ABSTRACT
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MENTAL SKILLS AND COMPETITIVE ANXIETY
INTERPRETATION IN OPEN SKILL AND CLOSE SKILL ATHLETES
By Sharyn J. Aufenanger
Researchers have garnered interest in the directional component of anxiety in addition to
the intensity level, where athletes may view anxiety symptoms as facilitative or debilitative
towards performance. Further, athletes in different types of sport may utilize specific mental
skills in order to assist in their interpretation of anxiety symptoms. The purpose of this study was
to examine the relationship between mental skills and interpretation of anxiety in athletes
participating in open versus close skill sport. Eighty-eight open skill athletes and 40 close skill
athletes completed the modified CSAI-2 and OMSAT-3. The results indicated that open and
close skill athletes differed in intensity, but not interpretation, of somatic anxiety and selfconfidence. Several mental skills were predictive of athletes' interpretation of anxiety and selfconfidence as facilitative to their performance. Also, open and close skill athletes differed in how
their mental skills related to intensity of anxiety and self-confidence.
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MENTAL SKILLS AND COMPETITIVE
ANXIETY INTERPRETATION IN OPEN SKILL AND CLOSE SKILL
ATHLETES
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of
Miami University
in Partial Fulfillment of
the requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
Department of Physical Education, Health, and Sport Studies
by
Sharyn J. Aufenanger
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio
2005
________________________
Robin S. Vealey (Director)
________________________
Robert Weinberg (Member)
________________________
Melissa Chase (Member)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................v
DEDICATION................................................................................................................... vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 2: Review of Literature.....................................................................................6
Competitive Anxiety in Sport: Theory and Measurement………………………...6
Theories and Models regarding the Arousal (Anxiety)/ Performance
Relationship .............................................................................................................7
Directional Anxiety................................................................................................11
Directional Anxiety Research in Sport ..................................................................12
Directional Anxiety Intervention Research ...........................................................21
Relationship between Psychological Skill Usage and Directional Anxiety ..........23
Influence of Types of Sport on Interpretation of Anxiety .....................................25
Purpose of and Rationale for Study .......................................................................26
CHAPTER 3: Methods ......................................................................................................29
Participants.............................................................................................................29
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................29
Modified Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2...................................29
Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment Tool-3 ...............................................30
Procedure ...............................................................................................................32
Data Analysis .........................................................................................................33
CHAPTER 4: Results ........................................................................................................34
Preliminary Analyses ............................................................................................34
Differences in Competitive Anxiety and Mental Skills for Open and Close
Skill Athletes..........................................................................................................34
Relationships Between Mental Skills and Anxiety/Self-Confidence Direction ....35
Foundation mental skills and anxiety/self-confidence direction .............35
Cognitive mental skills and anxiety/self-confidence direction ...............36
Psychosomatic mental skills and anxiety/self-confidence direction .......36
Relationships Between Mental Skills and Anxiety/Self-Confidence Intensity .....37
Foundation mental skills and anxiety/self-confidence intensity .............37
Cognitive mental skills and anxiety/self-confidence intensity................38
ii
Psychosomatic mental skills and anxiety/self-confidence intensity........39
CHAPTER 5: Discussion...................................................................................................40
Differences Between Open and Close Skill Athletes ............................................40
Relationships Between Mental Skills and Anxiety/Self-Confidence
Interpretation..........................................................................................................41
Relationships Between Mental Skills and Anxiety/Self-Confidence Intensity .....43
Foundation mental skills and anxiety/self-confidence intensity…………43
Cognitive mental skills and anxiety/self-confidence intensity…………..44
Psychosomatic mental skills and anxiety/self-confidence intensity……..45
Limitations .............................................................................................................45
Implications for Practice ........................................................................................46
Future Directions ...................................................................................................48
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................48
APPENDIXES
A. Modified Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 ............................................68
B. Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment Tool-3 .........................................................70
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.
Participant Demographics……………………………………………………..... 55
2.
Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables…………………………………....….56
3.
Correlations between OMSAT-3 Subscales……………………………………..58
4.
Correlations between CSAI-2 Subscales ..............................................................61
5.
Canonical Loadings for Relationships Between Mental Skills and
Anxiety/Self-Confidence Direction ......................................................................62
6.
Canonical Loadings for Relationships Between Foundation Mental Skills
and Intensity of Anxiety/Self-Confidence for Open and Close Skill Athletes .....63
7.
Canonical Loadings for Relationships Between Cognitive Mental Skills
and Intensity of Anxiety/Self-Confidence for Open and Close Skill Athletes .....64
8.
Canonical Loadings for Relationships Between Psychosomatic Mental Skills
and Intensity of Anxiety/Self-Confidence for Open and Close Skill Athletes .....65
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
Figure 1. Jones’ control model of facilitative and debilitative competitive state
anxiety.
60
Figure 2. Mental skills assessed by the OMSAT-3.
61
v
DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Joseph and Barbara Aufenanger, who have
encouraged and supported my academic endeavors since my primary school years.
Without their continuous generosity and unconditional love, I would not have continued
my educational undertakings to achieve my ultimate dreams. Your love and support will
remain with me always.
In addition, my family and friends continue to amaze me and remain my utmost priority.
They have been my support system and I can never thank them for their constant
encouragement. I would not be where I am and who I am without all your strength and
comfort through hard times, and laughter and love through the good times. I am lucky to
have memories with all of you. Thank you for being part of my life. Further, my two
best friends- Jeanne and Jermaine- are my rock and have helped me to keep my sanity
when times were hard. Your joys in my success and encouragement when I was down
have been vital boosts when I needed them.
Special thanks to Todd and Jeanne who have attended all of my graduation ceremonies- I
truly appreciate your presence and best wishes at such important events in my life.
Finally, this thesis is also dedicated to the memory of my loving grandmother, Irma M.
Schnurr, who was so proud of all my accomplishments. She displayed love for everyone
who entered her world and showed me that unconditional love is vital for all.
“There are those who open their hearts to others… who never think twice about giving of
themselves. They are the wonderful warm-hearted people who make all the difference in
our lives.”
Continuous thanks to those individuals!
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First, I would like to thank God, who had provided support and displayed
confidence in my abilities when I was doubtful of what I was capable of achieving.
Thank you for providing me with serenity in who I am and who I will become, and thank
you for all the blessings and experiences you have given me.
I would also like to thank Dr. Vealey, who has provided me with tons of
knowledge and support throughout my time at Miami. I appreciate all the effort that you
have put into this thesis and my growth as an individual.
Thank you to Dr. Weinberg and Dr. Ingham for providing me your extensive
knowledge through your teachings and advice during class and throughout this process.
Special thanks to Dr. Chase for providing prompt and invaluable assistance in this
process.
Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Mary Chmielewski, who guided me through the
statistical analyses and gave me important advice for my graduate programs. Without
you, I would have never finished this thesis and would not likely be in my final graduate
program. Thanks for your great sense of humor and complete support throughout this
process, as well as your guidance at OPM. You have been an invaluable resource to me.
vii
Chapter 1
Introduction
Sport competition is well known for placing extremely high demands on athletes.
Frequently, outcomes for these contests are decided by minute differences in preparation
and skill between the competitors. Sport competition has become so important in today’s
society that extremely lofty expectations by others are placed on competing athletes
regardless of competitors’ abilities, reasons for participation, and skill levels. These
types of conditions place high stress loads on the individuals who are competing. The
stress presented in competition usually elicits competitive anxiety in athletes, providing
an additional element for them to manage. When anxiety is not managed or interpreted
correctly, athletes lose control and performance levels decrease (Hardy & Fazey, 1987;
Martens, Burton, & Vealey, 1990). Therefore, both researchers and practitioners in sport
psychology are interested in furthering knowledge about competitive anxiety and its
influence on athletes.
Competitive anxiety is been one of the most thoroughly examined topics in sport
psychology literature. This is mainly due to the perceived detrimental effects anxiety has
on performance, creating the negative view most individuals hold of this concept.
Anxiety is defined as feelings of nervousness and tension resulting from environmental
demands that are associated with arousal. These demands are usually stressful, indicating
to the athletes a perception of imbalance between the demand given and their abilities to
fulfill the demand (Gould, Greenleaf, & Krane, 2002).
The first theories or models that emerged to explain anxiety and its effect on
performance – drive theory, inverted-U hypothesis, and zone of optimal functioning –
were all unidimensional in nature. That is, anxiety was conceptualized as a single, or
unidimensional construct. Soon, the introduction of multidimensional theories
(Borkovec, 1976; Davidson & Schwartz, 1976; Liebert & Morris, 1967) changed the way
anxiety was viewed, establishing two separate responses of anxiety that occur within
athletes. Competitive anxiety is a construct where the symptoms of anxiety are separated
into cognitive (worry) and somatic (physiological tension) components. Cognitive
1
anxiety is characterized as apprehension about performance, lack of concentration, and
distraction during competition. On the other hand, somatic anxiety is viewed as
perceptions of abnormal body symptoms such as butterflies, sweating, shakiness, and
increased heart rate (Martens et al., 1990). The Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2
(CSAI-2) was developed to assess the separate components of somatic anxiety and
cognitive anxiety, and served to advance research examining the multidimensionality of
competitive state anxiety (Martens et al., 1990). In addition, the CSAI-2 assesses selfconfidence as a third psychological construct. Moreover, Smith, Smoll, and Schultz
(1990) developed the Sport Anxiety Scale, which assesses multidimensional competitive
trait anxiety, including worry, disrupted concentration, and somatic anxiety.
In recent years, competitive anxiety research has begun to examine the directional
component of anxiety. Instead of focusing exclusively on the intensity of the existing
anxiety, researchers are now concerned with directionality, or how athletes interpret their
perceived symptoms of anxiety. This new approach contradicts previous notions of
viewing anxiety as a negative construct and thus debilitative for athletes’ performance
(Martens et al., 1990). To measure this directional component of anxiety, Jones and
Swain (1992) introduced a modified version of the CSAI-2. This modification
incorporated a directional response scale along with the original scale for intensity of
anxiety. Generally, research has indicated the way athletes interpret their anxiety before
a competition (either facilitative or debilitative) can affect performance. Specifically,
athletes who interpret their anxiety symptoms as facilitative are likely to perform better
then athletes who interpret anxiety symptoms to be debilitative. Furthermore, elite
athletes are more likely to view their anxiety as facilitative, as compared to non-elite
athletes who are likely to view their anxiety as debilitative (Jones, Hanton, & Swain,
1994; Jones & Swain, 1995; Perry & Williams, 1998).
A few years later, Jones (1995) introduced a control model of facilitative and
debilitative competitive anxiety (see Figure 1). This model targeted athletes’ personal
control of specific goals in relation to the athlete’s interpretation of anxiety. Thus,
athletes who feel as if they are in control of their coping abilities and their goal
attainment expectations are likely to interpret anxiety as facilitative. On the other hand,
2
those athletes who do not feel in control of their ability to cope or their goal attainment
expectations are more likely to interpret anxiety as debilitative.
As time progressed and researchers were able to relate interpretation of anxiety
with performance, an interest developed to explain why this relationship existed. Hanton
and Connaughton (2002) extensively interviewed elite and subelite athletes, finding that
perceived control was an important factor that contributed to directional interpretation of
competitive anxiety. Generally, symptoms perceived to be under control of the athlete
were viewed to be facilitative towards performance and symptoms perceived to be
outside the control of the athlete were deemed to be debilitative. Athletes’ interpretation
determined whether self-confidence levels were raised or lowered, and in turn,
performance was increased or decreased. Athletes used different strategies depending on
skill level and type (cognitive or somatic) of anxiety symptom presented.
Because the interpretation of anxiety symptoms influences performance and elite
status in sport, it seems important to identify the specific psychological skills that may
help athletes to interpret their anxiety as normal and facilitative. Although it is wellestablished in the sport psychology literature that mental skill training interventions are
effective in enhancing performance and decreasing anxiety (Greenspan & Feltz, 1989;
Vealey, 1994; Weinberg & Comar, 1994), only one study has been conducted that
examines the effects of mental training on athletes’ interpretation of anxiety (Hanton &
Jones, 1999b).
Hanton and Jones (1999a, b) began addressing the lack of research by engaging in
two successive studies to (a) determine the psychological skills that help interpret anxiety
in a facilitative manner, and then (b) apply these results to a mental skills intervention
designed to help athletes interpret their anxiety as more facilitative. In the first study,
Hanton and Jones (1999a) interviewed elite athletes who were identified as being highly
skilled at interpreting their anxiety facilitative. The purpose of the interviews was to
identify the mental skills and strategies these athletes used to help reframe their anxiety
symptoms in a productive manner. In the second study, Hanton and Jones (1999b)
applied the information gleaned from the first study to create an intervention program for
athletes who experienced debilitative anxiety symptoms. The researchers used a
3
combination of skills including perceptions of control, goal setting, self-talk, imagery,
and rationalizing thoughts and feeling to create a psychological skills training program.
The researchers implemented the intervention by first educating the subjects on
techniques for goal setting and imagery, and then asking the subjects to develop a
precompetition routine using these psychological skills. The results of the study
indicated the intervention was effective in changing athletes’ interpretations of anxiety
from debilitative to facilitative, as well as increasing athletes’ levels of self-confidence
and enhancing performance.
Later, Fletcher and Hanton (2001) conducted a study to examine the relationship
between athletes’ psychological skills usage and interpretation of anxiety. In the
previous study, Hanton and Jones (1999a) had noted that athletes who interpreted anxiety
as facilitative were more likely to use psychological skills to enable them to interpret
anxiety in this positive manner. Fletcher and Hanton (2001) were interested in
determining what psychological skills were being used to perceive symptoms as
facilitative. Additionally, the researchers wanted to determine if there was a relationship
between varying levels of psychological skill usage and the intensity and direction of
competitive anxiety symptoms. Fletcher and Hanton (2001) found partial support for the
relationship between interpretation of precompetitive anxiety and psychological skills
usage. Self-confidence, imagery, and self-talk were shown to facilitate positive
interpretations of anxiety, while goal setting did not prove to be a significant factor in
influencing competitive anxiety interpretation.
Based on a review of the literature in the area of competitive anxiety
interpretation, two expansions to the research line are warranted. First, it seems
important to uncover the psychological skills that are most relevant for facilitative
anxiety interpretation. Previous research (Fletcher & Hanton, 2001; Hale & Whitehouse,
1998; Hanton & Jones 1999a, b; Maynard, Hemmings, & Warwick-Evans, 1995) has
shown that the use of mental skill techniques enhances athletes’ interpretation of
competitive anxiety symptoms. However, additional research is needed to better
understand strategies that enable athletes to reframe their anxiety as productive and
necessary. Fletcher and Hanton (2001) examined the frequency of use of psychological
4
skill strategies in relation to competitive anxiety interpretation. Nevertheless, additional
research is needed to examine the quality of athletes’ mental skills or the athletes’ ability
to use mental skills to interpret anxiety as facilitative. It seems important to distinguish
between the degree of mental skills, not just how often mental skill techniques are used.
Second, there is also a need to examine the relationship between mental skills and
anxiety interpretation in varying types of sports. The large majority of research that has
been conducted examining the anxiety interpretation has used close skill athletes as
research participants (Fletcher & Hanton, 2001; Jerome & Williams, 2000; Jones &
Hanton, 1996; Jones & Swain, 1995; Jones, Swain, & Hardy, 1993; Jones et al., 1994;
Hanton & Jones, 1999; Perry & Williams, 1998). We cannot assume all sport
environments are similar. Open skill sports are sports with a constantly changing
environment which involve several athletes competing with and against one another,
while close skill sports involve athletes competing against one or more individuals in an
environment that is relatively unchanging and constant in competition (Fischman &
Oxendine, 1998). Further, many studies have limited their research to a few
psychological skills that are deemed necessary for positive interpretations of anxiety. Yet
other researchers have noted additional mental skills or strategies which may also be
considered important when interpreting anxiety as facilitative. Jones’ model of control
(1995) suggested that athletes’ perceived control over the ability to cope with anxiety was
important, where control was conceptualized as the control the athlete exhibits over both
the environment and the self. When the stressor differs (e.g., type of sport), perceptions
of control are likely to vary. It seems likely that athletes in close skill sports perceive
more control in their environment than open skill athletes, due to the specific nature of
environmental stimuli in each type of sport. Thus, perceptions of control may then
influence interpretations of anxiety symptoms, causes of anxiety, and strategies used by
athletes to interpret anxiety as facilitative. As a result, athletes in open skill sports may
use a larger variety or different mental skills then those mental skills used by close skill
athletes. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between
psychological skills and interpretation of anxiety in athletes participating in open skill
versus close skill sports.
5
Chapter 2
Review of Literature
In this chapter, the relevant literature on anxiety and sport is reviewed in relation
to the purpose of this study. First, theory and research on competitive anxiety is
presented. Second, research on the facilitative/ debilitative interpretation of competitive
anxiety is discussed. Third, theory and research on psychological skills are discussed,
including the different types of skills that may be related to anxiety interpretation.
Finally, the purpose and rationale for the proposed study is presented.
Competitive Anxiety in Sport: Theory and Measurement
Competitive anxiety is defined as perceived feelings of nervousness and/or
physical tension associated with activation in an athlete due to an imbalance between
demands of performance and the individual’s ability to achieve this objective (Martens,
1977). Spielberger (1966, 1972) introduced the state-trait anxiety theory, which
distinguished between anxiety as a personality trait and anxiety occurring in a specific
situation. Martens (1977) later differentiated between normal anxiety-provoking
situations, and sport-specific threatening circumstances. As defined by Martens (1977),
competitive trait anxiety describes the nature of individuals which predispose them to
perceiving competitive sport situations as threatening, and as a result, responding with
state anxiety. Competitive state anxiety is viewed as a competitive, situation-specific
emotional state where apprehension and tension occur due to perceptions of threat in the
present situation. Those individuals with high trait anxiety are predicted to perceive more
conditions as threatening, and therefore are more likely to become anxious than lower
trait anxiety individuals.
To operationalize competitive trait anxiety, Martens (1977) developed the Sport
Competition Anxiety Test (SCAT). Soon after, Martens and colleagues (1980) realized
the need for a sport-specific measure of state anxiety, and created the Competitive State
Anxiety Inventory (CSAI). Then, the unidimensional structure of the CSAI was modified
into the multidimensional constructs of competitive somatic and cognitive anxiety in the
Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2, or CSAI-2, (Martens et al., 1990). Cognitive
6
state anxiety was associated with negative expectations about oneself and performance,
while somatic state anxiety refers to physiological responses of arousal from perceptions
of threat. In addition to competitive anxiety constructs assessed by the CSAI-2, selfconfidence also emerged as a third construct in the CSAI-2.
Theories and Models Regarding the Arousal (Anxiety)/ Performance Relationship
Several theories and models exist in the literature to explain the relationship
between arousal/ anxiety and performance. While some theories and models are
considered outdated, all tend to have significance in understanding the importance that
arousal has on performance. No one theory is currently accepted as completely
illustrating the relationship between anxiety and performance.
Drive theory (Hull, 1943; Spence & Spence, 1966), the original arousal theory,
predicted a positive, linear relationship between arousal level and performance on welllearned tasks. Specifically, the theory states that performance (P) is a function of drive
(D) and habit strength (H), (P= D x H), where drive refers to the arousal state, and habit
strength refers to the dominant response. During early stages of learning, the dominant
response is usually incorrect, hindering performance when increases in arousal levels
occur. However, during advanced stages of performance, the dominant response
becomes the correct one, so when arousal levels increase, performance is predicted to be
enhanced. Support for the drive theory has been inconsistent, as research has failed to
provide reliable evidence to support the theory (Martens, 1971; Neiss, 1988). Further,
many view the theory as complicated and hard to test, due to difficulty in
operationalizing dominant responses for complex skills.
The inverted-U hypothesis was introduced by Yerkes and Dodson (1908), and
predicted that as arousal increases, so does performance, up until an optimal level or
point. At this point, any increase in arousal is detrimental, decreasing performance
levels, and displaying the shape of an inverted-U, or curvilinear relationship between
arousal and performance levels. While support for this model has been shown, many
criticisms have also developed. First, the model lacks explanation for why performance
falls before or after the optimal point (Landers, 1980). Additionally, few sport scientists
believe the fall in performance after optimal level declines in a smooth manner as
7
suggested, and emerging conceptual models also posit a plunge downward at that point
(Hardy, 1990). Further, evidence that supports the inverted-U model is ambiguous.
Many studies have been inconsistent, and Landers (1980) argues that the model is both
hard to prove and disprove, considering it is logical that performance is more likely to
decline at extremely low arousal levels (sleep) and significantly high (excitement) arousal
levels. Further, a lack of prediction exists in easily fitting arousal levels to the curve.
Finally, the model is unidimensional, and like drive theory, does not account for the
differences in cognitive and somatic anxiety. While the general consensus of the model
is accepted, researchers have moved toward more specific theories and models of the
arousal-performance relationship.
Due to the equivocal findings regarding the inverted-U model of arousalperformance relationship, Hanin (1980) proposed the individual zones of optimal
functioning (IZOF), which allowed for different levels of arousal to be viewed as optimal
for each athlete. This model suggests it is doubtful that one specific level of arousal leads
to optimal performance in every athlete. Instead, each individual has a zone of arousal
leading to optimal performance, which is determined by the athlete’s mean
precompetitive state anxiety score plus or minus four points on the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory, or STAI (Spielberger et al., 1970a, b).
Several studies of anxiety have supported the IZOF model (Hanin, 1980; Morgan,
O’Connor, Ellickson & Bradley, 1988; Morgan, O’Connor, Sparling & Pate, 1987;
Turner & Raglin, 1993). In addition, the use of multidimensional measures of anxiety
(such as the CSAI-2) has been shown to increase the predictive validity of the IZOF
model (Gould, Tuffey, Hardy, & Lockbaum, 1993; Krane, 1993). Further, Gould and
Tuffey (1996) reviewed all IZOF arousal-performance research, and while
methodological weaknesses appeared, there was good support for the basic IZOF model.
Following the IZOF model, multidimensional anxiety theory emerged in the sport
psychology literature to explain the arousal-performance relationship. This theory
proposed differences in the way cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety influences
performance. The theory suggests a negative linear relationship between cognitive state
8
anxiety and performance, and an inverted-U relationship between somatic anxiety and
performance (Burton, 1988; Martens et al., 1990).
Studies examining multidimensional anxiety theory have been inconsistent. Some
research (Burton, 1988; Krane, 1990) conducted studies that display support for the
negative linear relationship between cognitive anxiety and performance. Other studies
(Burton, 1988; Gould, Petlichkoff, Simons, & Veresa, 1987) have demonstrated support
for the curvilinear relationship between somatic anxiety and performance. Still other
studies (Caruso, Dzewaltowski, Gill, & McElroy, 1990; Hammermeister & Burton, 1995;
Karteroliotis & Gill, 1987; Maynard & Howe, 1987) have not found any support for the
hypothesized relationship of somatic anxiety and performance and/or cognitive anxiety
and performance.
An alternative to the inverted-U hypothesis is the catastrophe model (Hardy &
Fazey, 1987). This model predicts high levels of cognitive anxiety and increases in
somatic anxiety will result in an immediate and catastrophic decline in performance.
Previous performance levels can only be regained by reducing the high levels of somatic
anxiety. The most commonly used catastrophe model is the cusp catastrophe model,
which is three-dimensional. The key to this model is the interactive effect between
cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety and how that interaction influences performance
(Hardy, 1990). This model suggests cognitive anxiety determines whether somatic
anxiety will have a level effect, a great and disastrous effect, or create an effect in the
middle of these two extremes (Hardy, 1990). Thus, high levels of cognitive anxiety will
have a positive influence on performances involving low levels of somatic anxiety, but a
detrimental influence on performances with high levels of somatic anxiety.
Researchers have found some support for catastrophe model. Hardy and Parfitt
(1991) displayed results showing highest levels of decline in performance occurred when
increases in physiological arousal were coupled with the high cognitive anxiety
condition. Further, this study found the high cognitive anxiety condition was correlated
with significantly higher levels of performance than the low cognitive anxiety condition,
and the high cognitive anxiety condition was also associated with significantly lower
levels of performance than the low cognitive anxiety condition. In additional studies,
9
cognitive anxiety was not the sole significant component of influencing performance, and
the effect of cognitive anxiety is not always negative. Edwards and Hardy (1996) found
the interaction between cognitive and somatic anxiety to be significant. Performance was
best when those with low levels of cognitive anxiety were also experiencing high levels
of physiological arousal. The opposite occurred when athletes experienced low levels of
somatic anxiety, as the interaction with high levels of cognitive anxiety enhanced
performance. The most significant discovery from this model is the fact that cognitive
anxiety can enhance performance, in addition to being detrimental towards performance.
Reversal theory was the next theory to arise in the literature, stating the
relationship between arousal and emotional affect is dependent on an individual’s
interpretation of one’s arousal level (Kerr, 1985, 1987, 1997; Smith & Apter, 1975).
Thus, high levels of arousal can be construed as excitement (pleasant) or anxiety
(unpleasant), and low arousal can be interpreted as relaxation (pleasant) or boredom
(unpleasant). The theory suggests that two curves display the relationship between
arousal and emotional affect. Each curve represents a metamotivational state, which is
the way an individual interprets personal motives at a specific point. The way an
individual interprets arousal can change at an instant, shifting from one state to the next
and signifying reversal of arousal interpretation (Kerr, 1997). The figure displays four
quadrants: anxiety, excitement, boredom, and relaxation, which are dependent on arousal
level and metamotivational state. When high levels of arousal and stress transpire,
anxiety occurs. However, when arousal is high and stress is low, excitement exists.
When both arousal and stress are low, boredom occurs.
Research has been widespread to examine the effects of reversal theory. Studies
have shown successful athletes experience high levels of arousal as pleasant and are more
stable in their emotional patterns (Kerr, 1997; Males, Kerr, & Gerkovich, 1998). On the
other hand, several researchers have noted some weaknesses of this theory. First,
reversal theory is difficult to test, and thus, little empirical support exists. More
importantly, the main limitation of this theory is that it has a unidimensional
conceptualization of arousal and anxiety, while most theorists now agree arousal is a
multidimensional construct.
10
While no theory or model can explain the arousal-performance relationship in its
entirety, each contributes to the overall knowledge and explanation of the relationship.
Thus, researchers should have knowledge of all theories when examining arousal/ anxiety
and performance relationships in sport.
Directional Anxiety
Competitive anxiety is defined as perceived feelings of nervousness and/ or
physical tension associated with activation in an athlete due to an imbalance between the
demands of performance and the individual’s ability to achieve this objective (Gould et
al., 2002). This imbalance is likely to induce stress, which indicates anxiety is a negative
emotional state. Because of this perception, most people view anxiety as a negative
construct. This can also affect perceptions in sport competitions, where a large majority
of athletes consider anxiety to be debilitative towards performance, which may result in
decreases in performance. However, the view of anxiety only having an intensity
component has been challenged in recent years. Several studies (Jones & Hanton, 1996;
Jones & Swain, 1992, 1995; Jones et al., 1993; Jones et al., 1994; Perry & Williams,
1998; Wiggins, 1998) have concluded a directional component to anxiety exists,
suggesting that the way athletes view their anxiety symptoms prior to a competition can
have a significant effect on performance. Those athletes who interpret their anxiety
symptoms as facilitating, or in a positive manner, are more likely to perform better then
athletes who interpret anxiety symptoms to be debilitating, or in a negative manner. In
addition, research has shown that elite athletes tend to view their anxiety symptoms as
facilitative towards performance, while non-elite athletes are more prone to interpret their
anxiety symptoms as debilitative (Jones & Hanton, 1996; Jones & Swain, 1995; Jones et
al., 1994; and Perry & Williams, 1998).
This introduction of the directional component of anxiety created concerns
regarding the measurement of anxiety intensity and the assessment of athletes’
interpretations of anxiety. Jones (1991, 1995) suggested that equivocal findings in
competitive anxiety research were due to anxiety measurements focusing on the lone
component of intensity, while ignoring the component of direction. Although several
inventories measuring competitive anxiety existed, including the STAI (Speilberger,
11
Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970), SCAT (Martens, 1977), CSAI (Martens, Burton, Rivkin, &
Simon, 1980), SAS (Smith et al., 1990), and CSAI-2 (Martens et al., 1990), these scales
only assessed the intensity of anxiety in a multidimensional manner involving both state
and trait components. Research indicated the need to also evaluate the directional
component in addition to the intensity component of anxiety.
Directional Anxiety Research in Sport
In 1992, Jones and Swain developed a modified version of the CSAI-2 which
incorporated the most recent dimension of anxiety by including a directional component
in addition to the scale for intensity measurement of anxiety. Thus, the CSAI-2 included
the intensity component, consisting of cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and selfconfidence, as well as the directional component, where the subject rated the intensity of
each anxiety symptom as facilitative or debilitative. The rating of each item was on a
scale ranging from -3 (very debilitative) to +3 (very facilitative). The total score ranged
from -27 to +27, with a negative score signifying an overall debilitative perception of
anxiety symptoms and a positive score indicating an overall facilitative perception of
anxiety symptoms. After the introduction of the modified CSAI-2, several studies found
positive effects from anxiety when athletes interpreted anxiety as facilitative. Studies
have examined several different individual variables that may affect the athletes’
interpretations of anxiety including performance (Jones, Swain & Hardy, 1993), skill
level (Jones & Swain, 1995; Jones et al., 1994; Perry & Williams, 1998), expectations of
goal attainment (Jones & Hanton, 1996; Wiggins, 1998), and competitiveness (Jones &
Swain, 1992).
Jones and Swain (1992) began the research of directional anxiety in sport by
engaging in a study which examined the relationship between competitiveness and
interpretations of anxiety. Sixty-nine male intramural athletes were tested on their
competitive level based on the Sport Orientation Questionnaire (SOQ) in relation to their
responses in intensity and direction of anxiety using the modified CSAI-2. No
differences in intensity levels for both somatic and cognitive anxiety between high and
low competitive athletes were found prior to competition. Also, there was no difference
in the direction of somatic anxiety between the two groups. However, the highly
12
competitive group identified their cognitive anxiety as more facilitating and less
debilitating than the less competitive group. Additionally, the highly competitive group
displayed higher levels of self-confidence as compared to the low competitive group and
viewed their self-confidence as more facilitative than the self-confidence of the less
competitive group. This supported the idea that both a positive interpretation of anxiety
and confidence may be significant in distinguishing between competitive and noncompetitive athletes.
Jones and colleagues (1993) then conducted another major study of directional
anxiety relating to performance in gymnasts. This study expanded on the previous study
by examining the relationship between the intensity of self-confidence and direction of
anxiety. Forty-eight female gymnasts were divided into poor performance and good
performance groups based on previous competition scores. The results indicated the
intensity of both cognitive and somatic anxiety did not differ between the groups, and
there were no differences in somatic anxiety direction and self-confidence direction
scores between the performance groups. However, the good performance group viewed
their cognitive anxiety as facilitative towards performance, while the poor performance
group interpreted their cognitive anxiety as debilitative towards performance.
Performance was based on self-confidence levels, where higher levels of self-confidence
were correlated with better performance. An additional finding was that the intensity of
self-confidence positively correlated with the facilitative interpretation of both cognitive
and somatic anxiety. Jones and colleagues (1993) suggested this finding alludes to the
idea that self-confidence may buffer negative effects of anxiety.
Likewise, Jones, Hanton, and Swain (1994) continued the directional anxiety
research by conducting a study which examines the intensity and direction of anxiety
while also relating levels of self-confidence to the interpretation of anxiety. Twohundred and eleven swimmers were divided into elite and non-elite groups where all
exhibited similar levels of cognitive and somatic anxiety intensity. Once again
directional interpretations of anxiety differed between the two groups. Elite swimmers
interpreted both their cognitive and somatic anxiety symptoms as more facilitative to
performance and displayed higher levels of self-confidence than the non-elite group.
13
This result was identical to Jones and colleagues’ (1993) findings indicating that selfconfidence intensity is indeed related to interpretation of anxiety symptoms.
Moreover, additional information was given about the elite group. The elite
group was separated into the elite swimmers who interpreted their anxiety as facilitative
(85 %) and those elite swimmers who interpreted anxiety as debilitative (14 %).
Although differences in interpretation of anxiety occurred between the two groups, there
were no differences in intensity of anxiety or self-confidence levels. Questions were
raised after this finding which suggested several explanations. One explanation stated the
directional interpretations were predicted by the athletes’ affect, where individuals with
high negative affect interpreted anxiety as debilitative, and those athletes’ who exhibited
high positive affect interpreted anxiety as more facilitative. Jones and colleagues
suggested future research scrutinize the performance and if it was indeed affected by the
interpretation of the athletes’ anxiety symptoms.
Jones and Swain (1995) addressed these questions by replicating the previous
study and observing the differences between anxiety and direction of anxiety symptoms
in cricketers. They also included an interest in athletes’ predispositions to interpreting
anxiety differently by comparing trait responses in elite and non-elite athletes. Although
the 113 male cricketers displayed no difference in intensity of cognitive and somatic
anxiety between the two skill level groups, their responses of how their anxiety
interpretation affected performance varied considerably. The elite group reported both
cognitive and somatic responses to be more facilitative and less debilitative towards
performance. This finding suggested elite and non-elite competitors seem to have
predispositions to interpret competitive anxiety differently. Further a surprise occurred
when, unlike previous studies mentioned, self-confidence levels were not found to be
different between the two groups.
An additional analysis separated the two groups of athletes further by dividing
them into “debilitated” and “facilitated” categories, which was dependent on responses to
their interpretation of cognitive and somatic anxiety. Of the athletes classified in the nonelite group, a little below half interpreted anxiety as debilitative and just over 50%
interpreted anxiety as facilitative. A large discrepancy looms when these numbers are
14
compared to the elite group which displayed only 17% interpreting anxiety as debilitative
and 83% reporting anxiety symptoms as facilitative. This finding gave way to
questioning about whether this difference in anxiety interpretation is a cause or effect
from reaching the elite level. Also, facilitators in both skill level groups reported higher
levels of self-confidence as compared to debilitators. Jones and Swain (1995) gave
suggestions alluding to why these differences may take place by citing old studies.
Hardy and Jones (1990) proposed self-confidence may protect against potential
debilitative effects. Those athletes with little confidence in their ability to control
themselves and their environment are most likely to interpret anxiety as debilitative.
Jones and colleagues (1996) showed competitors with high levels of negative affect
perceive anxiety symptoms as debilitative while those athletes exhibiting high levels of
positive affect perceive their symptoms as facilitative.
To determine factors that influence why athletes’ interpretation of anxiety is
positive or negative before competition, Jones (1995) presented a control model of
facilitative and debilitative competitive state anxiety where conduct in sport is directed at
expectations of goal attainment (see Figure 1). Carver and Scheier (1988, 1992) had
proposed the critical component in determining whether the individual interprets the
anxiety symptoms as facilitative or debilitative is athletes’ expectations of their ability to
cope with the anxiety and having the ability to complete the necessary actions to finish
the job. The model focuses on the athletes’ personal control of specific goals in relation
to their interpretations of anxiety. In other words, athletes who feel they are in control of
their coping abilities and goal attainment expectations interpret anxiety as facilitative,
whereas athletes who feel they are not in control of their ability to cope and their goal
attainment expectations interpret anxiety as debilitative towards performance. Therefore,
one would believe performance and process goals are within the individual’s control and
likely to facilitate positive interpretations, whereas outcome goals can have outside
influences, uncontrollable by the athlete, and therefore cause high states of anxiety
(which presumably become debilitative).
Following the model, Jones and Hanton (1996) conducted a study on the
expectations of goal attainment. Competitive swimmers were tested using the modified
15
CSAI-2 and the Goal Attainment Expectancy Scale and found that both cognitive and
somatic anxiety symptoms were perceived as facilitative nearly half of the subjects. Only
23% viewed both types of anxiety as debilitative, which continued the support for the
directional component of anxiety and also promoted the idea of elite athletes being more
likely to view anxiety as facilitative. All swimmers set at least one goal and none of the
athletes solely set outcome goals. Therefore, all competitors were in control of at least
one of their goals. The intensity levels did not differ between the two goal expectancy
groups, yet athletes with positive goal attainment expectations regarding outcome goals
perceived anxiety as facilitative, while those athletes with negative or unsure expectations
viewed anxiety as debilitative. These results conflicted with Jones’ (1995) model in that
the two groups (both positive and negative attainment expectancies) viewed somatic
anxiety to be facilitative, where the model stated those athletes with negative goal
attainment expectancies would likely interpret both types of anxiety as debilitative.
Therefore these results only partially supported Jones’ (1995) control model.
Jones and Hanton (1996) gave a few suggestions for the results that occurred.
First, the examined sport (swimming) requires high levels of physiological arousal for
good performances to take place. As a result, the positive interpretations of somatic
anxiety may be solely due to necessity and desire to feel aroused and ready for that
particular sport, prior to competition. A second explanation reiterates Jones’ previous
suggestions, where athletes having little control of themselves and their environments
also are more apt to worry, thereby having higher levels of cognitive anxiety. The sport
observed is individually oriented and referred to as a close skill sport. Consequently, the
environment is constant and little change and variation occurs. Therefore, the athletes
may have felt in control of their environment and themselves due to consistency in these
factors through every competitive situation. Other sports (essentially open skill sports)
are more interactive involving many players and a changing environment, implying there
may be differences in these two environments in terms of goals being set and athletes’
perceptions of control. Thus, these findings may not be assumed as applicable to other
sports. The researchers suggested future research should examine the generalizability of
these findings.
16
Taking into account suggestions of previous studies, Edwards and Hardy (1996)
furthered the research when they conducted a study involving the positive relationship of
self-confidence intensity and a positive directional interpretation of anxiety symptoms.
The six netball teams reported a positive relationship between self-confidence and
perceptions of facilitative anxiety, where as the levels of self-confidence increase, the
players were more likely to view anxiety as facilitative. This study proved to be
supportive of the suggestion that self-confidence may shield against debilitative effects of
anxiety. Further, the results also indicate that self-confidence is likely a better predictor
of performance than the anxiety intensity levels.
Despite the results, one limitation was given alongside the outcome. Selfconfidence intensity exhibited a negative relationship with both somatic and cognitive
anxiety intensity. Therefore, high levels of self-confidence were associated with low
levels of both types of anxiety. The lower intensity of anxiety symptoms experienced by
the netballers may have affected the way these athletes interpreted their anxiety, implying
that low levels of anxiety are much more likely to be perceived as facilitative then higher
intensities of anxiety symptoms.
In 1998, Wiggins focused on the different temporal patterns of anxiety in terms of
intensity and direction during competition. He explained that cognitive anxiety and selfconfidence are determined by both the individual’s performance expectations and their
perceptions of ability in their sport. This anxiety is expected to be fairly stable before
competition due to the likelihood that expectations remain stable before competition.
However, somatic anxiety has radical changes of intensity, where physiological arousal
increases dramatically as competition nears and decreases once competition begins.
Wiggins tested 91 high school and college athletes competing in soccer,
swimming, and track and field. He sought to identify temporal patterns of anxiety
intensity and direction and further examined the athletes’ performance expectations prior
to competition. The results found perceived levels of cognitive anxiety were relatively
constant prior to competition, while somatic anxiety levels greatly increased from 24
hours to one hour before competition. Neither type (cognitive or somatic) of anxiety
intensity displayed a relationship with competitors’ performance expectations. Further,
17
after directional analyses were compared to other studies, researchers concluded that
overall, perceived symptoms of anxiety and self-confidence were found to be facilitative
and positive towards performance. Also, indications were given that once athletes
determine anxiety symptoms to be facilitative or debilitative, and assess their
performance expectations, the resulting evaluation is stable in the final 24 hours before
the competition occurs. This information implies that directional anxiety interpretations
may be more dependent on performance expectations than the intensity of anxiety
symptoms. Therefore, the ability to view anxiety symptoms in a positive manner is
directly affected by the expectations athletes have for their performance prior to
competition. This suggestion is similar to Jones’ (1995) control model where the
athletes’ ability to control coping and their goal attainment expectancies affect their
interpretations of anxiety.
Perry and Williams (1998) followed this study by extending Jones et al.’s (1994)
and Jones and Swain’s (1995) research by examining the intensity and direction of
anxiety symptoms and self-confidence in three different skill levels of tennis players.
Two hundred and twenty-five college-age players were put in distinct categories based on
skill level (advance, intermediate, and novice) and given the modified CSAI-2. They
found similar results to Jones and colleagues (1995), where there was no difference in
somatic anxiety in any of the skill levels. However the intensity of cognitive anxiety was
less with the novice tennis players than the other two groups. Suggestions given for this
result included the lack of experience may be correlated with lower emotional investment
or expectations of winning performance. Further, the less skilled players may not be as
aware of their precompetitive states and as a result, not precisely remember anxiety
symptoms. Findings also displayed higher levels of self-confidence with the advanced
group, supporting the suggested hypothesis of self-confidence levels increasing in
accordance with the skill level of the athletes, but failed to find significant differences
between the intermediate and novice groups. Also, only partial support existed for the
hypothesis that as skill level increased so would positive interpretations of anxiety
symptoms. There was no difference in the lower skilled groups, yet the advanced players
reported both anxiety symptoms as facilitative to performance. Finally, gender
18
differences did occur in terms of anxiety symptoms. Females interpreted anxiety
symptoms as more debilitating as compared to males. Males were more likely to
interpret somatic and cognitive anxiety as facilitative. These findings suggest athletes
may have predispositions to interpreting anxiety differently and that a correlation exists
between self-confidence and interpretations where high self-confidence can shield the
negative effects of anxiety.
In 2002, Hanton and Connaughton engaged in a study involving athlete’s
explanations of anxiety symptoms, self-confidence, and performance, trying to determine
why or how anxiety may influence performance. Twelve male swimmers, six classified
as elite and six as subelite, and ranging from 19 to 28 years old, were invited to take part
in the study. The researchers developed an interview guide for this study, which included
four sections. The first section incorporated an introduction, the purpose and definitions,
and a statement of the individual’s rights. The next section asked questions relating to
training regimes, competitive history, and personal reasons for competing. The third
section was the main part contained questions relating to the athlete’s thoughts and
feelings prior to competition and effects these symptoms have on performance.
Specifically, the individuals were to identify, describe, and explain cognitive and somatic
symptoms that occur before performance. In addition, the participants were asked to
explain why these symptoms were perceived as positive or negative and how they
influenced performance. Finally, the fourth section discussed the interview process and
any additional issues.
The individual responses were analyzed and researchers (Hanton & Connaughton,
2002) constructed four causal streams for each skill level. Causal networks were used to
represent the variables and relationships that exist with facilitative/ debilitative
interpretations, elite/ subelite skill level, and somatic/ cognitive anxiety. In the first
causal network, athletes interpret cognitive symptoms as facilitative, increasing selfconfidence and improving performance. Elite athletes’ explanations for their facilitative
interpretations of anxiety indicated that they had productive mental skills. First, current
thoughts and concerns were associated with thoughts and concerns of previous good
performances, which helped increase focus and motivation. Second, the cognitions
19
occurring prior to competition caused the athletes to adopt a strategy to overcome these
negative thoughts. Thus, their original thoughts were detrimental, but by activating
learned strategies (e.g., rationalization, relaxation) the elite athletes blocked out negative
thoughts and replace with positive thoughts. Subelite athletes differed in their
explanations for facilitative interpretations of anxiety. They perceived the competition as
important, which motivated them to perform well. Also, the negative thoughts gave them
motivation to try harder so they would not disappoint themselves or others, resulting in
increased effort.
The second causal network explained the relationship between somatic symptoms
and increased performance. In this network, elite athletes used physiological feelings to
interpret a relaxed body as automatic which increased efficiency. Additionally,
physiological feelings that had been experienced in prior good performances were viewed
as a sign that there was successful preparation for the event, usually creating a heightened
awareness and increased focus or providing the athlete with an adrenaline rush. For
subelite athletes, there were different reasons for facilitative interpretations of anxiety
symptoms. The physiological feelings were perceived as preparing the body for race
pace, such as increased heart rate interpreted as raising blood and energy to the muscles.
Also, subelite athletes felt similar to their elite counterparts when using physiological
feelings as associated with previous successful performance and signs of readiness for the
race.
The third causal network described the relationship between cognitive symptoms
and decreased performance. Elite athletes viewed these anxiety symptoms as outside
their control and therefore debilitative, resulting in lower self-confidence levels and
decreased performance. These individuals had concerns or doubts that increased negative
thoughts and decreased focus. In addition, the symptoms caused them to think about
particular parts of the race, making it difficult to allow for the automaticity of the body to
occur. With concerns of choking or overthinking prevalent, body movements become
forced or restricted. Likewise, subelite athletes had two reasons for their perceptions of
lack of control. The worries felt by the athletes caused them to think of factors that may
go wrong, and increased the likelihood of negative states. Also, these concerns led
20
athletes to think intensely about specific aspects of their race, in turn not thinking about
other parts of the race, and later lacking automatic bodily functions.
Finally, the fourth causal network explained the relationship between somatic
symptoms and decreased performance. The elite athletes attributed these symptoms to a
lack of control, thus interpreted anxiety symptoms as debilitative, which lowered selfcontrol and decreased performance. When the athletes felt tense or tight, they perceived
they were not relaxed, and forced restrictive techniques, not permitting natural movement
to occur. Further, these physiological feelings were not linked with past winning
performances, reminding them that they were not prepared for the competition. In the
same manner, subelite athletes perceived these physiological feelings as a factor which
causes restricted movement and also caused undesired feelings of increased doubts and
worries.
These results indicated perceived control was an important factor in determining
an athlete’s interpretation of the anxiety symptoms. When cognitive and somatic anxiety
symptoms was considered under the athletes’ control, they interpreted anxiety as
facilitative, leading to higher levels of self-confidence and increases in performance.
However, when cognitive and somatic anxiety symptoms occurred that were perceived
outside the athletes’ control, they was more likely to interpret anxiety as debilitative,
lowering self-confidence levels and leading to decreases in performance.
Additionally, the researchers noted that certain conditions (e.g., perceived control)
have facilitative effects on performance, and therefore, it is important that athletes learn
to control precompetition states through mental skill techniques, including cognitive
restructuring, relaxation, imagery, and activation.
Directional Anxiety Intervention Research
Throughout the last decade, many studies have addressed the existence of
directional anxiety and the vast differences an athlete’s interpretation of anxiety can have
on performance. Unfortunately, little research has evolved examining the mental skills
that are used to interpret anxiety symptoms as positive. Some research has identified
certain characteristics or antecedents (i.e., elite/ nonelite; goal expectations;
competitiveness; coping strategies) of anxiety interpretation by athletes. However, few
21
suggestions have been given to sport psychologists or coaches to help with teaching
strategies for athletes, which may assist in viewing competitive anxiety symptoms as
normal in competition, and ultimately view anxiety as facilitative to performance. A
majority of sport psychology research has suggested that individuals with better physical
skills are more likely to also display better mental skills and tools, including higher
confidence, concentration and motivation levels, imagery skills, and fewer thoughts about
failure. Also, coping strategies for competitive anxiety have been mentioned in previous
research. However, the coping methods have been a consequence of the intensity of
anxiety and not the directional factor (Hanton & Jones, 1999a). Finally, it is recognized
and accepted that interventions involving mental skill training are valuable in examining
and changing the ways athletes’ perceive events including the presence of anxiety.
Hanton and Jones (1999a, b) began looking at these questions by conducting two
consecutive studies to understand and apply the methods used by athletes to interpret
competitive anxiety symptoms as facilitative. The first study invited athletes who met the
criteria of a facilitative interpreter of competitive anxiety to discuss the acquisition of
skills that allow for a positive interpretation of anxiety. Hanton and Jones (1999a) found
that when the individuals were young, their interpretations of anxiety were not always
positive. After years of skill development and experience, the athletes learned that
anxiety could be facilitative towards performance from significant others (parents,
coaches, and more experienced competitors). The athletes were taught by these
individuals how competitive anxiety was necessary for competing at an optimal level and
should be understood as an integral part of the competition process. Symptoms that were
perceived as worries and nervousness instead became a desired feeling before and during
competition when the athletes developed their ability to turn the debilitating nerves into
facilitating energy, later aiding performance. The athletes used several mental skills to
help this transition take place by developing a precompetition routine which included
goal setting, and rationalizing thoughts and feelings by accepting the way the nerves felt
rather than avoiding or reducing these symptoms.
After obtaining the results from the first study, Hanton and Jones (1999b) began
their second study, which required linking the results from the first study to an
22
intervention program for athletes who considered competitive anxiety to be debilitative.
After selecting the participants for the study by testing for debilitative interpretations of
anxiety, they provided general information about the intervention to these athletes
without disclosing the purpose of the study. The intervention involved many
components, but mainly focused on perceptions of control, goal setting, rationalizing
thoughts and feelings, self-talk and imagery. The researchers educated the individuals
about proper goal setting and mental imagery techniques. The participants were also
encouraged to develop a precompetition routine using mental imagery, positive thinking,
and self-talk. This intervention proved to be successful when the participants reported
higher levels of facilitative interpretations of anxiety and self-confidence. Furthermore
performance improvements for the athletes were also noted. Both results indicate the
intervention program helped restructure the interpretations of anxiety from debilitative to
facilitative eventually assisting with performance. However, researchers observed one
main limitation as a lack of information about which part of the intervention (i.e.,
psychological skill) was most influential in restructuring the negative interpretations.
Hanton and Jones (1999b) noted that future research should address which psychological
skills are imperative for facilitative interpretations of anxiety.
Relationship between Psychological Skill Usage and Directional Anxiety
In 2001, Fletcher and Hanton became interested in investigating the relationship
between interpretation of competitive anxiety and psychological skill usage. Discovering
which psychological mechanisms are used to interpret anxiety as facilitative seemed to be
important in developing interventions that target anxiety interpretation. The researchers
examined four pertinent psychological skills (relaxation, goal setting, imagery, and selftalk) to determine the usage of each individual skill in helping to determine anxiety as
facilitative.
These skills were included based on prior research indicating their importance in
interpretation of competitive anxiety. First, Maynard and colleagues (1995) conducted
studies examining reduction of anxiety levels by using interventions involving relaxation
techniques. The results indicated reduction of anxiety levels after using relaxation
techniques, and in turn, a more facilitative interpretation of anxiety symptoms and higher
23
levels of self-confidence (Maynard et al., 1995; Maynard, Smith & Warwick- Evans,
1995). Second, Jones and Hanton (1996) found swimmers with positive interpretation of
anxiety also held positive expectations of goal achievement. Third, Hale and Whitehouse
(1998) found that soccer players using “challenge imagery situations” as opposed to
“pressure imagery situations” were more likely to experience lower levels of anxiety,
more facilitative interpretations of anxiety, and greater levels of self-confidence. Finally,
the recent intervention research by Jones and Hanton (1999a) found those athletes with
facilitative interpretations were more likely to use routines involving mental imagery,
goal setting, and rationalization of thoughts and feelings to perceive anxiety symptoms as
facilitative. Further, several studies have noted the relationship between facilitative
anxiety interpretation and higher levels of self-confidence and debilitative interpretations
of anxiety and lower levels of self-confidence (Hale & Whitehouse, 1998; Jones &
Hanton, 1999; Jones et al., 1994; Jones & Swain 1992, 1995; Jones et al., 1993; Maynard
et al., 1995; Maynard et al., 1995; Perry & Williams, 1998).
As a result, Fletcher and Hanton (2001) investigated four main psychological
skills (relaxation, goal setting, imagery, and self-talk) as those significant to helping an
individual interpret competitive anxiety as facilitative. Researchers gave the CSAI-2 and
the Test of Performance Strategies (TOPS) to 114 competitive swimmers to investigate
differences in anxiety intensity, direction, and self-confidence based on different levels of
psychological skill usage.
The study found significant differences between the high psychological skill
usage and low psychological skill usage groups in the competitive anxiety responses
between relaxation, imagery, and self-talk. In the relaxation scores, the usage groups
differed on both intensity and direction of cognitive and somatic anxiety and selfconfidence intensity, where the high relaxation usage group interpreted anxiety as
facilitative, demonstrated lower intensity scores for both cognitive and somatic anxiety,
and higher scores of self-confidence intensity as compared to the lower relaxation usage
group. The self-talk scores indicated cognitive anxiety direction did not differ between
the two self-talk usage groups, but cognitive anxiety intensity was lower in the high selftalk usage group. Additionally, somatic anxiety intensity did not differ between the two
24
self-talk usage groups, but somatic anxiety direction was facilitative for the high self-talk
usage group. Further, self-confidence intensity was higher in the high self-talk usage
group. In terms of imagery, both cognitive and somatic intensity and direction did not
differ between the two imagery usage groups, but self-confidence intensity scores were
higher in the high imagery usage group. However, no significant differences were found
for the high and low goal setting usage groups.
Thus, there was partial support for the hypothesis that psychological skill usage of
relaxation, imagery, goal setting, and self-talk would help enable athletes to interpret
anxiety symptoms as facilitative. These results indicate that using these psychological
skills help athletes to interpret anxiety as facilitative and can help to reduce anxiety
levels. Further, psychological skill usage was also complemented by increases in selfconfidence. However, while this study provides insight into specific psychological skills
that help to interpret anxiety as facilitative, researchers cannot assume the same results
apply across different sporting environments. Additionally, researchers cannot assume
psychological skill usage is the equivalent to psychological skill ability. That is, athletes
that extensively use psychological strategies are not necessarily superior in their mental
skills. The subjects in this study may not have been highly skilled in the psychological
skills that were used frequently, and therefore may not be using those psychological skills
properly or effectively.
Influence of Types of Sport on Interpretation of Anxiety
As a result of differences that occur in separate sporting environments, it seems
important when studying interpretation of anxiety to split sports and athletes by two main
types: open skill sports and close skill sports. Open skill sports are mainly team sports
with a constantly changing environment involving several athletes competing with and
against one another, while close skill sports include individually-oriented athletes in
competition with one or more individuals, allowing for a setting that remains relatively
consistent in competitions (Fischman & Oxendine, 1998). Further, previous research has
stated a need to distinguish between sports when developing techniques and strategies to
be used for interventions (Hackfort & Schwenkmezger, 1993; Jones & Hanton, 1996).
Nearly all studies cited in the directional anxiety literature have utilized close skill sport
25
athletes (Fletcher & Hanton, 2001; Jerome & Williams, 2000; Jones & Hanton, 1996;
Jones et al., 1994; Jones & Swain, 1995; Jones et al., 1993; Hanton & Jones, 1999; Perry
& Williams, 1998). Unfortunately, researchers have not considered the discrepancies that
may occur between these two environments with interpretations of competitive anxiety
and further, differences in mechanisms used to interpret anxiety as facilitative. Jones
(1991, 1995) has stated that differences are likely to occur as a result of the nature of the
sport. Furthermore, Jones’ model of control (1995) raises questions regarding the degree
of perceived control athletes feel in open skill and close skill sports that may affect the
way an athlete interprets anxiety. Perceptions of control are likely to vary in these two
environments providing additional rationale to study these environments separately.
Research should now differentiate between these two settings in studies, as previous
results cannot be applied across all sport situations.
Purpose of and Rationale for Study
Overall, a review of the literature suggests the need for two main research
extensions in the area examining the relationship of psychological skill and anxiety
interpretation. In many of the directional anxiety studies, psychological skills have been
noted as a causal component of positive interpretations of anxiety. In other words,
athletes who interpret anxiety as facilitative score higher in psychological skill usage and
athletes who interpret anxiety as debilitative score lower in psychological skill usage.
Through knowledge of this relationship, Hanton and Jones (1999b) introduced the
concept of using psychological skills training interventions to change debilitative
interpretations of anxiety to facilitative by using psychological skills to cope with the
anxiety symptoms. Fletcher and Hanton (2001) also found a direct link between
psychological skill usage and intensity and direction of competitive anxiety.
Unfortunately, both studies were limited in what psychological skills were examined
(goal setting, self-talk, imagery, relaxation, rationalizing) and the fact that only athletes’
perceived usage of their skills was assessed (as opposed to actual skill level). Fletcher
and Hanton (2001) stated the importance of not inferring psychological skill ability from
usage. Although athletes may use psychological skills often, this does not determine the
proficiency of the athletes’ ability in psychological skills. In fact, athletes’ usage of skills
26
may cause debilitative interpretations if psychological skills have not been used properly.
Further, Hanton and Jones (1999b) advised future research address the psychological
skills that athletes use to interpret anxiety as facilitative. Thus, there is a need to examine
the degree of ability of mental skills which help athletes interpret anxiety as facilitative.
Additionally, it seems important to address the limited psychological/mental skills
that have been examined in previous research. Durand-Bush and colleagues (2001)
developed a new inventory assessing a much more extensive range of mental skills that
are used in the sport realm. The Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment Tool (OMSAT-3)
measures three conceptual components each of which encompasses several mental skills
(see Figure 2). Foundation skills are those skills fundamental and essential for consistent
high levels of performance in sport and are the building blocks for the other mental skills
(Bota, 1993; Orlick, 1992, 1996), and include goal setting, self-confidence, and
commitment. Psychosomatic skills are used to regulate variations that may occur in
physiological arousal, mental and physical intensity (Landers & Boutcher, 1998), and
include stress reactions, fear control, relaxation, and activation. Cognitive skills are
dependent on cognitive processes, including sensation, perception, learning, memory,
thinking, and reasoning (Mayer, 1983), and consist of imagery, mental practice, focusing,
refocusing, and competition planning.
By using the OMSAT-3, researchers can broaden their view of what skills may be
used to interpret anxiety as facilitative. The OMSAT-3 assesses several mental skills that
have been suggested as being important to utilize for facilitative interpretation but have
not yet been examined. Previous research had only examined goal setting, self-talk,
imagery, rationalizing, and relaxation (Fletcher & Hanton, 2001; Hanton & Jones, 1999).
However, research has also suggested that other mental skills, such as attentional
refocusing (Hackfort & Schwenkmezger, 1993), stress reactions (Durand-Bush et al.,
2001; Rotella & Lerner, 1993), and activation (Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; William &
Harris, 1998; Zaichkowsky & Takenaka, 1993) may also be vital for interpreting anxiety
as facilitative. Targeting the specific mental skills athletes use to create strategies to
interpret anxiety as facilitative seems important to use during directional anxiety
27
interventions, and further, to aid sport psychologists and coaches on the proper
mechanisms to use for their respective sport.
Furthermore, it seems important to differentiate between open and close skill
sport environments when examining the relationship between mental skills and anxiety
interpretation. Athletes in diverse settings respond to different stimuli during
competitions and may be possibly using different skills to interpret anxiety in a
facilitative manner. Jones (1995) suggested athletes’ perceived control over the ability to
cope with anxiety was likely to differ dependent on the stressor (e.g., the sport
environment). Hanton and Connaughton (2002) concluded perceived control was a
moderating variable in an athletes’ interpretation of anxiety being positive or negative. In
open skill sport environments, athletes perceive less control over their environment,
making them likely to implement different mental strategies or perhaps a more diverse
variety of mental techniques. Open skill athletes are apt to engage in different mental
skills strategies in order to perceive similar control over the environment that close skill
athletes already feel. Thus, researchers cannot assume psychological skills that are used
in close skill environments would be the same or even similar to those skills that may be
used in open skill sport environments (Jones & Hanton, 1996). Therefore, the purpose of
this study is to examine the relationship between psychological skills and interpretation
of anxiety in athletes participating in open skill versus close skill sports.
Specifically, the following hypotheses were developed and tested for this study:
H1: Close skill athletes interpret anxiety as more facilitative than open skill
athletes.
H2: Close skill athletes experience higher levels of cognitive and somatic anxiety
than open skill athletes.
H3: Close skill athletes differ in mental skills as compared to open skill athletes.
H4: Close skill athletes use different types of mental skills to enhance their
interpretation of anxiety as compared to open skill athletes.
28
Chapter 3
Method
Participants
Surveys were collected from 131 NCAA Division I collegiate athletes. There
were participant requirements that the individual was a Division I athlete and had
previously competed in a collegiate season prior to taking the survey. Of those 131
surveys that were collected, 116 surveys were completed and useable. The participants
came from both open skill sports (n= 84), such as soccer, football, basketball, volleyball,
softball, baseball, tennis, and close skill sports (n= 32), including golf, swimming and
diving, and track and field. Participants included both males (n= 67) and females (n= 46)
between the ages of 17 and 23, with a mean age of 20 (see Table 1 for more information
about participants’ gender and sport type). Forty-seven of the participants classified
themselves as lower classmen and 69 were categorized as upper classmen. Specifically,
there were 16 Freshmen, 3 "red shirt" Freshmen, 28 Sophomores, 35 Juniors, 28 Seniors,
and 6 Fifth-year Seniors. Twenty-three reported they had consulted with a Sport
Psychologist, 91 reported that they have never worked with a Sport Psychologist, and two
did not respond. Out of those 23 that had met with a Sport Psychologist, 17 reported they
had met between one and three times, three reported that they had met on a regular basis
for one to six months, one athlete responded that they had met on a regular basis between
six and twelve months, and two athletes reported meeting on a regular basis for over three
years. This demographic information was collected for descriptive purposed only, and
was not used in the study’s analyses. These athletes were from various universities with
Division I Athletic Programs from across the Southeast, Midwest, and Mid-Atlantic
regions of the United States.
Instrumentation
Modified Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (Modified CSAI-2). The modified
CSAI-2 (Jones & Swain, 1992) was used to measure intensity and directionality of
anxiety interpretation, which includes subcomponents of cognitive anxiety, somatic
anxiety, and self-confidence (see Appendix A). A sample item for cognitive anxiety is “I
29
am concerned about this competition.” An example item for somatic anxiety is “I feel
nervous.” A sample item for self-confidence is “I feel at ease.” The intensity response
scale consists of 27 items (9 in each subscale), rating intensity on a scale of 1 (not at all)
to 4 (very much so), where overall scores could range from 9 (very low) to 36 (very
high). Past research of the inventory has found to have strong internal consistency, with
reliability coefficients of .80 and .90 for each subscale (Jones & Swain, 1992). This
study yielded coefficient alphas of .81, .74, and .88 for the cognitive, somatic, and selfconfidence intensity subscales, respectively.
Subjects used the directional response scale to rate the degree of intensity of
cognitive and somatic anxiety symptoms and self-confidence, and were interpreted as -3
(very debilitating towards performance) to +3 (very facilitating to performance).
Therefore the overall direction scores of the directional component ranged from -9 to +9,
where negative scores signified debilitative interpretation of anxiety and positive scores
represented facilitative interpretation of anxiety. Past research has obtained internal
reliability coefficients are .83 for cognitive anxiety and .72 for somatic anxiety (Jones &
Hanton, 1996; Swain & Jones, 1996; Wiggins, 1998). For this study, coefficient alphas
of .86, .84, and .87 were reported for cognitive, somatic, and self-confidence direction
subscales, respectively.
While the modified CSAI-2 is a measure of state anxiety, several researchers
(Albrecht & Feltz, 1987; Jones & Swain, 1995; Perry & Williams, 1998) have adapted
the instructions so individuals answer the items based on how the athlete usually feels,
which measures trait anxiety, rather than the feeling at specific competition, which
measures state anxiety. The researchers modified the instructions to base the subject’s
answers on their usual precompetition disposition during their last competitive season in
their respective collegiate sport.
Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment Tool -3 (OMSAT-3). Durand-Bush and
colleagues (2001) revised two former versions of the OMSAT, which measures a broad
range of mental skills. The third version includes 48 items and 12 mental skills groups (4
items per group), which are grouped under three main conceptual components (see
Appendix B and Figure 2). Foundation skills represent an athlete’s fundamental mental
30
skills. Goal Setting is the process of establishing objectives or goals which provide a
sense of direction and motivation. A sample item for goal setting is “I set daily goals.”
Self-Confidence is the feeling or belief in one’s abilities and goals. An example item for
self-confidence is “I believe I can succeed in my chosen activity in spite of any obstacles
I encounter.” Commitment displays an individual’s intensity and dedication to goals. An
example item for commitment is “I am determined to never give up in my sport.”
Psychosomatic skills involve mental skills that include control for variations in
physiological arousal. Stress reactions are bodily responses to different demands that are
placed upon it. A sample item for stress reactions is “I experience performance problems
because I am too nervous.” Fear control is the individual’s capacity to cope with
situations that induce fear or apprehension. An example item for fear control is “There
are a number of things in my sport that are potentially dangerous and make me afraid.”
Activation is the process where physiological and mental states are increased in situations
that require heightened senses. A sample item for activation is “I can increase my energy
level when I am tired in training.” Relaxation is the process where physiological arousal,
muscle tension, heart rate, and anxiety are decreased, helping to control attention. A
sample item for relaxation is “I find it easy to relax.” Cognitive skills are dependent on
cognitive processes and activities. Imagery is the process where images and sensations
are used to experience different situations. An example item from imagery is “I find it
easy to create mental images.” Mental practice is a process where physical skills, plays,
or parts of a performance are mentally rehearsed without physical movement. A sample
item for mental practice is “I mentally practice my sport on a daily basis.” Focusing is
the ability of an individual to direct and maintain attention on certain cues. As sample
item of focusing is “I lose my focus during important competitions.” Refocusing is the
ability to recover focus in the event of distractions. An example of refocusing is
“Mistakes often lead to other mistakes when I compete.” Competition planning is the
reflection and development of plans that will guide thoughts, emotions, and actions
before, during, and after competition. A sample item for competition planning is “I plan
a regular set of things to do before a competition.”
31
A 7-point Likert scale is used, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree
with a neutral choice available. Past research has displayed internal consistency scores
ranged from .68 to .88, while intraclass reliability scores ranged from .78 to .96,
indicating strong reliability (Durand-Bush et al., 2001). This research obtained internal
consistency scores of .82, .73, and .79 for the foundation, psychosomatic, and cognitive
skills subscales, respectively. (See Table 2 for all variables’ reliability scores.) The
adequacy of the model fit was determined by several indices, including The Comparative
Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), the
Parsimony Comparative Index (PCFI), and the Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA). The model displayed a marginal fit with X2 (df = 1014) =
1839.63, where p < .001, and RMSEA= .05; GFI = .81; CFI= .87; TLI= .88; PCFI= .78.
Additionally, the OMSAT-3 includes demographic information, which includes
age, sex, sport discipline, current class level, and last day of competition. This
information was used for several purposes. The sport type was used to classify whether
the sport the athlete played is open skill or close skill. The current class level was used to
enable the researchers to discard surveys from those athletes who are currently
considered freshman and therefore did not participate in a collegiate setting during the
past season. Additionally, the researchers used this classification to determine if the
athlete was considered an upper classman or a lower classman. The last day of
competition was used to determine the temporal period that the athlete participated in
(e.g., fall, spring). Sex was used to classify the gender of the athlete.
Procedure
Athletes were recruited through coaches and other contacts at several NCAA
universities. Convenience sampling was used, where as long as the participants met the
former requirements (i.e., being a Division I athlete, competing in a collegiate season) for
the study, they were invited to participate. The participants were informed of their
participant rights during the study and explained all answers and information was
anonymous. The modified CSAI-2 and the OMSAT-3 were administered in a classroom
type environment, lasting approximately 25 minutes. Researchers gained approval of the
32
study through the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the university where the research
was held.
Data Analysis
Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were used to examine the
differences between open skill and close skill athletes’ mental skills measured by the
OMSAT-3 and their interpretation of cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and selfconfidence. Multivariate multiple regression were used to examine the relationships
between athletes’ mental skills measured by the OMSAT-3 and their interpretation of
cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence in terms of influence on
performance. When MANOVAs were significant, separate correlational analyses were
then conducted for open skill and close skill athletes. Although not a main purpose of the
study, multivariate multiple regression also examined the relationship between open and
close skill athletes’ mental skills and the intensity of cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety,
and self-confidence. Additionally, Pearson r correlations were used to assess the
relationship between ages of athletes and mental skills.
Preliminary analyses included internal consistency analyses for all variables in the
study, intercorrelations between predictor variables, intercorrelations between criterion
variables, and an analysis of differences between open and close skill athletes for all
variables in the study. Those surveys that included missing data were deleted.
33
Chapter 4
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Means, standard deviations, and alpha reliability coefficients for all variables in
the study are presented in Table 2. For the CSAI-2, all subscales met the .70 criterion
advocated by Nunnally (1978). For the OMSAT subscales, all variables met or
approximated the .70 criterion except for Fear Control (α= .58) and Activation (α= .53).
Due to their lack of reliability, these subscales were deleted from the study.
Inter-correlations between OMSAT subscales were examined to ascertain if
excessive multicollinearity (r > .80) existed between subscales (see Table 3). All
correlations were below .80 and were in the predicted conceptual direction. Similarly,
inter-correlations between CSAI-2 subscales (see Table 4) were acceptable and in the
predicted direction based on multidimensional anxiety theory (Martens et al., 1990).
Differences in Competitive Anxiety and Mental Skills for Open and Close Skill Athletes
Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were used to examine differences
between open and close skill athletes in anxiety/self-confidence direction, anxiety/selfconfidence intensity, and mental skills. The first MANOVA examined differences in
sport type for interpretation of cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence.
No significant differences emerged between open and close skill athletes for anxiety and
self-confidence interpretation.
The second MANOVA revealed differences between open and close skill athletes
in their intensity levels of anxiety/self-confidence, F (3, 112) = 4.04, p < .01. Follow-up
univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) for each subscale displayed significant
differences between open skill and close skill athletes for somatic anxiety intensity levels,
F (1, 114) = 4.74, p < .05, power = .58, and self-confidence intensity levels, F (1, 114) =
8.08, p < .01, power = .81. This shows that open skill athletes (M= 1.91) have
significantly lower levels of somatic anxiety than close skill athletes (M= 2.15). Further,
open skill athletes (M= 2.89) exhibit higher levels of self-confidence than close skill
athletes (M= 2.55). Cognitive anxiety did not differ based on sport type.
34
The third MANOVA was performed to assess if there were differences between
open and close skill athletes in foundation skills (goal setting, self-confidence,
commitment) as measured by the OMSAT. No significant differences emerged between
open skill and close skill athletes in these foundation skills. The fourth MANOVA
revealed no significant differences between open skill and close skill athletes for usage of
cognitive skills (imagery, mental practice, focusing, refocusing, competition planning).
The fifth MANOVA revealed significant differences between open skill and close skill
athletes in usage of psychosomatic skills (stress reactions, relaxation), F (4, 111) = 3.01,
p < .05, power = .902. Univariate ANOVAs revealed a significant difference based on
sport type for the stress reactions subscale, F (1, 114) = 10.14, p < .01, power = .89.
Open skill athletes (M = 1.44) were less likely to have stress reactions than close skill
athletes (M = 1.83). Overall, these results indicate that open skill athletes differ from
close skill athletes on intensity of somatic anxiety, intensity of self-confidence, and stress
reactions (bodily responses to stress).
Relationships Between Mental Skills and Anxiety/Self-Confidence Direction
The main focus of the study is on the proposed relationship between mental skills
and interpretation of anxiety (and self-confidence as measured by the CSAI-2). To
examine this relationship, a series of multivariate multiple regression analyses with
follow-up canonical correlation analyses were conducted using direction of cognitive
anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence as criterion variables and the three sets of
mental skills from the OMSAT (foundation skills, psychosomatic skills, cognitive skills)
as predictor variables. Because no differences were found between open and close skill
sport athletes in anxiety/self-confidence direction, separate analyses based on sport type
were not conducted.
Foundation skills and anxiety/confidence direction. The first multivariate analysis
examined the ability of the foundation skills of goal setting, self-confidence, and
commitment to predict anxiety and self-confidence direction in athletes. The overall
multivariate relationship was significant, Wilks' lamba = .59, F (23, 512) = 2.39, p < .01.
To further investigate this significant multivariate relationship, a canonical correlation
analysis was conducted (see Table 5). The correlation between the two sets of variables
35
was rc = .42. Self-confidence direction was the only criterion variable to contribute
significantly to the multivariate relationship (canonical loadings greater than .30 are
viewed as significant according to Pedhazur, 1982). The foundation mental skills of selfconfidence and goal setting emerged as significant predictors of self-confidence
direction, with both variables showing a positive relationship. Commitment did not
emerge as a significant predictor, and cognitive anxiety direction and somatic anxiety
direction did not emerge as significant criterion variables. This finding indicates that the
foundation mental skills of goal setting and self-confidence are predictive of how
facilitative self-confidence is to athletes, but not predictive of their interpretation of
cognitive and somatic anxiety. The redundancy index revealed a value of 11.12% for the
variance explained in the criterion variables (anxiety and self-confidence direction) by
the predictor variables (foundation mental skills). This redundancy index surpassed the
10% criterion set by Pedhazur (1982) as significant and meaningful.
Cognitive skills and anxiety/confidence direction. The second multivariate
analysis examined the ability of the cognitive mental skills of imagery, mental practice,
focusing, refocusing, and competition planning to predict anxiety and self-confidence
direction. The overall multivariate relationship was significant, Wilks' lamba = .28, F
(32, 530) = 3.87, p < .001. The correlation between the two sets of variables was rc = .53
(see Table 5). The cognitive mental skills of imagery, refocusing, mental practice, and
focusing significantly predicted direction of somatic anxiety and direction of selfconfidence. That is, athletes high in the mental skills of imagery, refocusing, mental
practice, and focusing interpreted their somatic anxiety and self-confidence as more
facilitative to their performance. Competition planning did not emerge as a significant
predictor, and cognitive anxiety direction did not emerge as a significant criterion
variable in the multivariate relationship. The redundancy index revealed a value of 21.07
for the variance explained in the criterion variables (anxiety and self-confidence
direction) by the predictor variables (cognitive mental skills).
Psychosomatic skills and anxiety/confidence direction. The third multivariate
analysis examined the ability of the psychosomatic mental skills of stress reactions, and
relaxation to predict anxiety and self-confidence direction. The overall multivariate
36
relationship was significant, Wilks' lambda = .39, F (29, 505) = 2.95, p < .001. The
correlation between the two sets of variables was rc = .50 (see Table 5). Stress reactions
was the most significant predictor and was negatively related to somatic anxiety
direction, cognitive anxiety direction, and self-confidence direction. Thus, bodily
responses to stress were negatively related to athletes' interpretation of anxiety and
confidence as facilitative to their performance. Relaxation was positively related to
somatic anxiety direction, cognitive anxiety direction, and self-confidence direction.
Thus, athletes' abilities to decrease their physiological arousal under stress are related to
their interpretation of anxiety and confidence as facilitative to their performance. The
redundancy index revealed a value of 16.59% for the variance explained in the criterion
variables (anxiety and self-confidence direction) by the predictor variables
(psychosomatic mental skills).
Relationships Between Mental Skills and Anxiety/Self-Confidence Intensity
Although the main focus of the study was on the relationship between mental
skills and athletes' interpretation of anxiety and self-confidence, the relationships
between mental skills and athletes' intensity of anxiety and self-confidence was also
examined in this study. This relationship was of interest because of the preliminary
findings that open and close skill athletes differed on anxiety/self-confidence intensity,
but not direction. Thus, the analyses examining the relationships between mental skills
and anxiety/self-confidence intensity were conducted separately for open skill athletes
and for close skill athletes. Similar to the analyses for anxiety/self-confidence direction,
a series of multivariate multiple regression analyses with follow-up canonical correlation
analyses were conducted using the different sets of OMSAT mental skills as predictor
variables and anxiety/self-confidence intensity as criterion variables. In addition,
separate analyses for each set of mental skills was conducted for open skill and close skill
athletes.
Foundation skills and anxiety/self-confidence intensity. The overall multivariate
relationship between the foundation mental skills of goal setting, self-confidence, and
commitment and the intensity of open skill athletes' anxiety/self-confidence was
significant, Wilks' lambda = .52, F (12, 412) = 2.71, p < .02. The correlation between the
37
two sets of variables was rc = .41 (see Table 6). For open skill athletes, the mental skills
of self-confidence and goal setting were positively related to self-confidence intensity
and negatively related to cognitive anxiety intensity. A significant multivariate
relationship was also found for close skill athletes, (Wilk's lambda = .58, F (12, 360) =
2.98, p < .001, rc = .42), as self-confidence and goal setting emerged as significant
predictors of self-confidence intensity and somatic anxiety intensity (see Table 6).
Commitment did not emerge as a significant predictor in either multivariate relationship.
The redundancy index for these analyses was 15.01% and 12.28% respectively.
These findings indicate that goal setting and self-confidence as mental skills
measured by the OMSAT are negatively related to cognitive anxiety for open skill
athletes and negatively related to somatic anxiety in close skill athletes. In addition, both
mental skills were predictive of self-confidence intensity as measured by the CSAI-2 for
both open and close skill athletes.
Cognitive skills and anxiety/self-confidence intensity. The overall multivariate
relationship between the cognitive mental skills of imagery, mental practice, focusing,
refocusing, and competition planning and the intensity of open skill athletes' anxiety/selfconfidence was significant, Wilks' lambda = .53, F (16, 463) = 2.51, p < .001, rc = .46.
For open skill athletes, focusing and refocusing emerged as significant predictors of the
intensity of self-confidence (see Table 7). That is, for open skill athletes, better skills in
focusing and refocusing during competition is positively related to feeling confident
during competition. No other cognitive skills emerged as significant, and open skill
athletes' cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety intensity was not significantly influenced
by their cognitive mental skills. A significant multivariate relationship was also found
for close skill athletes for the relationship between cognitive skills and anxiety/selfconfidence intensity (Wilk's lambda = .38, F (12, 360) = 3.57, p < .001, rc = .51). Mental
Practice, Imagery, and Focus were positively related to self-confidence intensity and
negative related to somatic anxiety intensity for close skill athletes (see Table 7). The
redundancy index for these analyses was 15.01% and 14.28% respectively.
Interestingly, focusing and refocusing were shown to be more important
predictors of anxiety and self-confidence for open skill athletes, while mental practice,
38
imagery, and focusing were more important predictors of anxiety and self-confidence for
close skill athletes. Also, the cognitive mental skills were only predictive of selfconfidence for open skill athletes, but they were predictive of both self-confidence and
somatic anxiety for close skill athletes.
Psychosomatic skills and anxiety/self-confidence intensity. The overall
multivariate relationship between the psychosomatic mental skills of stress reactions and
relaxation and the intensity of open skill athletes' anxiety and self-confidence intensity
was significant, Wilks' lambda = .48, F (15, 471) = 2.76, p < .001, rc = .48. Stress
reactions emerged as the only significant predictor variable, and was positively related to
somatic anxiety intensity and negatively related to self-confidence intensity (see Table 8).
This means that open skill athletes' higher levels of bodily responses to stress was related
to higher levels of somatic anxiety and lower levels of self-confidence. The redundancy
index for this analysis was 13.59%.
The overall multivariate relationship between psychosomatic mental skills and
intensity of close skill athletes' anxiety and self-confidence was significant, Wilks'
lambda = .43, F (12, 360) = 3.60, p < .01, rc = .53. For the close skill athletes, stress
reactions was positively related to somatic anxiety intensity and negatively related to selfconfidence intensity (see Table 8). Relaxation was negatively related to somatic anxiety
intensity and positively related to self-confidence intensity. The redundancy index for
this analysis was 14.25%.
39
Chapter 5
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between mental skills
and interpretation of competitive anxiety and self-confidence for athletes in open skill
versus close skill sports. As a corollary analysis, the relationship between mental skills
and the intensity of anxiety/self-confidence as measured by the CSAI-2 was examined.
Also, the degree to which athletes possess different types of mental skills was examined
based on differences that may result from participating in open versus close skill sports.
Differences Between Open and Close Skill Athletes
No differences were found between open and close skill athletes in terms of their
interpretation of competitive anxiety and self-confidence. That is, whether athletes
competed in open skill, or interactive type sports, versus close skill, or more self-paced
sports, does not seem to influence the degree to which they interpreted competitive
anxiety and self-confidence as facilitative or debilitative. These findings did not support
Jones’ (1995) control model, which suggests that athletes who are in control (as in selfpaced activities) are more likely to interpret anxiety as facilitative. It therefore seems that
the notion of "control" is as attainable to athletes in open skill sports as in close skill
sports. This may have to do with focusing on controllable aspects of one's individual
performance, no matter what the type of situation or sport. This finding may also be a
reflection of the athlete’s awareness of the anxiety that tends to exist in their sporting
environment. Thus, they expect certain anxiety levels to occur with the conditions of
their sporting environment and are ready and able to interpret that anxiety in a positive
manner.
Open skill athletes were found to be higher in self-confidence intensity and lower
in somatic anxiety intensity than close skill athletes. Thus, type of sport was shown to
influence how much anxiety and self-confidence athletes experience, but was not shown
to influence whether or not athletes interpret their anxiety and confidence as facilitative
or debilitative. This supports previous research that has shown that athletes in individual
sports such as wrestling, swimming, and track and field experience higher levels of
40
competitive anxiety and lower levels of self-confidence as compared to team sport
athletes (Martens et al., 1990). This finding may be a result of the self-paced nature of
close skill sports allowing the athletes more time to process the somatic symptoms that
they are experiencing. Because open skill sports are more interactive, open skill athletes
may have less time to reflect on the anxiety symptoms that occur.
No great differences emerged between open and close skill athletes in their mental
skills as measured by the OMSAT. Only one subscale from the psychosomatic skills
group, stress reactions, showed significant differences based on sport type. Specifically,
open skill athletes were less likely to have stress reactions than close skill athletes. Stress
reactions measures bodily responses to different demands within the competitive
environment, and thus is similar to somatic anxiety. This supports the previous finding of
higher somatic anxiety as measured by the CSAI-2 by close skill athletes as compared to
open skill athletes. Competitive anxiety theorists (Borkovec, 1976; Hardy & Jones,
1990; Martens et al., 1990) have suggested athletes in self-paced activities have more
time to cognitively process their physical symptoms, giving them more time to negatively
react to the bodily responses that occur. Those athletes participating in open skill
activities, where action is more continuous and attention is required to be directed in an
external manner, are not given the time to reflect on their body’s negative responses to
stress (Nideffer & Sagal, 2001). However, no other differences were found between open
and close skill athletes for the many categories of mental skills. Thus, no major pattern of
differences were found in the mental skills of athletes in open versus close skill sports.
Relationships Between Mental Skills and Anxiety/Self-Confidence Interpretation
Of major interest in this study were the relationships between the mental skills of
athletes and their interpretation of their competitive anxiety and self-confidence. Because
no differences emerged between open and close skill athletes for anxiety/self-confidence
interpretation, all athletes were examined together in this phase to see how various mental
skills might influence the ways in which athletes interpret their feelings of anxiety and
self-confidence. Because of the small sample size, the three types of mental skills
measured by the OMSAT were examined separately in relation to the CSAI-2 subscales
representing competitive anxiety and self-confidence.
41
The foundation skills of self-confidence and goal setting significantly predicted
athletes' interpretation of self-confidence as facilitative to their performance. However,
these foundation skills did not significantly predict cognitive or somatic anxiety direction.
Thus, the foundation skills of confidence and goal setting seem to be important in terms
of confidence to perform, but were not shown to be related to how athletes interpret their
competitive anxiety. These results support Fletcher and Hanton (2002) who also did not
find a significant relationship between usage of goal setting and anxiety interpretation.
This finding may be a result of the nature of goal setting and commitment, as those skills
are used as motivational strategies for athletes to achieve their goals. However, it was
surprising that self-confidence was not a predictor of anxiety interpretation. Many studies
have displayed a relationship between the two variables. This may be a result of using
one’s self confidence as a mental skill to achieve anxiety as facilitative, as opposed to
exhibiting high levels of self confidence.
Cognitive skills as measured by the OMSAT focus on the cognitive responses and
strategies that athletes use as important mental skills (Durand-Bush et al., 2001). Several
cognitive skills were shown to be important predictors of the degree to which athletes
view somatic anxiety as facilitative or debilitative. Athletes' use of imagery, mental
practice, focusing and refocusing techniques was positively related to somatic anxiety
and self-confidence direction. It was puzzling that these cognitive mental skills were not
predictive of cognitive anxiety interpretation, as imagery and self-talk usage were
positively related to cognitive anxiety interpretation in previous research (Fletcher &
Hanton, 2001). Of any of the skills measured by the OMSAT, it seems that the cognitive
skills with their emphasis on mental practice, focus, coping, and competition planning
would directly influence how athletes interpret their cognitive anxiety. Future research is
warranted to examine this relationship further.
The final set of skills measured by the OMSAT, psychosomatic skills, involves
mental skills that attempt to control and manage variations in physiological arousal that
affects athletes' performance. Athletes' stress reactions, or bodily responses to stressful
demands, were negatively related to self-confidence direction and positively related to
both somatic and cognitive anxiety direction. Conversely, athletes' abilities to engage in
42
physical relaxation strategies helped them to interpret their somatic and cognitive anxiety,
as well as self-confidence, as facilitative to their performance. This finding for physical
relaxation replicated Fletcher and Hanton's (2001) link found between relaxation and
anxiety/self-confidence interpretation using the Test of Performance Strategies. Thus,
previous research indicated that athletes' use of physical relaxation enhanced their
interpretation of anxiety and confidence, and this study extends that finding to indicate
that athletes' skill or ability to physically relax their bodies enhances their abilities to
interpret anxiety and confidence as helpful to their performance.
Relationships Between Mental Skills and Anxiety/Self-Confidence Intensity
Although the main focus of the study was on the relationship between athletes'
mental skills and their interpretation of their competitive anxiety, it seemed fruitful to
also examine the relationship between athletes' mental skills and the intensity of their
anxiety and self-confidence. This became of even more interest when differences
emerged between open and close skill athletes in the intensity of their anxiety and selfconfidence, but not their interpretation of their anxiety and self-confidence. Thus, all
analyses of the relationships between mental skills and anxiety/self-confidence intensity
were conducted separately for open and close skill athletes. Because differences were
found in anxiety and confidence levels, perhaps differences also are apparent in the ways
in which mental skills are used by athletes in competition that influence their anxiety and
confidence levels.
Foundation mental skills and anxiety/self-confidence intensity. Both open and
close skill athletes demonstrated that their mental skills of self-confidence and goal
setting (OMSAT) enhanced their confidence levels and decreased their anxiety (CSAI-2).
The only difference was that self-confidence and goal setting skills were related to
decreases in cognitive anxiety in open skill athletes and self-confidence and goal setting
were related to decreased somatic anxiety in close skill athletes. This indicates that
somatic anxiety seems to be more problematic for close skill athletes, as shown in the
previous findings that close skill athletes have higher levels of somatic anxiety than open
skill athletes. As discussed previously, it may be that the self-paced nature of close skill
sports allows athletes time to deal with the perceived somatic symptoms. It seems that a
43
productive focus on relevant goals and confident beliefs in one's ability may lessen the
degree to which close skill athletes focus on their somatic symptoms of anxiety.
Commitment, or athletes' intensity and dedication to achieving their goals, was not
predictive of anxiety or self-confidence. This makes intuitive sense as commitment seems
much more related to motivation as opposed to perceptions of anxiety and confidence in
one's ability to perform.
Cognitive mental skills and anxiety/self-confidence intensity. Some interesting
differences between open skill and close skill athletes emerged in the relationship
between cognitive mental skills and anxiety/self-confidence intensity. For open skill
athletes, focusing and refocusing were significant mental skill predictors of selfconfidence intensity. That is, open skill athletes that had stronger focusing and
refocusing skills showed higher levels of confidence than open skill athletes with fewer
skills in these areas. Imagery and mental practice were not significant predictors of selfconfidence or anxiety intensity for open skill athletes. Thus, it seems like the interactive
nature of open skill sports requires athletes to develop their skills of attentional focusing
as well as the ability to regain their focus when it is lost in the midst of various
environmental stimuli.
Conversely, mental practice, imagery, and focusing all emerged as significant
predictors of self-confidence and somatic anxiety intensity in close skill athletes. Close
skill athletes' higher levels of skill in mental practice, imagery, and focusing were related
to higher levels of self-confidence and lower levels of somatic anxiety. It was interesting
that the mental rehearsal skills of imagery and mental practice were more important to
enhance confidence and lessen anxiety in close skill athletes as compared to open skill
athletes. It seems that the self-paced nature of close skill sports provides opportunity for
athletes to engage in mental rehearsal prior to competition to enhance confidence and
manage their anxiety. Also, it may be easier for close skill athletes to use mental
rehearsal and imagery because they can mentally practice their performance in a
controlled manner which is very similar to the environment that they face, as it is not
greatly influenced by external factors as is the case in open skill sports.
44
Fletcher and Hanton (2001) found that athletes' use of imagery was related to
higher self-confidence in athletes, but that it did not influence cognitive or somatic
anxiety. The results of this study indicate that skill in imagery and mental practice helps
close skill athletes control somatic anxiety and enhance their confidence. Competition
planning as a cognitive mental skill in the OMSAT did not emerge as a significant mental
skill related to self-confidence or anxiety for athletes. This is similar to the previous
finding with commitment, in that both competition planning and commitment seem more
targeted to motivation and behavioral management, as opposed to enhancing confidence
and reducing anxiety in athletes.
Psychosomatic mental skills and anxiety/self-confidence intensity. For both open
and close skill athletes, stress reactions (bodily responses to competitive demands) were
related to higher levels of somatic anxiety and lower levels of self-confidence. Previous
research has documented the negative relationship between perceptions of somatic
anxiety and self-confidence in athletes (Martens et al., 1990). For close skills athletes,
physical relaxation also emerged as a significant predictor of somatic anxiety and selfconfidence intensity. This finding indicates that skill in physical relaxation techniques
may be more facilitative for athletes in close skill sports as opposed to open skill sports.
Again, the self-paced nature of close skill sport may allow athletes to engage in physical
relaxation before the competition.
Limitations
There were several limitations during this research. First, there were twice as
many open skill athletes (n=88) than close skill athletes (n=40) that completed surveys.
This limits the assumptions that can be made on the differences between open skill and
close skill athletes, as well as the assumption that those skills that were significant were
the only ones that are used by that type of athlete.
Moreover, the results of this study are only representative of collegiate athletes.
Thus, researchers or practitioners should be careful if relating the results of this study
when dealing with elite athletes or those athletes who have not yet experienced collegiate
sports.
45
Further, while this study displayed the mental skills that are utilized by certain
athletes and how these skills may influence how anxiety is interpreted by these athletes, it
does not reflect the exact mental skills that are used to interpret anxiety in a facilitative
manner. The researcher has implied that the mental skills that are used by athletes are the
same mental skills that are used by athletes to view anxiety as facilitative. While this
may be true, the mental skills that are used specifically to interpret anxiety as positive
may be fewer then the mental skills that are generally used by that athlete. Thus, a study
that is interested in finding the mental skills that are used when athletes interpret anxiety
as facilitative will help researchers to further explain this phenomenon. Additionally, the
mental skills that may increase or decrease the intensity of anxiety that athletes
experience would also be an important for future researchers to explore.
Implications for Practice
The findings of this study suggest that sport psychologists or coaches can use a
number of mental skills in order to assist athletes in interpreting anxiety as facilitative.
Specifically, the results of the study showed that relaxation, imagery, refocusing, mental
practice, and focusing can all be used to help athletes interpret somatic anxiety in a
positive manner. Also, reducing stress reactions can help athletes to interpret somatic
anxiety as facilitative. Thus, practitioners in the field should focus on these mental skills
if an athlete is interpreting somatic anxiety as debilitative towards performance. The
findings also exhibit the mental skill of relaxation can be used to help athletes interpret
cognitive anxiety as facilitative. Further, athletes experiencing stress reactions are more
likely to interpret anxiety in a negative manner. Thus, sport psychologists and coaches of
athletes who interpret anxiety as debilitative should focus on these mental skill
techniques to help those athletes change their interpretation of anxiety to facilitative
energy. Additionally, the results of study showed that relaxation, imagery, refocusing,
mental practice, focusing, self-confidence, and goal setting were all related to facilitative
interpretations of self confidence, while stress reactions were associated with debilitative
interpretations of self confidence. This suggests that athletes who exhibit debilitative
interpretations of self confidence should use these mental skills techniques to change
their interpretation of self confidence as facilitative towards performance.
46
The findings of this study also gave practitioners information about the
differences that occur between close skill and open skill athletes in their intensity levels
of anxiety. This indicates that sport psychologists and coaches should incorporate the
specific mental skills that have shown to be used to decrease anxiety levels or increase
self-confidence based on the type of sport the athlete participates in. Specifically, the
results show that lower levels of stress reactions in open skill athletes are related to lower
levels of somatic anxiety. Thus, helping open skill athletes reduce their stress reactions
will assist those athletes in lowering their somatic anxiety intensity levels. Additionally,
goal setting and self-confidence were related to low levels of cognitive anxiety in open
skill athletes. Therefore, athletes that exhibit high levels of cognitive anxiety would
benefit in lowering their cognitive anxiety symptoms by engaging in goal setting and
self-confidence. Further, the findings exhibited a positive relationship between selfconfidence intensity and the mental skills of goal setting, self-confidence, focusing, and
refocusing, and a negative relationship between self confidence intensity and stress
reactions for open skill athletes. When sport psychologists and coaches are working with
open skill athletes that display low levels of self confidence, they should work to
integrate goal setting, self-confidence, focusing, and refocusing into a routine for the
athlete as well as working to reduce their stress reactions in order to assist in increasing
the athlete’s self-confidence.
The results for close skill athletes displayed differences. Close skill athletes
displayed negative relationships between levels of somatic anxiety and goal setting, selfconfidence, imagery, mental practice, focusing, and relaxation, and positive relationships
between anxiety intensity and stress reactions. This suggests that close skill athletes
should use goal setting, self-confidence, imagery, mental practice, focusing, and
relaxation to help decrease somatic anxiety and also reduce stress reactions to help
decrease somatic anxiety levels. Additionally, close skill athletes can help increase their
self-confidence by increasing their ability to use mental skills of goal setting, selfconfidence, mental practice, imagery, focusing, and relaxation, and reduce the impact that
stress reactions have on the athlete.
47
Future Directions
Future research should be interested in using the mental skills that are identified
as assisting athletes in viewing anxiety in a facilitative manner. First, it is important for
researchers to distinguish the exact mental skills that are used for interpreting anxiety as
facilitative. Additionally, researchers should distinguish between the type of sport that
the athletes play and the mental skills that are used for positive interpretations of anxiety.
This study displayed differences between open and close skill sports. Thus, it is
important to continue making distinctions of mental skills used between different types of
sport. Further, it is important for researchers to use this information in the applied
setting, and employ interventions that involve using mental skills to help athletes view
anxiety in a facilitative manner. It is also vital for researchers to determine the
differences that may occur between open and close skill sport or in each individual sport
in utilized mental skills. This will help athletes to apply those mental skills that are most
important in their environment.
Additionally, it is important that researchers begin to separate athletes based on
type of sport in all research studies in order to determine if there are other differences that
exist between open and close skill athletes and the way that they achieve high levels of
performance. This is essential for creating interventions that are specific for the athlete
or the sport in which they are being introduced, as well as improving performance of that
athlete or team.
48
REFERENCES
Borkovec, T.D. (1976). Physiological and cognitive processes in the regulation of
arousal. In G.E. Schwartz & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and selfregulation: Advances in research (Vol. 1, pp. 261–312). New York: Plenum
Press.
Bota, J.D. (1993). Development of the Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment Tool (OMSAT).
Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Burton, D. (1988). Do anxious swimmers swim slower? Reexamining the elusive
anxiety-performance relationship. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10,
45–61.
Caruso, C.M., Dzewaltowski, D.A., Gill, D.L., & McElroy, M.A. (1990). Psychological
and physiological changes in competitive state anxiety during noncompetition and
competition success and failure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12, 6–
20.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1988). A control-process perspective on anxiety. Anxiety
Research, 1, 17–22.
Davidson, R.J., & Schwartz, G.E. (1976). The psychobiology of relaxation and related
states: A multi-process theory. In D.I. Mostofsky (Ed.), Behavior control and
modification of physiological activity (pp. 399–442). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Durand-Bush, N., Salmela, J.H., & Green-Demers, I. (2001). The Ottawa Mental Skills
Assessment Tool (OMSAT-3). The Sport Psychologist, 15, 1-19.
Edwards, T., & Hardy, L. (1996). The interactive effects of intensity and direction of
cognitive and somatic anxiety and self-confidence upon performance. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 296–312.
Fischman, M.G., & Oxendine, J.B., (1998). Motor skill learning for effective coaching
and performance. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied Sport Psychology: Personal
growth to peak performance (3rd ed.) (pp.13-27). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield
Fletcher, D., & Hanton, S. (2001). The relationship between psychological skill usage
and competitive anxiety responses. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2, 89-101.
49
Gould, D., Greenleaf, C., & Krane, V. (2002) The relationship between arousal and
athletic performance: current status and future directions. In T.S. Horn’s (Ed.)
Advances in Sport Psychology. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics
Gould, D., Petlichkoff, L., Simons, H., & Vevera, M. (1987). The relationship between
Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 subscale scores and pistol shooting
performance. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 9, 33–42.
Gould, D., & Tuffey, S. (1996). Zones of optimal functioning research: A review and
critique. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 9, 53–68.
Gould, D., Tuffey, S., Hardy, L., & Lockbaum, M. (1993). Multidimensional state
anxiety and middle distance running performance: An exploratory examination of
Hanin’s (1980) zones of optimal functioning hypothesis. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 5, 85–95.
Greenspan, M.J., & Feltz, D.L. (1989). Psychological interventions with athletes in
competitive situations: a review. The Sport Psychologist, 3, 219-236.
Hackfort, D., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1993) Anxiety. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphy, & L.K.
Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp.328-364). New
York: Macmillan.
Hale, B. D., & Whitehouse, A. (1998). The effects of imagery-manipulated appraisal on
intensity and direction of competitive anxiety. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 40-51.
Hammermeister, J., & Burton, D. (1995). Anxiety and the Ironman: Investigating the
antecedents and consequences of endurance athletes’ state anxiety. The Sport
Psychologist, 11, 29–40.
Hanin, Y.I. (1980). A study of anxiety in sports. In W.F. Straub (Ed.), Sport psychology:
An analysis of athlete behavior (pp. 236–249). Ithaca, NY: Mouvement.Hanton.
Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). Perceived control of anxiety and its relationship
to self- confidence and performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
73, 87-97.
Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (1999a). The acquisition and development of cognitive skills and
strategies: I. Making the butterflies fly in formation. The Sport Psychologist, 13,
1-21.
50
Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (1999b). The acquisition and development of cognitive skills and
strategies: II. Training the butterflies to fly in formation. The Sport Psychologist,
13, 22- 41.
Hardy, L. (1990). A catastrophe model of performance in sport. In G. Jones & L. Hardy
(Eds.), Stress and Performance in Sport (pp.81-107). Chichester: Wiley.
Hardy, L., & Fazey, J. (1987, June). The inverted-U hypothesis: A catastrophe for sport
psychology. Paper presented at the meeting of the North American Society for the
Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Vancouver, BC.
Hardy, L., & Jones, G. (1990). Future directions for research into stress in sport. In G.
Jones & L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and performance in sport (pp. 281–290).
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Hardy, L., & Parfitt, G. (1991). A catastrophe model of anxiety and performance. British
Journal of Psychology, 82, 163–178.
Hull, C.L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century.
Jerome, G.J., & Williams, J.M. (2000) Intensity and interpretation of competitive state
anxiety: relationship to performance and repressive coping. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 12, 236-250.
Jones, G. (1991). Recent developments and current issues in competitive state anxiety
research. The Psychologist, 4, 152–155.
Jones, G. (1995). More than just a game: Research developments and issues in
competitive anxiety in sport. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 499–478.
Jones, G., & Hanton, S. (1996). Interpretation of competitive anxiety symptoms and goal
attainment expectancies. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 144–157.
Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Swain, A. (1994). Intensity and interpretation of anxiety
symptoms in elite and non-elite sports performers. Personality and Individual
Differences, 17, 657– 663.
Jones, G., & Swain, A. (1992). Intensity and direction as dimensions of competitive state
anxiety and relationships with competitiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74,
467–472.
51
Jones, G., & Swain, A. (1995). Predispositions to experience debilitative and facilitative
anxiety in elite and non-elite performers. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 201–211.
Jones, G., Swain, A., & Hardy, L. (1993). Intensity and direction dimensions of
competitive state anxiety and relationships with performance. Journal of Sport
Sciences, 11, 525–532.
Jones, G., Swain, A., & Harwood, C. (1996). Positive and negative affect as predictors of
competitive anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 109–114.
Karteroliotis, C., & Gill, D.L. (1987). Temporal changes in psychological and
physiological components of state anxiety. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 261–
274.
Kerr, J.H. (1985). The experience of arousal: A new basis for studying arousal effects in
sport. Journal of Sport Sciences, 3, 169–179.
Kerr, J.H. (1987). Structural phenomenology and performance. Journal of Human
Movement Studies, 13, 211–229.
Kerr, J.H. (1997). Motivation and emotion in sport: Reversal theory. East Sussex, UK:
Psychology Press.
Krane, V. (1990). Anxiety and athletic performance: A test of the multidimensional
anxiety and catastrophe theories. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
North Carolina at Greensboro.
Krane, V. (1993). A practical method for examining the anxiety-athletic performance
relationship: Zone of optimal functioning hypothesis. The Sport Psychologist, 7,
113–126.
Landers, D.M. (1980). The arousal-performance relationship revisited. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 77–90.
Landers, D.M., & Boutcher, S.H. (1998). Arousal performance relationships. In J.M.
Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance
(3rd ed., pp. 197–218). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Liebert, R.M., & Morris, L.W. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test
anxiety: A distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20, 975-978.
52
Males, J.R., Kerr, J.H., & Gerkovich. M.M. (1998). Metamotivational states during
slalom competition: A qualitative analysis using reversal theory. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 185–200.
Martens, R. (1971). Anxiety and motor behavior: A review. Journal of Motor Behavior,
2, 151–179.
Martens, R. (1977). Sport competition anxiety test. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Rivkin, F., & Simon, J. (1980). Reliability and validity of the
Competitive State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI). In C. H. Nadeau, W.C. Halliwell,
K. M. Newell, & G. C. Roberts (Eds.), Psychology of Motor Behavior and
Sport:1979 (pp.91-99). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R., Bump, L., & Smith, D. (1990). The development of
the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). In R. Martens, R.S. Vealey,
& D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive anxiety in sport (pp. 117–190). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Martens, R., Vealey, R.S., & Burton, D. (Eds.) (1990). Competitive anxiety in sport.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Mayer, R.E. (1983). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Maynard, I.W., Hemmings, B., & Warwick-Evans, L. (1995). The effects of a somatic
intervention strategy on competitive state anxiety and performance in
semiprofessional soccer players. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 51–64.
Maynard, I.W., & Howe, B.L. (1987). Interrelations of trait anxiety and state anxiety with
game performance of rugby players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 599–602.
Maynard, I.W., Smith, M.J., & Warwick-Evans, L. (1995). The effects of a cognitive
intervention strategy on competitive state anxiety and performance in
semiprofessional soccer players. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17,
428–446.
Morgan, W.P., O’Connor, P.J.O., Ellickson, K.A., & Bradley, P.W. (1988). Personality
structure, mood states, and performance in elite male distance runners.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 19, 247–263.
53
Morgan, W.P., O’Connor, P.J.O., Sparling, P., & Pate, R.R. (1987). Psychological
characterization of elite female distance runners. International Journal of Sports
Medicine, 8 (Suppl.), 165–182.
Neiss, R. (1988). Reconceptualizing arousal: Psychobiological states in motor
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 345–366.
Nideffer, R., & Sagal, (2001). Concentration and attention control training. In J.M.
Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance
(4th ed., pp. 312-332). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Orlick, T. (1992). The psychology of personal excellence. Contemporary Thought on
Performance Enhancement, 1, 109-122.
Orlick, T. (1996). The wheel of excellence. Journal of Performance Education, 1, 3-18.
Orlick, T. & Parlinton, J. (1988). Mental links to excellence. The Sport Psychologist, 2,
105-130.
Pedhazur, E. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research. New York: Holt.
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.
Rotella, R.J. & Lerner, J.D. (1993). Responding to competitive pressure. In R. Singer, M.
Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp.
528-541). New York: Macmillan.
Smith, K.C.P., & Apter, M.J. (1975). A theory of psychological reversals. Chippenham,
Wilts, UK: Picton Press.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Schutz, R.W. (1990). Measurement and correlates of sportspecific cognitive and somatic trait anxiety: The sport anxiety scale. Anxiety
Research, 2, 263–280.
Spence, J.T., & Spence, K.A. (1966). The motivational components of manifest anxiety:
Drive and drive stimuli. In C.D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior (pp.
291–326). New York: Academic Press.
54
Spielberger, C.D. (1966). Theory and research on anxiety. In C.D. Spielberger (Ed.),
Anxiety and behavior (pp. 3–22). New York: Academic Press.
Spielberger, C.D. (1972). Anxiety as an emotional state. In C.D. Spielberger (Ed.),
Anxiety:Current trends in theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 24–54). New York:
Academic Press.
Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., & Lushene, R.E. (1970a). Manual for the State–Trait
Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., & Lushene, R.E. (1970b). STAI manual for the state–
trait inventory (“self-evaluation questionnaire”). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Turner, P.E., & Raglin, J.S. (1993). Anxiety and performance in track and field athletes:
A comparison of the ZOF and inverted U theories. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise, 23(Suppl.), S119.
Vealey, R.S. (1994). Current status and prominent issues in sport psychology
interventions. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26, 495-502.
Weinberg, R.S., & Comar, W. (1994). The effectiveness of psychological interventions in
competitive sport. Sport Medicine, 18, 406-418.
Wiggins, M.S. (1998). Anxiety intensity and direction: preperformance temporal patterns
and expectations in athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 201-211.
Williams, J.M. & Harris, D.V. (1998). Relaxation and energizing techniques for
regulation of arousal. In J.M. Williams (Ed.) Applied sport psychology: Personal
growth to peak performance (3rd ed., pp. 219-236). Mountainview, CA: Mayfield.
Yerkes, R.M., & Dodson, J.D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of
habit formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459–
482.
Zaichkowsky, L. & Takenaka, K. (1993). Optimizing arousal levels. In R. Singer, M.
Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp.
511-527). New York: Macmillan.
55
Table 1
Participant Demographics (N = 116)
________________________________________________________________________
Type of Sport
Males
%
Females
%
Total
%
________________________________________________________________________
Did not Answer
Open Skill Sport
3
3
46
69
35
76
81
70
0
0
29
63
29
25
Football
21
31
0
0
21
19
Basketball
4
6
2
4
6
5
Baseball/ Softball
1
2
2
4
3
3
Volleyball
18
27
0
0
18
16
Tennis
2
3
2
4
4
4
Close Skill Sport
21
31
11
24
32
28
Cross Country/ Track
7
10
11
24
18
16
Swimming/ Diving
13
19
0
0
13
12
Golf
1
2
0
0
1
1
Soccer
Total
67
100
46
100
116
100
________________________________________________________________________
56
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables
__________________________________________________________________
Variable
M
SD
α
__________________________________________________________________
OMSAT-3
Goal Setting
21.97
3.15
.71
Self-confidence
23.38
2.86
.71
Commitment
21.97
3.61
.70
Foundation Skills
67.31
7.72
.82
Stress Reactions
12.04
4.42
.69
Relaxation
18.43
4.09
.69
Psychosomatic Skills 79.13
10.74
.73
Imagery
19.65
3.74
.69
Mental Practice
18.52
4.35
.74
Focusing
19.78
4.09
.70
Refocusing
17.35
4.41
.66
Competition Planning 18.73
4.10
.67
Cognitive Skills
93.91
12.95
.79
___________________________________________________________________
Note. N = 116
Table 2 continues
57
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables
__________________________________________________________________
Variable
M
SD
α
_________________________________________________________________
CSAI-2
Cognitive Direction
37.90
9.39
.86
Somatic Direction
39.92
7.80
.84
Self-confidence
Direction
48.09
8.72
.87
Cognitive Intensity
19.82
5.52
.81
Somatic Intensity
17.97
4.41
.74
Self-confidence
25.11
5.50
.88
Intensity
__________________________________________________________________
Note. N = 116
58
Table 3
Correlations between OMSAT-3 Subscales
________________________________________________________________________
Measure
1
2
3
4
5
__________________________________________________________________
1. Goal Setting Foundation Subscale
-2. Self-confidence Foundation Subscale
.43** --
3. Commitment Foundation Subscale
.34** .30** --
4. Foundation Mental Skills
.80** .71** .75** --
5. Stress Reactions Psychosomatic Subscale
-.20* -.34** -.09
-.26** --
6. Relaxation Psychosomatic Subscale
.25** .32** .17
.32** -.27**
7. Psychosomatic Mental Skills Subscale
.32** .36** .13
.34** .14
8. Imagery Cognitive Subscale
.20*
.31** -.19*
9. Mental Preparation Cognitive Subscale
.35** .30** .22*
.39** -.11
10. Focusing Cognitive Subscale
.24** .44** .06
.30** -.29**
11. Refocusing Cognitive Subscale
.15
.15
12. Competition Planning Cognitive Subscale
.43** .18
13. Cognitive Skills
.44** .48** .23*
.37** .16
.21*
.01
-.34**
.26** .40** -.11
.50** -.34**
________________________________________________________________________
*p<.05. **p<.01.
Table 3 continues
59
Table 3
Correlations between OMSAT-3 Subscales
________________________________________________________________________
Measure
6
7
8
9
10
________________________________________________________________________
1. Goal Setting Foundation Subscale
2. Self-confidence Foundation Subscale
3. Commitment Foundation Subscale
4. Foundation Mental Skills
5. Stress Reactions Psychosomatic Subscale
6. Relaxation Psychosomatic Subscale
--
7. Psychosomatic Mental Skills Subscale
.70** --
8. Imagery Cognitive Subscale
.33** .30** --
9. Mental Preparation Cognitive Subscale
.31** .33** .41** --
10. Focusing Cognitive Subscale
.29** .29** .20*
.18*
--
11. Refocusing Cognitive Subscale
.41** .37** .13
.12
.45**
12. Competition Planning Cognitive Subscale
.16
.52** .09
.15
.22*
13. Cognitive Skills
.49** .47** .62** .72** .63**
________________________________________________________________________
*p<.05. **p<.01.
Table 3 continues
60
Table 3
Correlations between OMSAT-3 Subscales
________________________________________________________________________
Measure
11
12
13
__________________________________________________________________
1. Goal Setting Foundation Subscale
2. Self-confidence Foundation Subscale
3. Commitment Foundation Subscale
4. Foundation Mental Skills
5. Stress Reactions Psychosomatic Subscale
6. Relaxation Psychosomatic Subscale
7. Psychosomatic Mental Skills Subscale
8. Imagery Cognitive Subscale
9. Mental Preparation Cognitive Subscale
10. Focusing Cognitive Subscale
11. Refocusing Cognitive Subscale
--
12. Competition Planning Cognitive Subscale
-.08
--
13. Cognitive Skills
.56** .55** -________________________________________________________________________
*p<.05. **p<.01.
61
Table 4
Correlations between CSAI-2 subscales
________________________________________________________________________
Measure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
__________________________________________________________________
1. Cognitive Anxiety
-Direction
2. Somatic Anxiety
Direction
.64** --
3. Self-confidence Direction .38** .38** -4. Anxiety Direction
.87** .85** .67** --
5. Cognitive Anxiety
Intensity
-.18* -.27** -.29** .43** --
6. Somatic Anxiety Intensity -.17
-.15
-.35** -.27** .43** --
7. Self-confidence Intensity .38** .29** .53** .46** -.41** -.37** -8. Anxiety Intensity
-.01 -.04 -.06 -.06 .68** .66** .46** -________________________________________________________________________
**p<.01.
62
Table 5
Canonical loadings for relationships between mental skills and anxiety/self-confidence
direction
Predictor Variables
Loading
Criterion Variables
Loading
Self-Confidence
.89
Self-Confidence Direction
Goal Setting
.61
Cognitive Anxiety Direction .26
Commitment
.10
Somatic Anxiety Direction
.22
Imagery
.74
Somatic Anxiety Direction
.61
Refocusing
.71
Self-Confidence Direction
.52
Mental Practice
.50
Cognitive Anxiety Direction .24
Focusing
.48
Competition Plans
-.11
Foundation Skills:
.75
Cognitive Skills:
Psychosomatic Skills:
Stress Reactions
Relaxation
.64
Somatic Anxiety Direction
-.40
-.79
Cognitive Anxiety Direction -.62
Self-Confidence Direction
63
-.36
Table 6
Canonical loadings for relationships between foundation mental skills and intensity of
anxiety/self-confidence for open and close skill athletes
Predictor Variable
Loading
Criterion Variable
Loading
Self-Confidence
-.52
Self-Confidence Intensity
-.71
Goal Setting
-.52
Cognitive Anxiety Intensity
.47
Commitment
-.13
Somatic Anxiety Intensity
.03
Self-Confidence
.74
Self-Confidence Intensity
.52
Goal Setting
.32
Somatic Anxiety Intensity
-.39
Commitment
.09
Cognitive Anxiety Intensity -.13
Open Skill Athletes:
Close Skill Athletes:
64
Table 7
Canonical loadings for relationships between cognitive mental skills and intensity of
anxiety/self-confidence for open and close skill athletes
Predictor Variable
Loading
Criterion Variable
Loading
Focusing
.64
Self-Confidence Intensity
Refocusing
.41
Cognitive Anxiety Intensity -.20
Imagery
.21
Somatic Anxiety Intensity
-.09
Competition Planning
-.12
Mental Practice
.09
Open Skill Athletes:
.53
Close Skill Athletes:
Mental Practice
-.66
Somatic Anxiety Intensity
.54
Imagery
-.48
Self-Confidence Intensity
-.44
Focusing
-.31
Cognitive Anxiety Intensity -.17
Refocusing
-.21
Competition Planning
.08
65
Table 8
Canonical loadings for relationships between psychosomatic mental skills and intensity
of anxiety/self-confidence for open and close skill athletes
Predictor Variable
Loading
Criterion Variable
Loading
Stress Reactions
.54
Somatic Anxiety Intensity
.58
Relaxation
-.21
Self-Confidence Intensity
-.36
Open Skill Athletes:
Cognitive Anxiety Intensity -.17
Close Skill Athletes:
Stress Reactions
.71
Somatic Anxiety Intensity
.64
Relaxation
-.36
Self-Confidence Intensity
-.46
Cognitive Anxiety Intensity
.18
66
Figure1. Jones’ control model of facilitative and debilitative anxiety.
67
OMSAT-3
Mental Skills
FOUNDATION
SKILLS
PSYCHOSOMATIC
SKILLS
COGNITIVE SKILLS
Imagery
Goal Setting
Self Confidence
Stress Reactions
Mental Practice
Fear Control
Focusing
Commitment
Activation
Refocusing
Relaxation
Competition Planning
Figure 2. Mental skills assessed by the OMSAT-3.
68
Appendix A
69
70
Appendix B
The OMSAT-3*© is a reliable and valid tool that can be used to assess 12 mental
skills required for consistent high quality performance in sport and in life.
Please answer the following questions.
Age: ______ years old.
Collegiate Sport: _______________
Month and Year of Last Competition: _______________
Sex (circle one):
Male
Female
Current Class Level (circle one): Freshman (Incoming Student)
Redshirt Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
5th year Senior
* If you answered Freshman or Redshirt Freshman to the above question, you
may stop here.
I have worked with a sport psychologist/ mental training consultant (circle one):
Yes
No
If yes, how often have you met with a psychologist/ mental training consultant
(circle one):
Between 1-3 occasions
Regular basis between 1-6 months
Regular basis between 6-12 months
Regular basis between 1-3 years
Regular basis over 3 years
71
Please circle one to indicate your level of agreement with each of the following
statements. There are no right or wrong answers so please give your immediate
and honest response. Please answer all questions. Think of you past
competitive season in your sport, whether in training or competition, when
responding to the items.
1. I set daily training goals.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
2. I believe I can succeed in my chosen activity in spite of any obstacles I
encounter.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
3. I find it easy to relax.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
4. There are a number of things in my sport that are potentially dangerous and
make me afraid.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
5. I can increase my energy level when I am tired in training.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
6. I experience performance problems because I am too nervous.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
72
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
7. I am determined to never give up in my sport.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
8. I lose my focus during important competitions.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
9. I find it easy to create mental images.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
10. I set difficult but achievable goals.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
11. I plan a regular set of things to do before a competition.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
12. I act confidently even in difficult sport situations.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
13. I mentally practice my sport on a daily basis.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
14. My body tightens unnecessarily in competition.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
73
15. I lose my focus during daily training.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
16. I find it difficult to train because of the fear involved in my sport.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
17. I am committed to becoming an outstanding competitor.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
18. I find it easy to change images in my mind.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
19. I can consciously decrease the tension in my muscles.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
20. I can increase my energy level when I am too relaxed in competition.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
21. I mentally practice my sport with maximum performance in mind.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
22. Mistakes often lead to other mistakes when I compete.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
74
Somewhat
agree
23. I set goals to improve daily aspects of my performance.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
24. I am afraid to lose.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
25. I plan a regular set of things to think about before a competition.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
26. I have clear mental images.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
27. I find it hard to regain control of myself after getting upset during a
performance.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
28. I believe I have the personal capacity to achieve my goals.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
29. I find it easy to relax quickly.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
30. I am willing to sacrifice most other things to excel in my sport.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
75
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
31. I find it difficult to concentrate in certain training situations.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
32. I find that big crowds get me nervous in competition.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
33. I can feel movements in my imagery.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
34. I find it hard to get an unexpected event off my mind during competition.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
35. My mental practice is planned.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
36. I compete better in practice than I do in competition.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
37. I can easily activate myself up to an optimal level where my performance is at
its best.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
38. I have difficulty remaining focused throughout an entire competition.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
76
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
39. I feel more committed to improve in my sport than to anything else in my life.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
40. I plan a regular set of things to do during a competition.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
41. My goals push me to work harder.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
42. I can relax effectively during critical moments in a competition.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
43. I find it hard to gain control of things to reduce my fears in training.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
44. I dwell upon mistakes during training.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
45. I mentally practice for critical situations in competition.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
46. I can easily activate myself before a competition if I am down.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
77
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
47. I have a plan that includes certain cue words I say to myself in competition.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
Agree
Strongly
agree
48. I am confident in most aspects of my performance.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
78
Somewhat
agree