Anxiety, Arousal and their influence on performance in sport The two ‘As’

Anxiety, Arousal and their influence
on performance in sport
The two ‘As’
IB Learning Objective: Discuss theories
relating arousal and anxiety to performance
Content
•
•
•
•
•
•
Definitions
Drive theory
The inverted-U hypothesis
The catastrophe theory
Optimal arousal theory
Self-efficacy theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8KT5sUKbLc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=canzEq5Mr9o
A & A: Definitions
• Arousal is the physiological state that prepares the body for
action – through the fight or flight response.
• Anxiety –arousal that is experienced as a negative
emotional state.
• Activation of stress response = alertness increase &
decrease in response times
• Ideal in sport? – but can also threaten performance
• There are theories that describe and explain this....
Drive Theory (Hull, 1943; Spence,
1956)
• Arousal = drive
• Non-specific increase in the activation level of a person
• Makes the dominant response more likely and decreases probability
of other reactions.
• Dominant response – well learnt – priority
• In athletes – the response they have trained for
• If not trained – then activation of drive can lead to wrong response
• E.g. A penalty taker scoring or missing
• For the Well trained athlete – degree of arousal has a direct effect on
the quality of performance...
• More arousal = better performance
• Inexperienced athletes = more arousal is likely to lead to increased
errors
Evaluation of Drive theory..
• Drive theory not v. Popular with sports
psychologists
• Does not clearly differentiate between anxiety
and arousal
• Too simplistic
• Cannot accurately predict behaviour
• Lacking in research evidence to support it
• A lot of evidence refutes the theory – even for
well practiced athletes – high anxiety = inhibits
performance.
The Inverted-U Hypothesis
• Yerkes -Dodson Law (1908) – for every motor
task we carry out there is an optimum level of
physiological arousal.
• Upside down U shaped curve of performance
against arousal.
• Performance increases with arousal at first, but
after a certain point (varies between people,
sports & skills) performance drops.
The inverted-U hypothesis graph
The inverted-U Hypothesis
• Key difference to drive theory – moderate levels of
arousal are associated with successful performance
• Golf/ shooting = low arousal better
• Throwing/tackling = high arousal better
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The inverted-U Hypothesis – research
support/
evaluation
Sonstroem & Bernardo (1982) – female basketball players – optimum
arousal the median for athletes
Research done in response for criticism that the inverted-U hypothesis does
not take into account individual differences.
Research is difficult because its difficult to precisely measure arousal
Does not clearly separate anxiety from arousal
Overly simplistic
Does not clearly explain why people have this optimum arousal level
Correlational research – difficult to examine causal relationships
Raglin & Turner (1993) researched showed that optimal arousal theory
offered a more accurate explanation than the inverted-U hypothesis
The catastrophe model (Hardy & Fazey,
1987)
• Explains relationship between physiological arousal
and cognitive anxiety
• They proposed that cognitive anxiety (or worry) plays
a mediating role in determining whether
physiological arousal could lead to catastrophic
effects
• High physiological arousal + worry/overthinking =
choking
• But – if low on physiological arousal then increasing
cognitive anxiety can be beneficial
The catastrophe model (Hardy & Fazey,
1987)
• Hardy et al. (1994) confirmed this with lawn
bowlers – performance suffers when cognitive
anxiety and physiological arousal are high
• Baumeister (1984) suggests that cognitive
anxiety in high pressure situations cause
increased self consciousness and a shift in
attention away from trying to control fine
movements consciously
The catastrophe model (Hardy & Fazey,
1987)
• Smith et al. (2000) studied ‘chocking’ or ‘the yips’ – tennis
players and golfers – report that they sometimes lose muscle
control in high pressure situations.
• Smith et al. (2000) questionnaire to distinguish between golfers
who got the yips or not – he then put them in situations and
monitored their heart rate – those with high rating on the yips –
worse performance and higher heart rate and gripped the
putter more tightly
• Shows how physiological arousal and cognitive anxiety and lead
to sportspeople failing to perform at their best
• Research suggest that cognitive anxiety is a causal factor that
interacts with self-confidence to affect performance – suggests
that self efficacy is important in the process
Optimal arousal theory (Hanin, 1997)
• Every athlete has their own Zone of Optimal
Functioning (ZOF)
• Similar to inverted-U hypothesis but focus is on the
individual
• Each person has a narrow range – somewhere between
not anxious and extremely anxious
• They use scales such as the Competitive State Anxiety
Inventory (CTAI) and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
(STAI) to measure athletes anxiety before competitions
and then compare this to their performance to find
their ZOF
• Evaluation: Theory a better predictor of behaviour than
the inverted-U hypothesis
Optimal arousal theory (Hanin, 1997)
Comparing ZOF and inverted-U
hypothesis (Raglin & Turner, 1993)
• Aim: to compare the use of two different approaches to account
for the relationship between anxiety and arousal
• Procedure: 68 male & female college athletes asked to recall
anxiety prior to best performance and complete the STAI questions
in a classroom – they did this to establish the athlete’s ZOF
• They then gathered data from prior studies on optimum arousal
levels for the inverted-U
• They then measured athletes pre-competition anxiety and
compared this to their performance
• They could then see whether the ZOF or inverted-U hypothesis
better accounts for difference
• Findings & Conclusion: they found that the ZOF was a better
predictor of their performance than inverted-U data - optimum
pre-competition anxiety varies considerably amongst athletes
Evaluation of Optimal arousal theory
(Hanin, 1997)
Self efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977)
• Self efficacy – belief in ones capacity to succeed plays a
key role in peoples ability to deal with anxiety and
arousal in sport
• Positive interpretations of physiological arousal
increase ones sense of efficacy
• Athletes with high efficacy can cope with stressful
situations and failures
• Athletes with low efficacy more susceptible to cognitive
anxiety (worry)
• Limiting beliefs can hold athletes back – e.g. Roger
Bannister and the four minute mile – within 18 months
another 16 athletes were able to do so
Self efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977) –
research support
• Fitzsimmons et al. (1991) experiment tested efficacy
amongst weightlifters
• Performed a single maximum bench press under
different conditions
• Experimenters deceived participants into believing they
were lifting more or less than they actually were
• Participants did better when they were told they were
lifting less weight than they really were
• But there was more effect for novice than experienced
weightlifters
• Mellalieu et al (2009) also showed how positive self talk
and imagery can increase efficacy and reduce
anxiety/choking in rugby players
•
•
•
•
•
So…how do arousal and anxiety relate to
performance
Make a list of the explicit ways in which
arousal and anxiety influence performance.
Imagine you are the coaches for a school
junior varsity sports team.
There are a number of veteran players on
the team but some new members as well.
Plan the first three coaching sessions based
on the list of ways in which arousal and
anxiety influence performance.
Justify each activity using theory.