
8
9
10
42
Table 2b
Player STAI scores and Anxiety Factor Interview numbers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
IZOF
1826
2533
3745
3644
2634
3543
4149
4351
4048
4048
2937
Opt2
day
Opt.Pre
Crowd
Let
team
down
Let
parent
down
Let
coach
down
Fear
Fail
Inj
*Teammate
anxiety
*Coach
Anxiety
Match
Importance
Opponent
-1
-1
4.5
2
2
6
1
3
2
5
3
5
-4
-3
4.5
7
7
3
8
1
5
3
2
5
5
7
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
-28
0
2.5
6.5
1
7
7
1
4
6
3
4.5
2
4
4
10
1
5
7
1
4
6
5
3
4
6
3
4.5
3
7
5
1
6
3
6
4
-9
4
3
3
1
5
6
2
4
7
3
4
8
17
1
6.5
5
5
4
1
2
2
5
5
6
6
4
6.5
2
2
2
1
5.5
8
7
3.5
8
21
3
4.5
2
7
5
1
4
6
7.5
6
-2
-2
3
1
2
5
2
3
6
7
4
1
STAI score range is 20-80, lower scores reflect lower state anxiety, scores with higher
values reflect higher state anxiety.
STAI Optimal is the players optimal state anxiety level for ideal performance.
IZOF is player Individualized Zone of Optimal Functioning, plus and minus 4 points
from Optimal STAI to get the range.
Opt-2 day and Opt.- Pre are the difference in STAI scores from the different time they
were taken.
The 10 anxiety causing factors from the crowd through perceived level of opponent, were
ranked by the players by how much each effected their anxiety levels on a scale from 1
no effect to 10 greatly has an effect.
43
Table 3
Team Role and Anxiety Contagion Perceived Mean and Standard Deviation
PAC
CAC
Starters
M
SD
3.3
2.28
3.8
2.77
Non-Starters
M
SD
4.5
0.87
5.8
1.47
Note. PAC (Player anxiety contagion), CAC (Coach anxiety contagion)
Table 4
Regression Analysis for Self-Confidence Predicting Player Anxiety Contagion (n= 11)
Variable
PAC
B
1.444
β
SE B
1.119
0.473
*p > .05
Regression Analysis for Self-Confidence Predicting Coach Anxiety Contagion (n=11)
Variable
CAC
B
0.079
SE B
0.817
β
-0.035
Note. PAC (Player anxiety contagion), CAC (Coach anxiety contagion)
*p > .05
44
Appendix B: Statement of Informed Consent for Research Participants
California State University, Northridge
CONSENT TO ACT AS A HUMAN RESEARCH PARTICIPANT
Pre-Game Anxiety Contagion in Male Volleyball Players
You are being asked to participate in a research study. Participation in this study is completely
voluntary. Please read the information below and ask questions about anything that you do not
understand before deciding if you want to participate. A researcher listed below will be available
to answer your questions.
RESEARCH TEAM*
Researcher:
Jeff Baxter
Kinesiology
(805)428-8000
[email protected]
Faculty Advisor:
Nick Galli, Ph.D.
Kinesiology, 8287
(818) 677-5968
[email protected]
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this research study is to explore the pre-competition state anxiety levels of players
and coaches compared to their given optimal levels of anxiety and find out the reasons for any
possible change.
SUBJECTS
Inclusion Requirements Players
You are eligible to participate in this study if you are:
Inclusion criteria:
- A player on the active roster for the CSUN men’s volleyball team.
- Between the ages of 18-23 years old.
- Not utilizing a red shirt year.
- Cleared to play by the a certified athletic trainer.
Inclusion Requirements Coaches
You are eligible to participate in this study if you are:
Inclusion criteria:
-Coach participants must be on team’s bench during competitions.
-No age restrictions on coach participants.
Time Commitment
This study will involve approximately 50 minutes of your time.
45
PROCEDURES
The following procedures will occur for both player and coach participants: First, you will be
asked to read and sign this form (5 minutes). Second, you will be asked to fill out a questionnaire
(10 minutes). Third, will be asked to fill out the same questionnaire again at a later date (10
minutes). Fourth, you will be asked to fill out the same questionnaire a third time, as well as an
additional questionnaire prior to a match (15 minutes). Finally, following the same match, you
will be asked a few interview questions, coaches interview questions are a slight variation from
players questions but will take the same amount of time to complete. (5 minutes).
RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
For both players and coaches: The possible risks and/or discomforts associated with the
procedures described in this study are minimal if any. Questionnaire involves answer questions of
one’s self awareness of confidence and anxiety. Time constraint may be a discomfort as well as
boredom being a possible discomfort.
This study involves no more than minimal risk. There are no known harms or discomforts
associated with this study beyond those encountered in normal daily life. To minimize risk and
discomfort, both player and coach participants can refuse to answer any question on any
questionnaire or during the interview that makes them uncomfortable. Also participants can
choose to stop their participation at any time.
BENEFITS
Subject Benefits
Both players and coaches will not directly benefit from participation in this study.
Benefits to Others or Society
The hope of this study is to help better understand athletes and coaches’ anxiety levels in team
sports pre-game, how they change and what they are effected by.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
The only alternative to participation in this study is not to participate.
COMPENSATION, COSTS AND REIMBURSEMENT
Compensation for Participation
You will not be paid for your participation in this research study.
WITHDRAWAL OR TERMINATION FROM THE STUDY AND CONSEQUENCES
You are free to withdraw from this study at any time. If you decide to withdraw from this study
you should notify the research team immediately. The research team may also end your
participation in this study if you do not follow instructions, miss scheduled visits, or if your safety
and welfare are at risk. The withdrawal of your participation from the study will have no impact
on your participation as a member of the Men’s Volleyball team at CSUN.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Subject Identifiable Data
All identifiable information that will be collected about you will be removed and replaced with a
code. A list linking the code and your identifiable information will be kept separate from the
research data.
46
Data Storage
All research data will be stored on a laptop computer that [is password protected or has
encryption software.]
The [audio recordings] will also be stored in a password protected laptop then transcribed and
erased as soon as possible.
Data Access
The researcher(s) and faculty advisor named on the first page of this form will have access to
your study records. Any information derived from this research project that personally identifies
you will not be voluntarily released or disclosed without your separate consent, except as
specifically required by law. Publications and/or presentations that result from this study will not
include identifiable information about you.
Data Retention
The researchers intend to keep the research data for approximately 3 years and then it will be
destroyed.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS
If you have any comments, concerns, or questions regarding the conduct of this research please
contact the research team listed on the first page of this form.
If you have concerns or complaints about the research study, research team, or questions about
your rights as a research participant, please contact Research and Sponsored Projects, 18111
Nordhoff Street, California State University, Northridge, Northridge, CA 91330-8232, or phone
818-677-2901.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION STATEMENT
You should not sign this form unless you have read it and been given a copy of it to keep.
Participation in this study is voluntary. You may refuse to answer any question or discontinue
your involvement at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you might otherwise be
entitled. Your decision will not affect your relationship with California State University,
Northridge. Your signature below indicates that you have read the information in this consent
form and have had a chance to ask any questions that you have about the study.
I agree to participate in the study.
___________________________________________________ __________________
Participant Signature
Date
___________________________________________________
Printed Name of Participant
___________________________________________________ __________________
Researcher Signature
Date
___________________________________________________
Printed Name of Researcher
47
Appendix C: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI Y-1) (Speilberger, 1980)
48
Appendix D: State Sport-Confidence Inventory SSCI (Vealey, 1986)
State Sport-Confidence Inventory (Vealey, 1986)
Think about how confident you feel right now about performing successfully in the upcoming
competition.
Answer the questions below based on how confident you feel right now about competing in
the upcoming contest. Compare your self-confidence to the most confident athlete you
know.Please answer as you really feel, not how you would like to feel. Your answers will be
kept completely confidential. How confident are you right now about competing in the
upcoming contest? (Circle number)
1. Compare the confidence you feel right now in your ability to execute the skills
necessary to be successful to the most confident athlete you know.
Low
1
2
Medium
3
4
5
6
High
7
8
9
2. Compare the confidence you feel right now in your ability to make critical decision
during competition to the most confident athlete you know.
Low
1
2
Medium
3
4
5
6
High
7
8
9
3. Compare the confidence you feel right now in your ability to perform under pressure
to the most confident athlete you know.
Low
1
2
Medium
3
4
5
6
High
7
8
9
4. Compare the confidence you feel right now in your ability to execute successful
strategy to the most confident athlete you know.
Low
1
2
Medium
3
4
5
6
High
7
8
9
5. Compare the confidence you feel right now in your ability to concentrate well enough
to be successful to the most confident athlete you know.
Low
1
2
Medium
3
4
5
6
High
7
8
9
6. Compare the confidence you feel right now in your ability to adapt to different game
situations and still be successful to the most confident athlete you know.
49
Low
1
2
Medium
3
4
5
6
High
7
8
9
7. Compare the confidence you feel right now in your ability to achieve your competitive
goals to the most confident athlete you know.
Low
1
2
Medium
3
4
5
6
High
7
8
9
8. Compare the confidence you feel right now in your ability to be successful to the most
confident athlete you know.
Low
1
2
Medium
3
4
5
6
High
7
8
9
9. Compare the confidence you feel right now in your ability to consistently be successful
to the most confident athlete you know.
Low
1
2
Medium
3
4
5
6
High
7
8
9
10. Compare the confidence you feel right now in your ability to think and respond
successfully during competition to the most confident athlete you know.
Low
1
2
Medium
3
4
5
6
High
7
8
9
11. Compare the confidence you feel right now in your ability to meet the challenge of
competition to the most confident athlete you know.
Low
1
2
Medium
3
4
5
6
High
7
8
9
12. Compare the confidence you feel right now in your ability to perform consistently
enough to be successful to the most confident athlete you know.
Low
1
2
Medium
3
4
5
6
High
7
8
9
13. Compare the confidence you feel right now in your ability to bounce back from
performing poorly and be successful to the most confident athlete you know.
Low
1
2
Medium
3
4
5
50
6
High
7
8
9
Appendix E: Interview Guide (Players)
Causal Anxiety Attributions Interview Questions
Personal Standardized Open-Ended Interview
1. What was the attitude like inside the locker room during pre-game?
2. Where do you think that you fall on the IZOF chart prior to your best competitions?
3. Where do you believe that you landed on the IZOF chart prior to tonight’s competition?
4. What are some of the reasons why you were/were not in your optimal zone for the match?
5. Can you list some factors that change your IZOF levels during pre-game (2 hours before the match)?
What influences your anxiety level throughout the process of practices and pre-game?
6. Why do you think that anxiety and nerves are a factor for you?
Why do you think that anxiety and nerves are not a big factor for you?
7. Can you tell when a teammate of yours is nervous? If so what do you do, if anything?
8. Also why do you think they are nervous?
9. Does their high anxiety level affect their performance?
10. I am going to list ten possible sources that cause athletes anxiety. You tell me one a scale of 1 to 10,
how much each one affects your level of anxiety and explain why you gave it the rating you did. (1 little or
not at all and 10 causes you a lot of anxiety).
1. Performance anxiety- How nervous are you performing in front of a crowd?
2. Fear of rejection- Letting your teammates down.
3. Letting your parents down
4. Letting your coach down
5. Fear of failure- Afraid that you might not accomplish your teams goal and may lose
the game.
6. Fear of Injury- Afraid that you may get hurt in the match you are about to participate
in.
7. Others around you- you sense teammates or a teammate as nervous and it affects
your anxiety level.
8. You sense your coach or coaches are nervous and it affects your anxiety level.
9. The importance of the match.
10. The perceived level of the opponent.
51
Appendix F: Interview Guide (Coaches)
Causal Anxiety Attributions Interview Questions (COACH VERSION)
Personal Standardized Open-Ended Interview
1. What was the attitude like inside the locker room during pre-game?
2. Where do you think that you fall on the IZOF chart prior to your best competitions as a coach?
3. Where do you believe that you landed on the IZOF chart prior to tonight’s competition?
4. What are some of the reasons why you were/were not in your optimal zone for the match?
5. Can you list some factors that change your IZOF levels during pre-game (2 hours before the
match)? What influences your anxiety level throughout the process of practices and pre-game?
6. Why do you think that anxiety and nerves are a factor for you?
Why do you think that anxiety and nerves are not a big factor for you?
7. Can you tell when a player of yours is nervous? If so what do you do, if anything?
8. Also why do you think they are nervous?
9. Does their high anxiety level affect their performance?
10. I am going to list ten possible sources that cause athletes anxiety. You tell me one a scale of 1 to
10, how much each one affects your level of anxiety and explain why you gave it the rating you did.
(1 little or not at all and 10 causes you a lot of anxiety).
1. Performance anxiety- How nervous are you coaching in front of a crowd?
2. Fear of rejection- Letting your athletics department down.
3. Letting your AD’s down
4. Letting your players down
5. Fear of failure- Afraid that you might not accomplish your teams goal and may
lose the game.
6. Others around you- you sense your players or a player are nervous and it affects
your anxiety level.
7. You sense your team or players are nervous and it affects your anxiety level.
8. The importance of the match.
9. The perceived level of the opponent.
52
Appendix G: Debriefing Form
Participant Debriefing Form
Due to the nature of this study some deception was implemented in order to answer the
research question. The actual research question asked if anxiety contagion was present
within a volleyball team prior to a competition.
Emotional contagion is defined as “the phenomenon whereby an emotion initiated by an
individual extends to other individuals who are in his or her proximity as a certain time”
(Larousse), 2006, p. 256). Studies on emotional contagion have been done, none within
the realm of team sport athletics using a measure of anxiety. Research on contagion has
found positive links between co-workers emotions (Barsade, 2002). Further research
done by Gonzalez, Castillo, & Swinkles (2002) found that of the 25 emotions tested,
anxiety was perceived to be the ninth most contagious. This study explored whether
anxiety contagion is a factor within members of your volleyball team.
Research has revealed that athletes have a zone of optimal state anxiety levels, where
their best performances occur. Female college volleyball players had specific levels of
optimal functionality levels, as they were categorized into groups of low, medium, and
high anxiety levels (Raglin, 1994). Studies have also shown that emotions of coworkers,
family, and friends can be contagious to those around them. Volmer (2012) found a large
contagion effect between team leaders and their subordinates. “Leaders influence team
members; individual mood, group tone, and teams performance.” Emotional contagion
occurs with the transfer of a certain emotional state from one person to another (Dimberg,
Thunberg, & Elmehed, 2002)
This study hypothesized and examined anxiety levels as being contagious between
teammates and coaches during pre-game interactions.
Thank you for your participation in the research project! All of the information you
provided has added to the richness of the study. As mentioned in your “Consent to
Participate” sheets all of the information you provided will remain anonymous.
Jeffrey Baxter
California State University, Northridge
Kinesiology Graduate Program
53