Anxiety, Arousal and their influence on performance in sport

1. Anxiety, Arousal and their influence on performance in sport The two ‘As’ IB Learning Objective: Discuss theories relating arousal and anxiety to performance

2. 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

3. 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....

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The inverted-U hypothesis graph

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Optimal arousal theory (Hanin, 1997)

15. 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

16. Evaluation of Optimal arousal theory (Hanin, 1997)

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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.