Anxiety In Sports

An International Perspective

Dieter Hackfort, Charles D. Spielberger, Dieter Hackfort, Charles D. Spielberger

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781317705970
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medicina
• Subtopic: Psichiatria e salute mentale

This work offers an investigation of sports-related anxiety research, including studies from both Eastern and Western Europe. International authoritieshave combined chapters yo fous on three key areas of interest: theory and assessment, anxiety and performance, and anxiety control in sports.

III
ANXIETY CONTROL IN SPORTS

11
Health, Anxiety, and Physical Exercise

William P. Morgan and Kathleen A. Ellickson

OVERVIEW

This chapter is comprised of three independent sections dealing with health, anxiety and physical exercise. Sport psychologists have historically focused on the relationship between anxiety and performance in sport settings, and this is understandable when one considers the brief history of sport psychology. However, as this young field has grown and developed, there has been an increasing concern with the converse question; that is, the influence of physical exercise on anxiety. Both approaches are concerned with exercise and anxiety, but the research and applications tend to be quite different. The former approach has a performance focus, and it is associated with antecedent research paradigms and interventions, whereas the latter involves health, and it is characterized by consequent designs and evaluations. Another trend in this area involves both health and performance, but it is not restricted to competitive sports or exercise for health reasons. This emerging area involves health, safety, and performance of individuals involved in stressful occupations and high-risk recreational activities. Recent examples of sport psychology research in this latter area will be reviewed in the final section.

ANXIETY AND PERFORMANCE

The relationship between arousal and sport performance has been analyzed from a number of perspectives in recent years. Enhancing athletic performance through the monitoring and manipulation of pre-competitive and competitive anxiety has been a focus of coaches, athletes and researchers in the exercise and sport sciences. Various technologies have been developed to increase and decrease sport related arousal levels in an effort to help athletes control the physiological and psychological symptoms associated with anxiety states. There have been five theoretical orientations used in the exercise and sport sciences which have dealt with arousal level in competitive athletes, and these approaches will be reviewed in the following sections.

Drive Theory

The earliest point of view was derived from drive theory (Hull, 1943). Drive theory predicts that performance increases with elevations in arousal. In other words, a direct relationship is thought to exist between arousal level and performance, and maximal performance is dependent upon high levels of arousal. This theory serves as the basis for most “psyching” procedures employed by coaches and sport psychologists, but it does not appear to have been supported by a single study in the sport psychology literature (Martens, 1970).

Research by Hammer (1968) involving 2,300 high school and junior college athletes who participated in ten different sports refutes drive theory. No differences on anxiety, as measured by the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale, were found between successful athletes, unsuccessful athletes, and nonathletes. According to Hammer (1968) drive theory predicts that the “successful” athletes should have demonstrated high anxiety levels, while “unsuccessful” athletes should have been characterized by low arousal levels. In a related study involving 103 wrestlers and football players, Hammer (1967) reported there were no differences in anxiety scores between high and low achieving athletes and nonathletes.

In a study involving college wrestlers, Morgan and Hammer (1974) made several observations that refuted traditional models of sport anxiety. Anxiety levels of wrestlers (1) were evaluated during the pre-season, (2) following weigh-in at a state tournament, (3) one hour prior to competition, and (4) 15 to 30 minutes following the tournament. First of all, each team participating in the tournament demonstrated an increase in anxiety one hour before competition. In other words, there were no significant differences on pre-competitive anxiety levels between teams which finished first, second, third, and fourth in the tournament. Second, “high anxious” and “low anxious” athletes were compared, and there was no significant difference in the performance of the two groups; that is, success was not associated with level of anxiety.

Inverted-U Theory

The second theoretical orientation used in the exercise and sport sciences to account for arousal level in competitive athletes is based on the Yerkes-Dodson Law, and this law is also known as the Inverted-U Theory (Yerkes <fc Dodson, 1908). According to this theory, as arousal level increases, there is an increase in performance, up to a certain point, and arousal beyond this point results in a performance decrement. Landers (1980) has reviewed the research evidence in the sport sciences both supporting and refuting this hypothesis, and he has agreed with Mahoney and Avener (1977) who concluded that:

Individual differences in susceptibility to arousal have been frequently observed These results suggest that absolute levels of arousal may be less important than patterns of arousal change and the methods used by athletes to cope with precompetitive anxiety. If this is true; absolute levels of arousal may not necessarily be a determinant of performance (p. 94).

There are several reasons why the Inverted-U Theory has been popular. First, it is presented in many motor learning and sport psychology texts as a matter of fact, and there is limited motor learning evidence in support of this theory. However, there is an enormous difference between learning and performing a task. There are many reasons why the limited motor learning research should not be generalized to applications in sport settings, and these reasons are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of Research Evidence Supporting the Inverted-U Theory, Application Targets, and Presence or Absence of Ecological Validity

Basis of research evidence	Application target	Ecological validity
Learning	Performance	Absent
Non-athletes	Athletes (elite)	Absent
Novice performer	Skilled performers	Absent
Simple motor skills	Complex motor skills	Absent
Controlled laboratory setting	Dynamic sport arena	Absent

Threshold Theory

The third theoretical orientation involves a related explanation based on the concept of a threshold or paradoxical distance effect (Morgan, 1972). This view is similar to the inverted-U concept in specifying that increases in arousal lead to increases in performance up to a specific point, and then once a given threshold is reached there is a sudden decrease in performance. This view differs from the Inverted-U Theory, however, in maintaining that once the threshold is reached a rapid reversal in performance results. In other words, rather than a range of arousal for optimal performance, this orientation views the most effective arousal level as representing a discrete point. This view has been derived from work involving ergogenic aids in which various substances (e.g., drugs) have been observed to facilitate muscular capacity up to a certain point, but then quickly lose their effectiveness at a given dosage (Morgan, 1972). There does not, however, appear to be any research evidence supporting this theoretical orientation.

Quiescence Theory

The fourth theoretical orientation, and the one currently in vogue, is based upon the concept that quiescence enhances performance. This model represents the antithesis of drive theory, and it specifies that performance increases as arousal decreases. Rather than “psyching up” athletes, this approach relies on relaxation procedures in an effort to reduce the arousal level of athletes prior to competition. There is an absence of compelling evidence in support of this view, and there is considerable anecdotal evidence and theoretical rationale that argues against it. Also, there now exists a number of empirical studies which refute this hypothesis (Hanin, 1980).

Optimal Arousal Theory

The fifth point of view is based on the work of Hanin (1980), and it suggests that each individual has an arousal zone of optimal function (ZOF). Hanin’s (1980) proposal of a ZOF maintains that performance efficiency is best when the individual’s level of arousal falls within this zone. Many contemporary sport psychologists have ignored or simply dismissed Hanin’s ZOF concept on the basis of redundancy; that is, it has been erroneously viewed as a reiteration of the inverted-U theory. The two theories are quite different, however, since ZOF theory does not argue that a moderate level of arousal is superior to low or high levels. Indeed, the ZOF theory posited by Hanin predicts that some individuals will have their best performances when highly aroused, others when deeply relaxed, and others when moderately aroused. In other words, there is not an optimal level of arousal for a given task (e.g., free throw shooting), but rather, low, moderate, or high arousal may be the most effective for a given basketball player shooting free throws.

Hanin’s empirical evidence for this theory is based upon retrospective and prospective simulations using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) developed by Spielberger (1972). In this work the athlete’s recall and prediction of state anxiety prior to competition has been contrasted with actual ratings in the same settings. The correlations between retrospective evaluations and actual evaluations obtained 1–2 hours before competition average approximately .75. In other words, athletes were asked several weeks after the competition how they had felt 1–2 hours before the event. The retrospective measurement, on the STAI, was compared with the STAI score they had actually achieved prior to competition. Hanin’s work empirically demonstrates that athletes are able to accurately recall their pre-competitive anxiety. Furthermore, prospective data obtained by correlating predicted pre-competitive levels of state anxiety (STAI) with actual anxiety levels 1–2 hours prior to competition were also significant.

Hanin (1980) also found that recall of pre-competitive anxiety prior to a stressful gymnastics event (beam) was more accurate than for less stressful events (floor exercise). The correlation between actual state anxiety and retrospective recall was .89 for the beam, whereas the correlation between actual state anxiety and retrospective recall was .74 for floor exercise.

One implication of this theory is that since state anxiety is highly variable in athletes, the challenge is one of helping each individual athlete reach his or her optimal level of “useful anxiety” (Hanin, 1980). According to this theory, the task is not to increase or decrease arousal level in groups of athletes, but rather the challenge is to focus on each individual’s optimum anxiety level prior to competition and help him or her reach that zone in a consistent manner.

The “zone” referred to by Hanin (1980), on the average, varies between plus or minus four points of the individual’s most efficient state anxiety level as measured by the STAI. Assume, for example, that pre-competition anxiety levels are available for a 5,000 meter runner on 25 occasions. Also, assume that the runner’s state anxiety was 60 prior to his or her personal best (PB). This runner’s ZOF would then be operationalized as 56–64 on the STAI (i.e., 60 ± 4). With 25 performances to examine, it would be quite easy to determine whether or not the individual’s ZOF actually falls between 56 and 64 on the STAI measure of state anxiety. Hanin (1980) empirically established the most efficient level of anxiety by testing athletes over many competitive trials and thereby demonstrating the validity of the zone of optimal functioning in actual athletic conditions. Empirically, Hanin found a correlation of .74 between the successfulness of the athlete’s performance and the degree to which he or she achieved their optimal arousal zone three days before competition. Athletes were less successful in competition when state anxiety, measured three days before competition, was higher or lower than the optimal zone. Hanin (1980) also found that male and female athletes, as one would expect, did not differ on resting levels of state or trait anxiety as measured by the STAI, nor did they differ in pre-competitive settings.

There is actually a great deal of indirect support for Hanin’s theory in the sport psychology literature. It has been shown, for example, that winning and losing performances of college wrestlers competing in a dual meet, as well as tournament competition, was not associated with pre-competition state anxiety levels (Morgan, 1970; Morgan & Hammer, 1974). Also, the generalizability of Hanin’s results has recently been extended to include English speaking athletes in the United States (Raglin & Morgan, 1988). These investigators evaluated the state anxiety of college swimmers under resting or base-line conditions, and these swimmers were asked to complete the state anxiety inventory a second time estimating how they thought they would feel one hour prior to a very difficult dual meet scheduled for the following day. These swimmers were then tested one hour prior to the scheduled meet. The meet was very difficult and the outcome was decided in the final milliseconds of the final event—an emotionally charged relay. The swimmers studied in this investigation won the meet by three points, and the overall results are summarized in Figu...