08/skinner pdf - naspspa

283

Adaptive Approaches to Competition: Challenge Appraisals and Positive Emotion

Natalie Skinner and Neil BrewerFlinders University

The influence of negative emotions such as anxiety on athletes’ preparation and performance has been studied extensively. The focus of this review is on more adaptive approaches to competition such as the experience of positive emotion and beneficial perceptions of emotion. Evidence on the antecedents and adaptive consequences of positive emotions is reviewed, and implications for research and practice in a sport context are suggested. We focus on the cogni-tive appraisal of challenge as a significant antecedent of both positive emotion and beneficial perceptions of emotion. A theoretical model of beneficial and harmful perceptions of emotion is presented which incorporates appraisals of challenge, coping expectancies, and valence (positive vs. negative) of emotion. Research that supports the model is reviewed, and implications for research, coaching, and training in the sport context are suggested.

Key Words: threat, perception of emotion, confidence, excitement

This paper explores the influence of athletes’ emotions on preparation and performance prior to sport competitions. There is evidence that athletes experience a range of positive and negative emotions prior to competition (Hanin, 2000; Wil-liams & Krane, 1998). Yet much of the research in this area has only focused on the effects of anxiety on preparation and performance (for reviews see Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996; Jones, 1991, 1995; Parfitt, Jones, & Hardy, 1990; Raglin & Hanin, 2000). In addition, literature reviews and meta-analyses (Jones, 1995; Kleine, 1990) have indicated that anxiety has a relatively modest influence on performance. Here we highlight the importance of positive emotions. Although mostly overlooked in studies of elite or advanced level athletes, it has been argued that positive emotions can provide supportive and adaptive functions during or prior to stressful events (Fredrickson, 1998; Lazarus, Kanner, & Folkman, 1980).

We review evidence indicating that athletes’ positive emotions are a key component in the relationship between their emotional state and their performance. In particular we focus on the cognitive appraisal of challenge as a significant influ-ence on positive emotions prior to stressful achievement events. We also reexamine directional interpretations of emotion—the perceived facilitative or debilitative effect of emotion on performance. Although the term directional interpretations

The authors are with the School of Psychology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Stuart Rd., Bedford Park, Adelaide 5001, South Australia.

JOURNAL OF SPORT & EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY, 2004, 26, 283-305© 2004 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

284 / Skinner and Brewer Adaptive Approaches to Competition / 285

has been used in the sport literature, we will use the simpler terms of beneficial and harmful perceptions of emotion. We focus in particular on an issue largely neglected in the literature (Hanin, 2000), the impact of beneficial perceptions of positive emotion prior to sport competitions.

We highlight how positive emotions contribute to our understanding of (a) athletes’ ability to cope with stress and manage their own emotional experiences effectively, (b) coaching techniques to motivate and sustain peak performance, and (c) the impact of athletes’ experience of emotion on their performance. Finally, we present a model of beneficial and harmful perceptions of emotion that integrates challenge appraisals, valence, and perceptions of emotion. Preliminary examinations of this model in the domain of academic achievement have been supportive and suggest new directions for research in a sport context. Emotions are conceptualized in this model as mental states, and accompanying bodily feelings, that result from the evaluation of progress (or lack thereof) toward an important goal or concern and stimulate a readiness to act (Oatley & Jenkins, 1998, p. 96).

Athletic and academic achievement situations present similar demands and pressures on individuals to perform at their peak with the potential for significant rewards or losses to social and self-esteem. In sport psychology, the literature on academic achievement has always provided the foundation for many significant advances in theory and applied research. Such advances include the distinction between cognitive and somatic dimensions of anxiety (Deffenbacher, 1980; Morris, Davis, & Hutchings, 1981), the concept of beneficial and harmful perceptions of anxiety (Alpert & Haber, 1960), and identification of differing types of achieve-ment motivation (Elliot & Dweck, 1988; Nicholls, 1984). We hope this review will stimulate a new wave of research in sport psychology that seeks to adapt existing work on challenge and positive emotion to the context of sport performance. We now turn to an overview of the key concepts in our theoretical model, followed by a review of literature in academic and sport psychology that contributed to the development of this model. A detailed discussion of the model and supporting evidence is provided by Skinner and Brewer (2002).

Adaptive Approaches to Competition: A Theoretical Model

As Sarason and Sarason (1990) observed, individuals’ responses to achieve-ment situations may range from “virtual immobilization in the face of potential criticism to exhilaration at the prospect of receiving accolades” (p. 477). These divergent responses reflect cognitive appraisals of threat (perceived danger to one’s well-being or self-esteem and low coping confidence) and challenge (confidence that the demands of a stressful situation can be overcome and positive benefits obtained) (cf. Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Smith, 1991). Similar to trait-state dimensions of anxiety, cognitive appraisals can be considered in terms of trait tendencies to perceive events in a certain way (Lazarus, 1991) or state apprais-als of one event in particular.

The relationship between threat appraisals, low coping expectancies, and anxiety is well established (Bandura, 1997; Beck, Emery, & Greenberg 1985; Lazarus 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Sarason & Sarason, 1990; Skinner & Brewer, 1999). In contrast to threat, challenge appraisals are suggested to facilitate positive emotions such as enjoyment from applying effort to overcome difficulties,


and eagerness or excitement in anticipation of personal benefit (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, Kanner, & Folkman, 1980). As Figure 1 shows, our model suggests that event-specific coping expectancies mediate the influence of trait threat and challenge appraisal styles on event-specific appraisals and emotion. Coping expec-tancies activate the meaning or significance underlying trait threat and challenge appraisals by indicating whether the fears associated with a threat appraisal style (state threat and anxiety arises) or the goals associated with a challenge appraisal style (state challenge and positive emotion develops) will be obtained (Skinner & Brewer, 2002).

The model assumes a significant degree of crossover between coping expectancies concerning the management of one’s external environment (e.g., the demands of test preparation) and the optimal management of one’s internal states (i.e., beneficial vs. harmful perceptions of cognition and emotion). Specifically, high coping expectancies are suggested to facilitate beneficial perceptions of state appraisals and emotion. Valence of emotion is also expected to influence beneficial vs. harmful perceptions of these states.

Consistent with previous conceptualizations of high anxiety as distressing and intrusive (Kent & Jambunathan, 1989; Sarason & Sarason, 1990), percep-tions of harm are suggested to increase with higher levels of anxiety. In contrast, positive emotions are considered to fulfill important adaptive functions by provid-ing temporary breaks from stress and sustaining coping efforts under prolonged demands (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2000; Lazarus et al., 1980). Therefore, higher positive emotion and cognition (i.e., state challenge) are expected to increase the perceived benefit to preparation and performance. Based on earlier findings (Skin-ner & Brewer, 2002), the intensity of threat appraisals is not suggested to influence the perceived impact on performance. This prediction is consistent with Lazarus’ (1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) argument that coping expectancies play a key role in the appraisal of threat. Specifically, fears of negative evaluation and worries about poor performance, the hallmarks of a threat appraisal, will be perceived as having an unfavorable impact on performance only when the expected ability to avoid these harms is low.

Athletes’ Experience of Positive Emotion

Research on the Individual Zones of Optimal Functioning (IZOF) model (see Hanin, 2000, for a review) has consistently found that athletes report the experi-ence of both positive and negative emotions prior to competition. Similarly, there is evidence that positive and negative emotions are experienced prior to other kinds of stressful achievement events such as taking an academic exam (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Smith & Ellsworth, 1987). In the sport context, positive emotions such as joy have been identified as a key element of peak performance (Williams & Krane, 1998).

The most common positive emotion studied in athletes, however, is enjoyment experienced during performance. Although conceptual definitions vary, enjoyment can be broadly defined as “positive affective responses to the sport experience that reflect generalized feelings such as pleasure, liking, and fun” (Scanlan & Simons, 1992, p. 201). Much of the research on positive emotion in sport has focused on identifying the antecedents of enjoyment and positive affect, including (a) mastery orientated motivational climate (Kavussanu & Roberts, 1996; Seifriz, Duda, & Chi,


Fig

ure

1 —

Pro

pose

d m

odel

of

thre

at, c

halle

nge,

val

ence

, and

per

cept

ion

of e

mot

ion

prio

r to

ach

ieve

men

t si

tuat

ions

.


1992), (b) task orientation (Boyd & Yin, 1996; Duda, Fox, Biddle, & Armstrong, 1992; Newton & Duda, 1993), and (c) perceptions of competence, and the social and life opportunities gained through participation (Bakker, de Koning, van Ingen Schenau, & de Groot, 1993; Scanlan, Stein, & Ravizza, 1989).

Positive emotion has also been considered in the context of optimal states of flow during performance. Flow is a complex state involving the conjunction of optimal states of motivation, concentration, perceived ability, and perception, of which positive emotion is only one dimension (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Jackson, 1996). Since our main purpose is to explore the unique effects of positive emotion, the complex experience of flow will not be discussed in detail (see Jackson, 2000, for a review), although peak flow experiences are considered later in relation to the appraisal of challenge.

Given such clear evidence that positive emotions are commonly experienced by athletes during performance, it is surprising that relatively little research has examined the consequences of these emotions for actual performance. One excep-tion is Scanlan and colleagues’ research (Carpenter, Scanlan, Simons, & Lobel, 1993; Scanlan, Carpenter, Schmidt, Simons, & Keller, 1993; Scanlan & Simons, 1992) which demonstrated that enjoyment is a major factor contributing to sport commitment. Also, in a study of trait levels of positive and negative affect, Jones, Swain, and Harwood (1996) found that trait positive affect was associated with more beneficial perceptions of anxiety, whereas trait negative affect was associated with higher intensity and a less beneficial perception of anxiety. The association between trait affective states and beneficial/harmful perceptions of anxiety, however, was relatively weak, with correlations below .30.

It is clear that sport enjoyment has been studied extensively. But our concern is to explore the anticipatory positive emotions that may be experienced prior to competition and their impact on athletes’ preparation and performance. As for what we mean by positive emotions, they are considered in terms of pleasant affective feelings that reflect a perception of advancement toward a desired end state. A second important characteristic of emotion is the level of activation or arousal involved. Russell and colleagues (Feldman, Barrett, & Russell, 1998; Russell & Carroll, 1999) have identified a range of affect categorized on the basis of valence (positive vs. negative) and activation (low vs. high). In this paper we consider both high-activa-tion positive emotions (e.g., excitement, enthusiasm) reflecting the anticipation of favorable or desired outcomes, and low-activation positive emotions (e.g., calm, satisfaction, happiness) reflecting the achievement of valued goals and the absence of a need for action (Fredrickson, 1998).

Consequences of Positive EmotionAs already outlined, the consequences of positive emotions have not been

researched extensively in a sport context. Our first task therefore is to show that positive emotions are likely to have concrete and important influences on athletes’ preparation and performance. A common theme underlying many theories of emotion is that emotional states serve adaptive functions for our physical survival or social well-being (Fredrickson, 1998; Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Smith, 1991). Anxiety, for example, is proposed to alert us to potential danger and stimulate action to counter the threat (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Smith, 1991). Similarly, worry has been identified as adaptive


in terms of stimulating planning and other activities to avoid or reduce a potential threat (Borkovec, 1994; Power & Dalgleish, 1997). Positive emotions may also have equally important adaptive benefits. Lazarus et al. (1980) suggest that posi-tive emotions may benefit performance by providing “breathers” from stress and facilitating coping efforts when situations become increasingly demanding. This function may be critical in helping athletes sustain high levels of performance and perhaps reducing the risk of dropout during challenging training schedules over long periods of time.

In line with this functional perspective on emotion, it is possible that differ-ent types of positive emotion will have different implications for functioning and well-being. Research on the IZOF model indicates that athletes commonly identify positive emotions of high (e.g., energetic, excited), rather than low (e.g., relaxed, at ease), activation as advantageous for performance (Hanin, 2000). From a functional perspective, high-activation emotions are particularly useful in sport competitions in which there is a need to direct energy and resources toward achieving a desired goal (cf. Hanin, 2000; Skinner & Brewer, 2002). Performance during actual competi-tion represents only one context in which positive emotions can affect an athlete’s overall success. It is possible that low-activation positive emotions may reduce the risk of burnout whereas high-activation emotions may support long-term intrinsic motivation and commitment (cf. Scanlan & Simons, 1992).

Much of the empirical research on the effects of positive emotion has focused on cognitive processes such as information processing and memory (see Aspinwall, 1998, and Isen, 1984, for reviews). Of particular relevance to athletic performance is the effect of positive emotion on attention to and processing of negative information. Aspinwall (1998) has shown that positive emotion enhances careful consideration of negative information that is perceived to be useful, relevant, and important to the self. Athletes typically receive large amounts of performance feedback from coaches and fellow athletes, or from monitoring of their own performance. In this context the ability to consider negative self-relevant information carefully, rather than deny or avoid it, may strengthen the impact of such feedback.

It has also been suggested that positive emotions play a key role in enhancing intrinsic motivation to explore, master, and engage in an activity for its own sake (Fredrickson, 1998; Pekrun, 1992). In addition, compared to negative emotion, posi-tive emotion has been associated with increased attractiveness of approach goals, and more positive self-appraisals and expectancies of goal attainment (Kavanagh & Bower, 1985; Schwarz & Bohner, 1996). The task facing an elite competitor is extremely challenging: extended periods of rigorous training and relatively short bursts of competitive performance. Hence the importance of intrinsic motiva-tion—the capacity to remain engaged in one’s sport and derive enjoyment in the sport for its own sake—is very clear. There is also some evidence that positive emotion can facilitate team performance. Positive emotions have been found to increase helping behaviors (Isen, 1984), which suggests that positive emotions among teammates may enhance the ability and willingness to coordinate and cooperate, a key requirement for effective team performance. Earlier we identi-fied a number of possible antecedents of positive emotion explored in previous research, for example mastery-orientated climate. Reviews by Hardy et al. (1996) and Rotella and Lerner (1993) on cognition, emotion, and sports performance have called for further research on adaptive approaches such as optimism and self-confidence. These approaches are likely to be associated with positive emotions, as


each involves a confident and optimistic anticipation of success. We argue that the cognitive appraisal of challenge is also likely to be a particularly strong antecedent of positive emotion in stressful achievement situations.

Antecedents of Positive Emotion

Optimism. Scheier and Carver (1985) defined optimism as a generalized outcome expectancy that good things will happen regardless of whether the cause resides in oneself, the environment, or chance. Optimists have been found to have higher levels of self-esteem, a more internal locus of control, and lower levels of hopelessness, depression, perceived stress, alienation, and social anxiety (Scheier & Carver, 1985). Several studies have also found that optimists experience less distress and are better adjusted than their pessimistic counterparts during stressful events such as major surgery, coping with AIDS, or starting college (Scheier & Carver, 1992). This positive outcome results from the use of an appropriate balance of problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies (Scheier & Carver 1985, 1992). In addition, Scheier, Carver, and Bridges (1994) found that optimists were more likely to interpret things in a positive light and to perceive opportunities for personal growth when experiencing stressful events.

The research on optimism demonstrates that the general tendency to expect positive outcomes has significant benefits for both emotion and coping in response to stressful events. In a sport context, however, the optimistic anticipation of success regardless of the cause may not be the best approach. The importance of attributing good performance to internal causes is clearly reflected in research on the antecedents of successful sports performance which emphasizes variables such as perceived ability (Hall & Kerr, 1998), perceived readiness (Hanton & Jones, 1995; Jones, Swain, & Cale, 1990), and self-confidence (Hardy et al., 1996; Vealey, 1986). We believe that to understand athletes’ responses to sport competitions requires an approach more tailored to the demands of achievement situations.

Self-Confidence. The concept of self-confidence is based on the perceived ability to succeed in certain skills or activities—Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy—or a more general belief that one can be successful in a sport competition—Vealey’s concept of sport confidence (Hardy et al., 1996). Self-efficacy in a number of domains from academic tests to social interaction has been shown to improve performance and reduce task related anxiety (Bandura, 1997).

Higher self-confidence in sport has been associated with better performance in a variety of sports including swimming (Burton, 1988), gymnastics (Jones, Swain, & Hardy, 1993), golf, and wrestling (Hardy et al., 1996) (see Feltz, 1988, for a review). In a meta-analysis of 45 studies, Moritz, Feltz, Fahrbach, and Mack (2000) found an average correlation of .38 between self-efficacy and sport performance. Self-confidence has also been identified as a key element of peak performance (Wil-liams & Krane, 1998) although, as Hardy et al. (1996) acknowledge, the direction of causality between confidence and athletic success has not been clearly established. High levels of self-confidence have also been associated with lower levels of cog-nitive and somatic anxiety (Gould, Petlichkoff, & Weinberg, 1984; Hall, Kerr, & Matthews, 1998; Jones & Cale, 1989; Jones et al., 1990), although once again the direction of this relationship has not been clearly established.

Self-confidence, seen as either task-specific or generalized self-efficacy, is clearly an important consideration in terms of an athlete’s emotional responses


and performance. Yet it can be argued that an athlete’s appraisal of a competition extends beyond evaluation of “Can I do this?” “Will I succeed?” To understand an athlete’s reactions to competitive situations we must consider the personal meaning attached to such events. What significance does the competition have for an athlete’s self-esteem, his or her sense of well-being, or material assets such as prize money? More specifically, what does success mean to this individual? Is the frustration of losing seen as a learning experience or as a personal failure? Smith, Haynes, Lazarus, and Pope (1993) labeled these appraisals “hot cognitions,” the types of thoughts that have the greatest impact on emotional responses to events.

Challenge. The perception of challenge is a cognitive appraisal involving the assessment of personal meaning of an event relative to one’s values, commitments, and well-being (Lazarus, 1991; Smith et al., 1993). Challenge appraisals represent “effortful optimism” (Smith, 1991, p. 123) focused on opportunities for success, social rewards (e.g., recognition and praise), mastery, learning, and personal growth (Lazarus, 1991, Lazarus et al., 1980; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In other words the focus is on the potential for mastery such as increasing skills and confidence, and gain such as obtaining rewards, rather than on harm or loss (Lazarus et al., 1980).

Challenge does not involve unrealistic optimism; the difficulties and demands of a stressful situation and the possibility of failure are acknowledged. Rather, challenge is based on confidence that, with sufficient effort, such demands can be overcome (Lazarus et al., 1980; Park & Folkman, 1997). This highlights an important distinction between challenge and optimism: appraisals of challenge incorporate the perception that a goal can be attained given the application of enough effort to overcome obstacles (Lazarus, 1991; Smith & Ellsworth, 1987). The notion of self-agency in challenge is similar to conceptualizations of perceived ability and self-confidence in athletes (Hall & Kerr, 1998; Hardy et al., 1996). Challenge appraisals take this concept one step further in considering the personal meaning of such striving, e.g., opportunities for learning and personal growth.

The concept of challenge has particular relevance for stressful achievement situations such as sport competitions. Optimal levels of challenge have been identi-fied as key elements of intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and peak experi-ences or flow during performance (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). Similar to Lazarus (1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), Csikszentmihalyi argued that optimal levels of challenge depend more on one’s perception of the match between skills and envi-ronmental demands than on the environment itself. The importance of a perceived balance between challenges and skills was also emphasized by Jackson (2000) in a review of empirical studies of athletes’ flow experiences.

Very little empirical research has been conducted on appraisals of challenge in achievement situations. Smith and Ellsworth (1985) found that the experience of challenge prior to events such as sport competitions was described in terms of an interest and desire to attend to the situation, a requirement for a high level of effort, and moderate attributions of self-responsibility or personal control. A series of studies by Blascovich, Tomaka, and colleagues found that compared to threat, challenge was associated with higher coping expectancies, lower subjective stress, and higher perceptions of performance on mental arithmetic tasks (Blascovich & Mendes, 2000; Tomaka, Blascovich, Kelsey, & Leitten, 1993; Tomaka, Blascov-ich, Kibler, & Ernst, 1997). In addition, challenge elicited a unique physiological response pattern characterized by enhanced cardiac performance, with little change


in blood pressure argued to represent the “efficient mobilization of energy for coping” (Blascovich & Mendes, 2000, p. 67). These studies suggest that challenge appraisals are likely to be associated with important benefits for athletes in terms of (a) cognitive strategies conducive to enhanced performance, e.g., high motivation, attentional focus, and confident coping expectancies, and (b) adaptive physiological response patterns likely to benefit performance.

The importance of coping expectancies in producing a physiological state beneficial to sport performance has also been recognized in the sport psychology literature. In Dienstbier’s (1989) physiological toughness model, the appraisal of challenge as a capacity to cope with the stressor under conditions of stress is argued to lead to an optimal “tough” physiological pattern of arousal, which in turn facilitates the experience of positive emotion. A tough physiological pattern of arousal entails “resistance to central catecholamine depletion, peripheral catechol-amine responsivity, increased beta-receptor receptivity, and cortisol suppression” (Dienstbier, 1989, p. 92). Perceived threat on the other hand, as in doubts about one’s capacity to cope, leads to suboptimal patterns of physiological arousal and to negative emotion.

From an extensive review of the literature, Dienstbier (1989) demonstrated that optimal tough levels of arousal are associated with higher performance on physical and cognitive tasks. Consistent with Lazarus (1991), the perceived capac-ity to control stressors plays a pivotal role in Dienstbier’s model as the primary difference between threatening and challenging situations. Similarly, Neiss (1988, 1989) has demonstrated that performance and outcome expectancies play a key role in physiological responses to motor performance situations. Neiss (1989) argued that “expectancies discriminate between being ‘psyched up’ in meeting a challenge from being anxious in the face of threat” (p. 273).

An important perspective on the role of positive emotions in preparation and performance concerns the perspective of the individual actually experiencing the emotion. Individuals are not just passive victims of their emotions, but rather, anxiety or excitement can be used to enhance preparation and performance. This notion of harmful vs. beneficial perceptions of emotion first arose in the literature on test anxiety (Alpert & Haber, 1960) and has been studied extensively in sport psychology.

Beneficial and Harmful Perceptions of Emotion

Perceptions of emotion refer to the perceived beneficial (encourage effort, motivate) or harmful (interfere with concentration, encourage procrastination) effects of emotion on one’s efforts to prepare and perform (Alpert & Haber, 1960). They represent a type of metacognition directed toward the perceived effects of emotional states on preparation and performance (cf. Frijda, 1986; Jones, 1995). Swain and Jones (1996) found that athletes’ perceptions of their anxiety accounted for 18 to 23% of performance variance. They also found that the perceived benefi-cial or harmful effect of anxiety on performance, rather than intensity of anxiety as measured by the CSAI-2 (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1990), was the best predictor of performance. A key question then becomes, what are the major antecedents of beneficial perceptions of emotion? The following discussion focuses on two possibilities: coping expectancies (Carver, 1996; Jones, 1995) and valence of emotion (Skinner & Brewer, 2002).


Antecedents of Beneficial and Harmful Perceptions of EmotionA number of studies have explored the antecedents of athletes’ perceptions of

their anxiety. Stronger beneficial perceptions have been linked with (a) the higher status of elite vs. non-elite athletes (Jones, Hanton, & Swain, 1994; Jones & Swain, 1995; Perry & Williams, 1998), (b) higher levels of self-confidence (Jones et al., 1993; Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1998), (c) greater confidence of goal attainment (Jones & Hanton, 1996), and (d) personality traits such as internal locus of control (Ntoumanis & Jones, 1998), trait competitiveness (Jones & Swain, 1992), and positive affect (Jones et al., 1996). Although these findings are significant in their own right, what is needed is an overall theoretical framework by which to understand the mechanisms underlying the perceptions of emotion. This would enable us to design interven-tion strategies to train athletes to use their emotions for maximum effectiveness because, in order to achieve long-term and stable changes, we must understand the causal mechanisms for beneficial perceptions. Jones (1995) has provided one such theoretical framework which emphasizes the importance of coping expectancies in determining beneficial vs. harmful perceptions of anxiety.

Based on the work of Carver and Scheier (1986, 1988), Jones (1995) argued that confident coping expectancies enable the cognitive (e.g., worry, fears of fail-ure) and somatic (e.g., physical tension) symptoms of anxiety to be perceived as beneficial or advantageous to performance, whereas low coping expectancies result in the perception of harm. This argument is consistent with the view of perceptions of emotion as a type of coping response—applied specifically to the experience of emotion (Raffety, Smith, & Ptacek, 1997). There is some support for this per-spective. Jones and Hanton (1996) found that athletes with positive expectancies of goal attainment perceived moderate levels of cognitive and somatic anxiety as mildly beneficial. In contrast, athletes with negative goal attainment expectancies perceived cognitive anxiety as neutral or mildly harmful, and perceived somatic anxiety as having a smaller beneficial effect. Consistent with the previous study, higher levels of self-confidence in athletes, defined in terms of both goal attainment and the capacity to perform well under pressure (Martens et al., 1990), have also been associated with increasingly beneficial perceptions (Jones et al., 1993).

It is important to note in the interpretation of these findings that athletes only perceived moderate levels of anxiety to be mildly beneficial for preparation and performance. Indeed, Carver (1996) argued that “ephemeral doubts associated with negative emotion can be overridden by a more firmly established sense of confidence about the ultimate outcome” (p. 25). It is not surprising then that mild or weak levels of anxiety are not perceived as a significant source of motivation to stimulate effort, nor as a source of distraction that is difficult to control or overcome. In other words, mild or moderate levels of anxiety are only associated with mild or weak perceptions of harm or benefit.

We suggest that the valence of emotion is also likely to exert a strong influ-ence on perceptions of emotion. It has been well established that rising levels of anxiety are associated with an increase of negative thoughts (Kendall & Hollon, 1989; Kent & Jambunathan, 1989; Sarason & Sarason, 1990), in addition to prob-lems dismissing and controlling negative thoughts (Kent & Jambunathan, 1989). This suggests that a combination of strong coping expectancies and high anxiety is fairly unlikely. Therefore we would expect that as the intensity of anxiety rises, becoming increasingly unpleasant and difficult to control, perceptions of harm would


increase. Since low levels of anxiety are more easily controlled, the potential for a negative impact on performance is reduced or neutralized, with anxiety perceived as relatively neutral.

There is some evidence supporting the relationship between the intensity and perception of anxiety. Higher levels of cognitive and somatic anxiety have been found to be associated with less favorable (more harmful/less beneficial) perceptions of emotion (Hale & Whitehouse, 1998; Jones & Hanton, 1996; Jones et al., 1993; 1996; Wiggins, 1998), although the strength of this relationship varies considerably in that the correlations range from –.35 to –.19 for cognitive anxiety and –.57 to –.21 for somatic anxiety. This inconsistency may be due to the failure to distinguish between positive and negative emotions prior to measuring perceptions of emotion. Burton and Naylor (1997) have argued that many items in a commonly used measure of competitive anxiety (CSAI-2, Martens et al., 1990) could be interpreted in either a positive or negative manner (e.g., “I am concerned about this competition”).

To our knowledge, the relationship between valence (positive vs. negative) and perception of emotion has not been explored in previous research. Positive emo-tions represent a pleasant approach orientation to a situation that has been linked to adaptive outcomes such as increased creativity, intrinsic motivation, and coping capacities (Fredrickson, 1998; Lazarus et al., 1980). Therefore we would expect that high levels of positive emotions, excitement for example, would be associated with beneficial perceptions.

Two of our studies which show that perceptions of emotion are strongly influenced by both coping expectancies and the valence of emotion are discussed below. Our research explored perceptions of cognition prior to stressful achievement events and focused on the appraisal of threat and challenge. Preliminary tests of this model in academic achievement situations have provided consistent support (Skin-ner & Brewer, 2002). Sport psychology has a long history of adapting theoretical models of emotion and performance from clinical and educational psychology to the context of sports performance. Furthermore, it is increasingly recognized across various fields in psychology that positive emotions play a key role in well-being and effective functioning (cf. Seligman & Csikzentmihalyi, 2000). The focus of our model on challenge and positive emotions provides researchers with a useful starting point for exploring the role of positive emotion and cognition in sports performance. We will indicate potential applications in a sport context of the model and explore directions for future research.

Putting it All TogetherThe research described above suggests that challenge, positive emotion, and

perceptions of emotion are likely to exert a significant influence on athletes’ prepa-ration and performance. We have integrated these three adaptive approaches into a model of perceptions of emotion (Skinner & Brewer, 2002) as shown in Figures 2 and 3. We based the model on two studies (Skinner & Brewer, 2002) involving (a) hypothetical scenarios of common stressful events for academics (conference pre-sentation) and students (exam), and (b) tracking 118 first-year psychology students’ cognitive appraisals and emotions in response to an upcoming exam over three time points: 1 week, 1 night, and 10 minutes prior to the exam. The results described here are from the second study, in which the model was expanded to include state cognitive appraisals and the prediction of performance on exams.


Fig

ure

2 —

Mod

el o

f pe

rcep

tion

s of

sta

te c

halle

nge

and

emot

ion,

and

exa

m p

erfo

rman

ce a

vera

ged

acro

ss t

he t

hree

tim

e po

ints

(±

SD).

T

he m

odel

is b

ased

on

the

resu

lts

of S

kinn

er a

nd B

rew

er (

2002

).


Fig

ure

3 —

Mod

el o

f pe

rcep

tion

s of

sta

te t

hrea

t an

d em

otio

n, a

nd e

xam

per

form

ance

ave

rage

d ac

ross

the

thr

ee t

ime

poin

ts

(± S

D).

The

mod

el is

bas

ed o

n th

e re

sult

s of

Ski

nner

and

Bre

wer

(20

02).


Structural equation modeling analyses (EQS 3.0; Bentler & Wu, 1995) on the model shown in Figure 1 indicated that the strength of the predicted relationships were generally consistent across the three time points. Consequently, Figure 2 (state challenge) and Figure 3 (state threat) show the average path coefficients, with standard deviations provided as an index of the degree of variability over time points. Path coefficients significant at one time point are not shown (see Skinner & Brewer, 2002, for more detail). Note that the equivalence of relationships across time may not occur in the context of sport performance. The strength of relationships between certain variables (e.g., threat appraisal and coping expectancies) might possibly change with closer temporal proximity to a sport competition. This clearly merits further research.

As Figures 2 and 3 show, we considered two types of cognitive appraisals: threat and challenge. Cognitive appraisals were considered in terms of (a) consistent trait dispositions to perceive events in a certain way (Lazarus, 1991), and (b) state appraisals specific to a particular event. Questionnaire measures of threat appraisals tapped the perception of potential danger to one’s sense of well-being or self-esteem (Lazarus 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Sarason & Sarason, 1990; Smith, 1991), and low confidence in one’s ability to cope with or overcome the potential threat (Bandura, 1997; Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Smith, 1991). The chal-lenge appraisal measures contained items reflecting the approach of “effortful opti-mism” (Smith, 1991, p. 123) and the extent to which individuals focused on opportu-nities for benefit and gain rather than on harm and loss (Lazarus et al., 1980). Event-specific measures of threat and challenge were an additive combination of the intensity and frequency of cognition.

Coping expectancies were assessed in relation to the anticipated ability to cope with the demands of the situation, avoid failure, and achieve a desired grade. Emotion, measured as affective states, was assessed on a bipolar scale following Russell and colleagues (Feldman Barrett & Russell, 1998; Russell & Carroll, 1999) and others (Green, Goldman, & Salovey, 1993). Two scales measured (a) positive activated (e.g., excitement) vs. negative deactivated (e.g., dejected) feelings repre-senting the anticipation of favorable outcomes vs. the absence of this expectation, and (b) negative activated (e.g., anxiety) vs. positive deactivated (e.g., calm) emo-tions representing the anticipation of unfavorable outcomes vs. the absence of this expectation. The scales were labeled excitement and anxiety, respectively. The final scale used bipolar items to tap perceptions that state appraisals would have beneficial or harmful effects on preparation and performance.

Threat Appraisals and AnxietyOur findings (Skinner & Brewer, 2002) on the dynamics of threat apprais-

als were consistent with previous research in the sport literature. Threat appraisal style was associated with lower coping expectancies, which in turn were associated with high levels of anxiety. Anxiety also increased with stronger state (event-specific) appraisals of threat.

Implications for Sport Psychology. Coping expectancies and trait and state threat appraisals all contain elements of self-efficacy, the capacity to achieve a par-ticular goal or overcome a danger. Low self-confidence, also representing a deficit in self-efficacy, has also been associated with higher levels of anxiety in athletes (Gould et al., 1984; Hall et al., 1998; Jones & Cale, 1989; Jones, Swain, & Cale,


1990). Our findings were consistent with previous research demonstrating that fears of negative evaluation, a key component of threat appraisals, are associated with higher levels of anxiety prior to competition (Leary, 1992; Wilson & Eklund, 1998). Overall, students reported mild levels of emotion and moderate levels of threat. Consistent with previous theory and research in the sport literature (Jones, 1995; Jones et al., 1993; Jones & Hanton, 1996), perceptions of mild levels of anxiety and threat were increasingly favorable with stronger coping expectancies.

The finding that perceptions of emotion were less favorable as the valence of emotion moved from positive to negative supports our argument that high anxiety is most likely to be perceived as harmful, regardless of the level of coping confidence. The influence of coping expectancies on perceptions of threat appraisal was par-ticularly strong. This indicates that fears of negative evaluation and worries about performance were only perceived to decrease performance when the perceived ability to avoid these harms was low. In sum, anxiety is not always a detrement. Precompetition nerves and performance worries in an athlete may motivate increased effort to ensure that failure is avoided—as long as the athlete is reasonably confident in his or her skills and abilities.

Challenge Appraisals and Positive EmotionSkinner and Brewer’s (2002) findings on the dynamics of challenge and posi-

tive emotion indicate interesting areas for research in a sport context. A positive association was found between coping expectancies and positive emotions, reflecting both activation (e.g., excitement) and deactivation (e.g., calm). Consistent with the optimistic nature of challenge, event-specific appraisals of challenge were associated with higher levels of positive activated emotions such as excitement. This finding was consistent with Blascovich’s research indicating that challenge appraisals result in a physiological state representing optimal coping readiness (Blascovich & Mendes, 2000). For the students themselves, positive emotions and state chal-lenge facilitated their efforts to prepare and do well on the exam, an evaluation that was strengthened with higher intensities of positive emotion/challenge and more confident coping expectancies. In addition, higher levels of state challenge were also associated with more beneficial perceptions of mild levels of anxiety. In terms of objective performance, perceptions of challenge emerged as the most consistent predictor, accounting for 5 to 11% of the variance at each time point, whereas per-ceptions of threat only accounted for 4 to 7% of performance variance.

Implications for Sport Psychology. These findings endorse the importance of challenge appraisals and positive emotion in stressful achievement situations. In addition, state challenge also enhanced the perception that mild levels of anxiety were beneficial. If athletes also perceive positive emotion as adaptive and benefi-cial, as evidence from studies on the IZOF model suggests (Hanin, 2000), this has implications for coaching and therapy techniques aimed at the management of emo-tion. Rather than just focusing on reducing anxiety, it may also be advantageous to focus on enhancing athletes’ experience of positive emotion. For example, a coach may promote a culture of acceptance and communication of positive emotions by encouraging athletes to express their excitement, hope, and enthusiasm. Also, the athlete should be encouraged to anticipate the rewards of success and the joy of masterful performance in order to build up high activation positive emotions and a state of optimistic readiness for action (cf. Frijda, 1986).


The adaptive benefits of challenge were further supported by the finding that beneficial perceptions of challenge, rather than threat, had the greatest posi-tive impact on performance. In a sport context, Swain and Jones (1996) found that basketball players’ beneficial perceptions of cognitive anxiety, a concept similar to threat appraisals, accounted for 23% of the variance in their performance. Whether athletes’ perception of their challenge appraisals have a similar or stronger impact on performance is clearly a question for future research.

Our findings (Skinner & Brewer, 2002) also have implications for studies on the relationship between intensity and perception of anxiety. Jones (1995) and Burton and Naylor (1997) have suggested that beneficial perceptions of anxiety may in fact represent states of high activation positive emotions. Using bipolar measurement of emotion, we found that high-activation positive emotions are per-ceived as beneficial for performance. This result does not directly support Jones’ (1995) argument. It does suggest, however, that beneficial perceptions of anxiety (a high-activation negative emotion) as measured on a unipolar scale may contain some degree of contamination or “noise” from high-activation positive emotions. Our findings suggest that a clear picture of how anxiety and positive emotions are perceived is best obtained using bipolar measures that differentiate between the valence and level of activation of emotion.

Questions still remain concerning the dynamics of challenge and positive emotion for athletes. The types of positive emotion perceived as beneficial may vary depending on the type of sport or the temporal proximity to competition. Just as cognitive and somatic anxiety have different effects on performance depending on the demands of a particular sport (Jones, 1995; Parfitt et al., 1990), high activation positive emotions may be more likely to facilitate performance in sports requiring high levels of energy and arousal whereas low-activation positive emotions may be more likely to facilitate performance in sports requiring fine-tuned technical responses such as gymnastics. In relation to time, high-activation positive emotions may benefit training and preparation by facilitating motivation and effort, whereas low-activation positive emotions may be most beneficial immediately prior to per-formance by facilitating effective concentration on the task at hand.

Implicit in the discussion so far is that athletes are likely to be characterized by either a threat or challenge appraisal style. We have good evidence that athletes experience a range of positive and negative emotions prior to competition (cf. Hanin, 2000; Williams & Krane, 1998), suggesting the presence of both threat and challenge appraisals. At the level of trait styles of cognitive appraisal, an athlete might also display a dual threat/challenge appraisal style in which he or she is high on cognitive anxiety, a construct similar to threat, but can nevertheless see sport competitions as challenging opportunities for success and other personal benefits. This possibil-ity has implications for sport research. In terms of research on the effects of threat appraisal styles (e.g., high trait cognitive anxiety), it may be necessary to distinguish two subgroups: athletes with pure trait threat (i.e., low challenge or other positive trait) vs. athletes with a dual appraisal style (i.e., high threat and high challenge). Treating both groups as identical would be conceptually inappropriate.

A dual threat/challenge appraisal style increases the “stakes” associated with competition, and hence may enhance motivation over and above a threat or chal-lenge appraisal alone. Research in clinical psychology has identified an optimal ratio of positive to negative cognition (1.6:1.0) that defines a healthy state of mind (Kendall, Howard, & Hays, 1989). Similarly, there may be an optimal ratio of threat:


challenge appraisals associated with the greatest benefit to performance. Research addressing these questions could provide valuable insight into the relationship between athletes’ cognitive appraisal, emotion, and sport performance.

Temporal Patterns In our work (Skinner & Brewer, 2002) we also explored the temporal patterns

of state appraisals, emotion, and perceptions of these states. It has been suggested that as an event draws closer, cognitive appraisal becomes more intense (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and the threatening aspects of the event become more salient (Beck et al., 1985; Lazarus, 1991; Lewin, 1951). Consistent with this perspec-tive, Gilovich, Kerr, and Medvec (1993, p. 556) describe the time immediately before performance as the “moment of truth” in which individuals may feel more accountable for their estimates of success and failure given the close proximity to objective confirmation of their skills and abilities, i.e., actual performance. In general, responses to the increasing temporal proximity of a sport competition have supported these predictions. From 1 to 2 days prior to important competitions, for example college championships, the expectancy of success (Jones, Swain, & Cale, 1991) and self-confidence (Jones & Cale, 1989; Jones et al., 1991; Swain & Jones, 1992) tends to decline whereas cognitive and somatic anxiety tend to increase (Jones & Cale, 1989; Jones et al., 1991; Swain & Jones, 1992, 1993). However, there is some disagreement as to the precise temporal changes that occur and the strength of gender differences in these patterns.

We are only aware of two studies that have explored the temporal patterns of perceptions of emotion. Wiggins (1998) found that coping expectancies, intensity, and perceptions of anxiety remained relatively stable from 24 hours to 1 hour prior to three high school matches in a variety of sports. Swain and Jones (1990) found that perceptions of anxiety remained stable for 49 track & field athletes over four time points prior to competition. In our research (Skinner & Brewer, 2002) we found that, similar to research reported with athletes, students’ state challenge and coping expectancies decreased over time. Declines were also observed in beneficial perceptions of anxiety, state threat, and challenge. These findings suggest, contrary to previous research, that the perceived ability to utilize cognition and emotion to facilitate preparation and performance is likely to decline as a stressful achieve-ment event draws closer.

Implications for Sport Psychology. Our findings (Skinner & Brewer, 2002) are consistent with the well-established pattern of rising anxiety and faltering self-confidence as the moment of truth in which one’s skills are put to the test draws closer. In contrast, research on the temporal patterns of perceptions of emotion and appraisal is at an early stage. There is preliminary evidence that athletes may be able to maintain stable perceptions as a competition approaches. Our study with students suggests another possibility: that athletes may have a reduced capacity to utilize their emotions to the best advantage, whether this be alleviating the negative effects of anxiety or drawing upon the benefits of positive emotions. This finding is particularly significant given the well-established relationship between beneficial perceptions of emotion and enhanced performance.

It is not possible to draw firm conclusions regarding the temporal patterns of perceptions of emotion on the basis of so few studies. Whether athletes’ per-ceived ability to effectively manage their emotions declines prior to competition


as our findings suggest, or remains stable as other studies suggest, is an area for further research. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that as a competition draws near it may be wise for coaches and athletes to be increasingly vigilant to ensure that beneficial perceptions of cognition and emotion are maintained. Coaches could schedule one or two short sessions close to competition in which the ath-lete practices and reinforces beneficial perceptions of current emotional states. Further studies are needed with athletes from a variety of sports and levels of achievement before we can state with confidence the degree to which perceptions are likely to change over time.

Summary

This paper has focused on adaptive approaches to stressful achievement events considering challenge, positive emotion, and perceptions of positive emotion. We have shown how the appraisal of challenge might provide significant advantages to athletes, and presented evidence that challenge is associated with (a) a physiological response pattern highly conducive to efficient cardiovascular performance (Blas-covich & Mendes, 2000), and (b) effective utilization of cognitive and emotional resources reflected in beneficial perceptions.

The second main focus was on the benefits of positive emotion during the period of anticipation leading up to a sport competition. It is well known that posi-tive emotion during sports has significant benefits for motivation and commitment (cf. Carpenter et al., 1993; Scanlan et al., 1989; Scanlan & Simons, 1992). Here we provided evidence, from the perspective of the individual experiencing the emotion, that positive anticipatory emotions prior to competition are also likely to benefit preparation, motivation, and performance. Consistent with Jones (1995) and Carver (1996), Skinner and Brewer (2002) also found that mild levels of anxiety (and threat) are likely to facilitate effective preparation and performance. Indeed, the most adaptive approach for athletes facing stressful competitions may be a dual threat/challenge perspective that enables them to effectively manage their positive and negative emotions in order to achieve optimal motivation and performance.

References

Alpert, R., & Haber, R.N. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 207-215.

Aspinwall, L.G. (1998). Rethinking the role of positive affect in self-regulation. Motivation and Emotion, 22, 1-32.

Bakker, F.C., de Koning, J.J., van Ingen Schenau, G.J., & de Groot, G. (1993). Motivation of young elite speed skaters. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 432-442.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.Beck, A.T., Emery, G., & Greenberg, R. (1985). Anxiety disorders and phobias: A cognitive

perspective. New York: Basic Books.Bentler, P.M., & Wu, E.J.C. (1995). EQS for Windows user’s guide. Encino, CA: Multivari-

ate Software, Inc.Blascovich, J., & Mendes, W.B. (2000). Challenge and threat appraisals. The role of affective

cues. In J.P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 59-82). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Borkovec, T.D. (1994). The nature, functions, and origins of worry. In G. Davey & F. Tallis


(Eds.), Worrying: Perspectives on theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 5-33). New York: Wiley & Sons.

Boyd, M.P., & Yin, Z. (1996). Cognitive-affective sources of sport enjoyment in adolescent sport participants. Adolescence, 31, 383-395.

Burton, D. (1988). Do anxious swimmers swim slower? Reexamining the elusive anxiety-performance relationship. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 15, 119-133.

Burton, D., & Naylor, S. (1997). Is anxiety really facilitative? Reaction to the myth that cognitive anxiety always impairs sport performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psy-chology, 9, 295-302.

Carpenter, P.J., Scanlan, T., Simons, J.P., & Lobel, M. (1993). A test of the sport commitment model using structural equation modeling. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 15, 119-133.

Carver, C.S. (1996). Cognitive interference and the structure of behavior. In I.G. Sarason, G.R. Pierce, & B.R. Sarason (Eds.), Cognitive interference: Theories, methods and findings (pp. 25-45). Mahwah: NJ: Erlbaum.

Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1986). Functional and dysfunctional responses to anxiety: The interaction between expectancies and self-focused attention. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-related cognitions in anxiety and motivation (pp. 111-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1988). A control-process perspective on anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1, 17-22.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Beyond boredom and anxiety. London: Jossey-Bass.Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human

behavior. New York: Plenum.Deffenbacher, J.L. (1980). Worry and emotionality in test anxiety. In I.G. Sarason (Ed.), Test

anxiety: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 111-124). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Dienstbier, R.A. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness: Implications for mental and

physical health. Psychological Review, 96, 84-100.Duda, J.L., Fox, K.R., Biddle, S.J., & Armstrong, N. (1992). Children’s achievement goals

and beliefs about success in sport. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 313-323.

Elliot, E.S., & Dweck, C.S. (1988). An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.

Feldman Barrett, L., & Russell, J.A. (1998). Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 967-984.

Feltz, D.L. (1988). Self-confidence and sports performance. Exercise and Sports Sciences Reviews, 16, 423-457.

Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150-170.

Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J.T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping. American Psychologist, 55, 647-654.

Fredrickson, B.L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychol-ogy, 2, 300-319.

Fridja, N.H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Gilovich, T., Kerr, M., & Medvec, V.H. (1993). Effect of temporal distance on subjective

confidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 522-560.Gould, D., Petlichkoff, L., & Weinberg, R.S. (1984). Antecedents of, temporal changes in,

and relationships between CSAI-2 subcomponents. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 289-304.


Green, D.P., Goldman, S.L., & Salovey, P. (1993). Measurement error masks bipolarity in affect ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1029-1041.

Hale, B.D., & Whitehouse, A. (1998). The effect of imagery-manipulated appraisal on inten-sity and direction of competitive anxiety. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 40-51.

Hall, H.K., & Kerr, A.W. (1998). Predicting achievement anxiety: A social cognitive per-spective. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20, 98-111.

Hall, H.K., Kerr, A.W., & Matthews, J. (1998). Precompetitive anxiety in sport: The contribution of achievement goals and perfectionism. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20, 194-217.

Hanin, Y.L. (2000). Successful and poor performance and emotions. In Y.L. Hanin (Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 157-187). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (1995). Antecedents of multidimensional state anxiety in elite com-petitive swimmers. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 512-523.

Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport: Theory and practice of elite performers. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Isen, A.M. (1984). Toward understanding the role of affect in cognition. In R.S. Wyer & T.K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 179-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jackson, S.A. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding of the flow experience in athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, 76-90.

Jackson, S.A. (2000). Joy, fun, and flow state in sport. In Y.L. Hanin (Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 135-155). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

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, 449-478.

Jones, G., & Cale, A. (1989). Precompetition temporal patterning of anxiety and self-confi-dence in males and females. Journal of Sport Behavior, 12, 183-195.

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.B.J. (1994). Intensity and interpretation of anxiety symp-toms in elite and non-elite performers. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 657-663.

Jones, G., & Swain, A.B.J. (1992). Intensity and direction as dimensions of competitive state anxiety and relationships with competitiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 467-472.

Jones, G., & Swain, A.B.J. (1995). Predispositions to experience debilitative and facilitative anxiety in elite and nonelite performers. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 201-211.

Jones, G., Swain, A.B.J., & Cale, A. (1990). Antecedents of multidimensional competitive state anxiety and self-confidence in elite intercollegiate middle-distance runners. The Sport Psychologist, 4, 107-118.

Jones, G., Swain, A.B.J., & Cale, A. (1991). Gender differences in the precompetition tem-poral patterning and antecedents of anxiety and self-confidence. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13, 1-15.

Jones, G., Swain, A.B.J., & Hardy, L. (1993). Intensity and direction dimensions of com-petitive state anxiety and relationships with performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 11, 525-532.

Jones, G., Swain, A.B.J., & Harwood, C. (1996). Positive and negative affect as predictors of competitive anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 109-114.


Kavanagh, D.J., & Bower, G.H. (1985). Mood and self efficacy: Impact of joy and sadness on perceived capabilities. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 507-525.

Kavussanu, M., & Roberts, G.C. (1996). Motivation in physical activity contexts: The rela-tionship of perceived motivational climate to intrinsic motivation and self efficacy. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 264-280.

Kendall, P.C., & Hollon, S.D. (1989). Anxious self-talk: Development of the Anxious Self-Statements Questionnaire (ASSQ). Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 81-93.

Kendall, P.C., Howard, B.L., & Hays, R.C. (1989). Self-referent speech and psychopathol-ogy: The balance of positive and negative thinking. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 583-598.

Kent, G., & Jambunathan, P. (1989). A longitudinal study of the intrusiveness of cognitions in test anxiety. Behavior Research and Therapy, 27, 43-50.

Kleine, D. (1990). Anxiety and sport performance: A meta-analysis. Anxiety Research, 2, 113-131.

Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.Lazarus, R.S., Kanner, A.D., & Folkman, S. (1980). Emotions: A cognitive-phenomenological

analysis. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research and experi-ence. Volume 1: Theories of emotion (pp. 189-217). New York: Academic Press.

Leary, M. (1992). Self presentation in sport and exercise. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14, 339-351.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R.S., Bump, L.A., & Smith, D.E. (1990). Development

and validation of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory–2. In R. Martens, R.S. Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive anxiety in sport (pp. 117-190) Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Moritz, S.E., Feltz, D.L., Fahrbach, K.R., & Mack, D.E. (2000). The relation of self-effi-cacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly in Exercise and Sport, 71, 280-294.

Morris, L.W., Davis, M.A., & Hutchings, C.H. (1981). Cognitive and emotional compo-nents of anxiety: Literature review and a revised worry-emotionality scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 541-555.

Neiss, R. (1988). Reconceptualizing arousal: Psychobiological states in motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 345-366.

Neiss, R. (1989). Expectancy in motor behavior: A crucial element of the psychobiological states that affect performance. Human Performance, 2, 273-300.

Newton, M., & Duda, J.L. (1993). The relationship of task and ego orientation to per-formance-cognitive content, affect, and attributions in bowling. Journal of Sport Behavior, 16, 209-220.

Nicholls, J. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Student motivation, Vol. 1 (pp. 39-73). New York: Academic Press.

Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S. (1998). The relationship between competitive anxiety, achieve-ment goals, and motivational climates. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 176-187.

Ntoumanis, N., & Jones, G. (1998). Interpretation of competitive trait anxiety symptoms as a function of locus of control beliefs. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 99-114.

Oatley, K., & Jenkins, J.M. (1998). Understanding emotions. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.


Parfitt, C.G., Jones, G., & Hardy, L. (1990). Multidimensional anxiety and performance. In G. Jones & L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and performance in sport (pp. 43-80). Chichester: Wiley.

Park, C.L., & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. General Review of Psychology, 1, 115-144.

Pekrun, R. (1992). The impact of emotions on learning and achievement: Towards a theory of cognitive/motivational mediators. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 41, 359-376.

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.

Power, M., & Dalgleish, T. (1997). Cognition and emotion: From order to disorder. East Sussex, England: Psychology Press.

Raffety, B.D., Smith, R.E., & Ptacek, J.T. (1997). Facilitating and debilitating trait anxiety, situational anxiety, and coping with an anticipated stressor: A process analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 892-906.

Raglin, J.S., & Hanin, Y.L. (2000). Competitive anxiety. In Y.L. Hanin (Ed.) Emotions in sport (pp. 93-111). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Rotella, R.J., & Lerner, J.D. (1993). Responding to competitive pressure. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 528-541). New York: Macmillan.

Russell, J.A., & Carroll, J.M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 3-30.

Sarason, I.G., & Sarason, B.R. (1990). Test anxiety. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social-evaluative anxiety (pp. 475-495). New York: Plenum.

Scanlan, T.K., Carpenter, P.J., Schmidt, G.W., Simons, J.P., & Keller, B. (1993). An intro-duction to the sport commitment model. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 54-64.

Scanlan, T.K., & Simons, J.P. (1992). The construct of sport enjoyment. In G.C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 199-215). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Scanlan, T.K., Stein, G.L., & Ravizza, K. (1989). An in-depth study of former elite figure skat-ers: II. Sources of enjoyment. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 65-83.

Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and impli-cations of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247.

Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physi-cal well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 201-228.

Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S., & Bridges, M.W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neu-roticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063-1078.

Schwarz, N., & Bohner, G. (1996). Feelings and their motivational implications: Moods and the action sequence. In P.M. Gollwitzer & J.A. Bargh (Eds.). The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 119-145). New York: Guilford Press.

Seifriz, J.J., Duda, J., & Chi, L. (1992). The relationship of perceived motivational climate to intrinsic motivation and beliefs about success in basketball. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14, 375-391.

Seligman, M.E.P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14


Skinner, N., & Brewer, N. (1999). Temporal characteristics of evaluation anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13, 293-314.

Skinner, N., & Brewer, N. (2002). The dynamics of threat and challenge appraisals prior to stressful achievement events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 678-692.

Smith, C.A. (1991). The self, appraisal, and coping. In C.R. Snyder & D.R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 116-137). New York: Pergamon.

Smith, C.A., & Ellsworth, P.C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 813-838.

Smith, C.A., & Ellsworth, P.C. (1987). Patterns of appraisal and emotion related to taking an exam. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 475-488.

Smith, C.A, Haynes, K.N., Lazarus, R.S., & Pope, L.K. (1993). In search of the “hot” cogni-tions: Attributions, appraisals, and their relation to emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 916-929.

Swain, A.B.J., & Jones, G. (1990). Intensity, frequency and direction dimensions of competi-tive state anxiety and self-confidence. Journal of Sports Sciences, 8, 302-303.

Swain, A.B.J., & Jones, G. (1992). Relationships between sport achievement orientation and competitive state anxiety. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 42-54.

Swain, A.B.J., & Jones, G. (1993). Intensity and frequency dimensions of competitive anxiety. Journal of Sports Sciences, 11, 533-542.

Swain, A.B.J., & Jones, G. (1996). Explaining performance variance: The relative contribu-tion of intensity and direction dimensions of competitive state anxiety. Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 9, 1-18.

Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kelsey, R.M., & Leitten, C.L. (1993). Subjective, physiological, and behavioral effects of threat and challenge appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 248-260.

Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kibler, J., & Ernst, J.M. (1997). Cognitive and physiological antecedents of threat and challenge appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 63-72.

Vealey, R.S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 221-246.

Wiggins, M.S. (1998). Anxiety intensity and direction: Pre-performance temporal patterns and expectations in athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 201-211.

Williams, J.M., & Krane, V. (1998). Psychological characteristics of peak performance. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (pp. 137-147). London: Mayfield.

Wilson, P., & Eklund, R.C. (1998). The relationship between competitive anxiety and self- presentational concerns. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20, 81-97.

Manuscript submitted: March 2002Revision accepted: September 6, 2003

08/skinner pdf - naspspa

Documents