Interpretation of competitive trait anxiety symptoms as a function of locus of control beliefs. Nikos Ntoumanis and Graham Jones

Transcription

1 1 Interpretation of competitive trait anxiety symptoms as a function of locus of control beliefs. Nikos Ntoumanis and Graham Jones Nikos Ntoumanis, Research Support Unit, School of Education, Exeter University. Graham Jones, Sport Psychology Research Group, Department of Physical Education, Sports Science and Recreation Management, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK. Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) J.G.Jones@lboro.ac.uk. Address correspondence to: Nikos Ntoumanis, Research Support Unit, School of Education, Exeter University, Exeter, EX1 2LU, United Kingdom. Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) N.Ntoumanis@exeter.ac.uk Running head: Competitive trait anxiety and locus of control. Date of re-submission: Date of second re-submission: Paper published in the International Journal of Sport Psychology, 1998, Vol. 29, pp

2 2 Interpretation of competitive trait anxiety symptoms as a function of locus of control beliefs.

3 3 ABSTRACT This study investigated differences in the cognitive labelling of competitive anxiety symptoms generally experienced prior to an important competition as a function of locus of control beliefs. Eighty three university and county sport performers, including 45 males and 38 females, responded to the modified Competitive Trait Anxiety Inventory-2 (Jones & Swain, 1995) which measures the intensity of pre-competition anxiety symptoms generally experienced, as well as how they are generally interpreted on a debilitative-facilitative continuum. The performers also responded to the Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (Rotter, 1966). The results showed that although there were no significant differences between those having an internal and those having an external locus of control on the intensity of their cognitive and somatic anxiety symptoms, the internals viewed their trait anxiety as significantly more facilitative and less debilitative than the externals. Discriminant function analysis corroborated these findings by showing that the best predictors for distinguishing between the two locus of control groups were the direction scores for cognitive and somatic trait anxiety. The results of the present study provide support for the need to assess the direction as well as the intensity of competitive trait anxiety. Furthermore, they corroborate findings of other studies which have shown that internal locus of control is associated with more adaptive emotional responses in sport. Keywords: Competitive trait anxiety, Direction of anxiety, Locus of control. A substantial amount of research in sport psychology has been devoted to the study of the nature and the role of stress and anxiety in sport and relationships with various

4 4 personality and cognitive variables. The aim of this line of inquiry is to provide important information which will enable sport performers to cope successfully with negative affective states and to perform to their full capabilities. Early anxiety research in sport psychology relied heavily on educational and clinical psychology findings to construct a theoretical framework for research in competitive (sport) anxiety (Jones, 1995). However, during the last decade or so, there have been considerable methodological and conceptual advances in examining the various manifestations of the competitive anxiety response. This line of research has progressively shifted emphasis from general and unidimensional theories of anxiety to situationally (sport)-specific and multidimensional theories and measuring instruments of anxiety symptoms. Specifically, based on the work of Liebert and Morris (1967) and Davidson and Schwartz (1976), Morris, Davis, and Hutchings (1981) distinguished between cognitive anxiety (worry) and somatic anxiety (emotionality). Morris et al. referred to negative expectations and cognitive concerns about oneself and the situation as elements of cognitive anxiety, while the somatic component was considered to reflect perceptions of physiological responses of anxiety such as nervousness and tension. A significant number of studies have explored competitive anxiety in the light of these major breakthroughs and provided numerous and interesting findings. For example, research using the multidimensional anxiety inventory, the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2; Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1990), which also measures self-confidence, has provided support for the separation of cognitive and somatic components in studies which show them to have different antecedents (Gould, Petlichkoff, & Weinberg, 1984; Jones, Swain, & Cale, 1990, 1991), different temporal characteristics (Gould et al., 1984; Jones et al., 1991; Martens et al., 1990), different performance consequences (Burton, 1988; Gould, Petlichkoff, Simons, & Vevera, 1987; Jones, & Cale,

5 5 1989; Parfitt, & Hardy, 1993; Swain, & Jones, 1996), and also to respond differently to interventions (Burton, 1990). One of the most significant advances in the understanding of the nature of competitive anxiety has been the introduction of the notion of its "direction" (Jones, 1991). This refers to how sport performers label the intensity of the cognitive and physiological symptoms they experience on a debilitative-facilitative continuum. The suggestion that anxiety symptoms may be perceived as positive and facilitative or negative and debilitative by different individuals has previously been made in other psychology disciplines. For example, Alpert and Haber (1960) found that a scale which measured both types of anxiety (i.e. the Achievement Anxiety Test) accounted for more of the variance in academic performance than a conventional debilitating anxiety scale. Also, Wine (1980) proposed a bi-directional model of test anxiety which further supported the notion of positive and negative dimensions of anxiety. In a series of studies, Jones and associates have investigated the notion that competitive anxiety symptoms may be perceived by some athletes as facilitative and not as debilitative with regard to their sport performance. Specifically, Jones, Swain, and Hardy (1993) found no differences in cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety intensity, or in somatic anxiety direction, between a good performance and a poor performance group of female gymnasts. However, the good performance group reported their cognitive anxiety intensity as more facilitating and less debilitating than the poor performance group. Also, Swain and Jones (1996) found that the direction dimensions of competitive anxiety were better predictors of sports performance than the intensity dimensions. Furthermore, Jones, Hanton, and Swain (1994) and Jones and Swain (1995) showed that élite athletes were more likely to have a positive perception of their state and trait anxiety symptoms respectively than non-élite ones.

6 6 In an effort to explain mechanisms underlying how sport performers interpret these anxiety symptoms, Jones (1995) proposed a control model of competitive anxiety. This model is based on the earlier work of Carver and Scheier (1986, 1988) in the area of test anxiety, who believed that human behavior is regulated in a system of feedback control in which individuals continually establish goals for themselves which they then use as reference points. Jones (1995) has modified and adapted Carver and Scheier s model to examine predictions for competitive anxiety responses in sporting situations. According to the control model, the person s perception of anxiety as facilitative or debilitative is a function of their perceived control over both the environment, of themselves, and on their belief about their ability to cope with anxiety. (Figure 1) INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE Two studies have provided support for the predictions of the model. Specifically, Jones, Swain, and Harwood (1996) showed that trait positive and negative affect (Watson & Clarke, 1984; Watson & Tellegen, 1985) is an individual difference variable which can predict debilitative and facilitative anxiety. The findings of this study showed that negative affect mediated the intensity of cognitive and somatic anxiety, while positive affect played a more significant role than negative affect in the interpretation (i.e., direction) of both cognitive and somatic anxiety. Also, Jones and Hanton (1996) found that there were no differences in the intensity of cognitive and somatic state anxiety of swimmers who held positive or negative expectancies to attain performance, outcome, or process goals. However, athletes who had positive expectancies of goal attainment reported their cognitive and somatic anxiety symptoms as being more facilitative than those who had negative or uncertain expectancies.

7 7 According to the control model (Jones, 1995), anxiety is viewed as facilitative provided that the athletes perceive that they can exert a certain degree of control over both the environment and the self. The locus of control construct, originally derived from Social Learning Theory (Rotter, 1954), may be a useful concept in testing the above hypothesis. Social learning theory contains several assumptions. The assumption upon which locus of control is based, is that the behavior of individuals in a specific situation is determined by the reinforcements they receive (Rotter, 1954). The extent to which individuals believe that they have control over rewards and reinforcements, has been named by Rotter (1966) locus of control. Rotter (1966) explained that people with an internal locus of control (internals) believe that they are largely responsible for the rewards or punishments they receive, while those with an external belief system (externals) perceive that life's outcomes are not related to personal effort or skill. As Skinner (1995) argued, perceptions of control are constructed through individuals history of experiences interacting with the social and physical context. In a comprehensive review on the measurement of locus of control, Palenzuela (1988) has distinguished locus of control from other related constructs such as powerlessness, locus of causality, causal attributions, self-efficacy and self-control. In the sport psychology literature, locus of control has been associated with many different personality and situational variables. For example, Jambor and Rudisill (1992) related locus of control and sport choices and showed that children with external locus of control were more likely to participate in organized rather than non-organized, and individual rather than team sports. Furthermore, Fejgin (1994) conducted a longitudinal study and demonstrated that sport participants were higher on internal locus of control than non-sport participants. Wong and Bridges (1994), surveying boys who took part in an American Youth Soccer Organization league, found that boys in an older division had higher internal locus of control than those in an younger division.

8 8 As Ormel and Sanderman (1989) argued, social learning theory assumes that individuals with an internal locus of control have greater perceived control over stressors and, therefore, are less vulnerable to stress than individuals with an external locus of control. Furthermore, Mineka and Kelly (1989) noted that lack of control has been shown to be an important factor in several different emotional and motivational states, such as fear, anxiety and depression. Also, the above authors showed that control or lack of control during stressful experiences can influence the behavioral, affective and physiological consequences of those stressful situations. Furthermore, having control over various stressors can result in long-term benefits. Lazarus (1993) asserted that people's general belief about their control over the environment influences their perception of threat. If individuals perceive that they lack control, a characteristic of externals, this should lead to perceptions of stress which will eventually cause anxiety symptoms. Archer (1979) reviewed several studies from clinical psychology and reported that externality was related to high levels of trait anxiety. In the sport literature, Chalip (1980) suggested that internals demonstrated less performance disruption under stress than externals and were more able to use task-centered coping behavior. A number of investigations in the sport domain (Hall, 1980; McKelvie, Valliant, & Asu, 1985; Weiss, Bredemeier, & Brustad, 1987) have also found externality to be positively associated with competitive trait anxiety as measured by the Sport Competition Anxiety Test (Martens, 1977). However, Lefcourt(1982) has pointed out that internals may also be vulnerable to anxiety because they may be overcome with a sense of personal responsibility for failures and therefore experience anxiety-depressive reactions. The distinction between facilitative and debilitative anxiety has provided some potential answers to the confusion regarding the susceptibility to anxiety of internals or externals. Butterfield (1964), Feather (1967), and Watson (1967) used Alpert-Haber's

9 9 (1960) Achievement Anxiety Test, which measures both types of anxiety, and found that internal control expectancies were associated with greater facilitative and less debilitative anxiety, while external control expectancies had an opposite pattern of relationships with the anxiety dimensions. To date, no research in sport psychology has associated locus of control with interpretations of anxiety as being either debilitative or facilitative. Most of the research studies conducted recently in the area of competitive anxiety have focused on state anxiety. These studies emphasized that behavior can be better predicted by state and not by trait psychological variables. However, as Jones et al. (1994) have suggested, individuals may have a predisposition to report anxiety symptoms as being either facilitative or debilitative. Therefore, it is also important to examine cognitive and somatic trait anxiety responses ( Jones, & Swain, 1995; Jones, et al., 1996). In this context, a multidimensional instrument to measure competitive trait anxiety, such as the Competitive Trait Anxiety Inventory-2 (CTAI-2; Albrecht, & Feltz, 1987) would be appropriate. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether components of the model s predictions regarding the mechanisms which influence the interpretation of anxiety as facilitative or debilitative also hold true for competitive trait anxiety. It was hypothesized that athletes with an external locus of control athletes would score significantly higher on cognitive and somatic anxiety intensity subscales than athletes with an internal locus of control. It was also hypothesized that athletes with an internal locus of control would interpret both cognitive and somatic competitive trait anxiety symptoms as facilitative, while athletes with an external locus of control would interpret them as being debilitative. In relation to the above hypothesis, it was also predicted that internals would be clearly distinguished from externals on the basis of their facilitative perception of their trait anxiety symptoms.

10 10 Method Participants The participants (N=83) were male (n=45) and female (n=38) university and county players representing hockey (n= 18), rugby (n= 26), cricket (n= 20), swimming (n= 12), and athletics (n= 7). For males, ages ranged from 18 to 36 yrs (M=23.9; SD= 6.2), while most of them competed regularly in their sport (M =12.4 yrs; SD= 4.5 yrs). For females, the agespan extended from 18 to 35 years (M =25; SD =6.99), and their experience with their sport was also quite substantial (M =11.30 yrs; SD =4.92 yrs). Measures Modified version of the Competitive Trait Anxiety Inventory-2 (CTAI-2) The CTAI-2 (Albrecht & Feltz, 1987), modified by Jones and Swain (1995) to include a direction as well as the traditional intensity response scale, was employed in this study. Being a multidimensional measure of competitive trait anxiety, it was preferred over the more traditional and unidimensional Sport Competition Anxiety Test (SCAT; Martens, 1977). The CTAI-2, comprises 27 items, with nine items in each of three subscales. The first subscale measures cognitive trait anxiety while the other two subscales measure somatic trait anxiety and trait self-confidence. The self-confidence subscale was omitted for the purpose of this study. Examples of cognitive anxiety items include I am concerned about losing and I am concerned about reaching my goal, while somatic anxiety items include My heart is racing and My body feels tight. The intensity response scale asks each participant to rate the intensity with which each symptom is usually experienced prior to an important competition on a Likert format ranging from 1 ("not at all") to 4 ("very much so"), giving each intensity subscale a range from 9 to 36. The "direction" scale asks participants to rate the degree to which they perceive the "intensity" of each anxiety symptom they usually

11 11 experience prior to an important competition as either facilitative or debilitative to their subsequent performances. This was assessed on a scale ranging from -3 ("very debilitative") to +3 ("very facilitative"), so possible "direction" scores on each subscale ranged from -27 to +27. Internal-External Locus of Control Scale (I-E scale) Numerous questionnaires have been developed in mainstream psychology and adopted in sport and exercise psychology in order to measure individual differences in locus of control beliefs. Furthermore, sport- and exercise-specific instruments have been developed such as the Exercise Objectives Locus of Control Scale (McCready, & Long, 1985), the Fitness Locus of Control Scale (Whitehead, & Corbin, 1988) and the Sport Multidimensional Locus of Control Scale (Persson, 1988). However, according to Hall (1985), and to a search of the Sport Discus, the NISS, and the First Search literature databases that the authors conducted, the most commonly used inventory in the sport psychology literature is Rotter s (1966) internal-external locus of control scale (I-E scale). The I-E scale is a 23-item forced choice questionnaire with six filler items, which are not included in the final score. Each item consists of a pair of alternatives lettered a or b. An example item is: a) Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me (external locus of control), and b): It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life (internal locus of control). The rewording of some items and the addition of six filler items intends to disguise the purpose of the test. The I-E scale is scored in the external direction, that is, the higher the score the more external the individual. Thus, an individual may score from 0 (internal) to 23 (external). Rotter (1966) reported test-retest reliabilities for several samples that varied from 0.49 to 0.83, depending upon the time interval and the sample involved. He also reported relatively stable internal consistency estimates (r=.65 to.76). As Rotter (1990) argued, the non-

12 12 comparability of the items in an additive scale of this type makes it difficult to achieve high estimates of internal consistency. Construct and discriminant validities have also been established by Rotter (1966) and others. Procedure All sport performers involved in the investigation were asked to complete an informed consent form and the two questionnaires away from the competitive environment. Each participant was given clear instructions and was assured that all individual responses would be kept in the strictest confidence. Both questionnaires had trait-oriented instructions which emphasized the need for responding to each question according to how the participants usually felt. Utilising the median split technique (Md= 13), the participants were divided into those who held an internal locus of control (internals, n=48) and those who had an external belief system (externals, n=35). Furthermore, following the procedure of Jones et al. (1994) and Jones and Swain (1995), a new independent variable was created by dividing the participants into those who had negative scores ("debilitated" group, n=20) and those who had positive scores ("facilitated" group, n= 37) on both the cognitive and somatic trait anxiety direction subscales. Those participants who had a combination of a negative and a positive score (n=26) on the two trait anxiety subscales, were omitted from subsequent analyses involving this new independent variable, since they were not clearly debilitated or facilitated. Results A chi-square test and one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were conducted to examine possible gender differences in locus of control and trait anxiety

13 13 respectively. Specifically, the 2x2 (gender x locus of control) chi-square test was not significant (X 2 = 3.48; p.>0.05). Furthermore, the one-way MANOVA with gender as the grouping variable and cognitive anxiety intensity, cognitive anxiety direction, somatic anxiety intensity, and somatic anxiety direction as the dependent variables was also nonsignificant (Wilks lambda= 0.88; F(1,81)= 2.42; p>0.05). Therefore, the data from the male and female participants were combined in order to test the hypotheses of the study. Modified CTAI-2 scores as a function of locus of control A MANOVA was conducted using each of the CTAI-2 subscales, (cognitive anxiety intensity, somatic anxiety intensity, cognitive anxiety direction, and somatic anxiety direction) as dependent variables and locus of control as the independent variable. The MANOVA was significant (Wilks lambda= 0.807; F(1,81)= 4.65; p<0.01). Univariate analyses showed that the internal and external locus of control groups did not differ on levels of cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety intensity. However, there were significant differences for both cognitive and somatic direction subscales; that is, internals reported significantly more facilitative interpretations of both cognitive and somatic trait anxiety symptoms than their external counterparts (p<0.01). See Table 1 for means, standard deviations and F-values INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE A discriminant function analysis was performed using the CTAI-2 subscales as predictors of membership in the two locus of control groups. One significant function emerged (Wilks lambda= 0.81; X 2 (4)= 16.92; p<0.01), indicating that one unique equation could maximise differences among the two locus of control groups on the predictor variables. As can be seen in Table 2, the coefficients for this function indicated that somatic

14 14 anxiety direction (Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficient= 0.59) and cognitive anxiety direction (Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficient= 0.52) contributed more substantially to maximising group differences than the intensity variables INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE A group classification analysis showed that 69.7% and 62% of the externals and internals, respectively, were correctly classified based on the above predictor variables. Overall, the cross-classification analysis correctly classified 65.06% of cases. A 2x2 (direction group x locus of control) chi square analysis was performed to examine the hypothesis that the frequency of participants in the debilitated and facilitated groups would differ as a function of locus of control. This statistical technique revealed a significant difference between the groups (X 2 = 8.39; p< 0.01). The analysis indicated that a relatively small number (n=8; 21.6%) of internals reported both cognitive and somatic anxiety as being debilitative, while most (n=29; 78.4%) of those athletes reported their anxiety symptoms as being usually facilitative to their performance before an important competition. In contrast, the number (n=12; 60%) of externals who described their cognitive and somatic anxiety as debilitative was similar to those with facilitative (n=8; 40%) perceptions of trait anxiety. Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which locus of control is related to the cognitive labelling of anxiety symptoms experienced prior to an important

15 15 competition as facilitative or debilitative to subsequent performance. It was hypothesized that athletes with an external locus of control would generally feel more anxious than athletes with an internal locus of control. Although the mean scores for both cognitive and somatic anxiety intensity showed that externals reported higher levels of intensity of trait anxiety than internals, these differences did not reach statistical significance. This is in contrast with findings from previous studies (e.g. Weiss, Bredemeier, & Brustad, 1987) which showed externals to be significantly higher in trait anxiety than internals. However, the absence of such significant differences in our study can be explained with Lefcourt s (1982) argument that anxiety should be high not only among externals, but also among those who hold themselves responsible for their successes and failures (i.e. internals). It was also hypothesized that sport performers with an internal belief system would experience more facilitative trait anxiety than athletes with an external locus of control. This prediction was supported by the univariate analyses, which revealed significant differences between the two locus of control groups with regard to their interpretation of cognitive and somatic trait anxiety. Specifically, with regard to cognitive anxiety, the mean scores showed that internals were more facilitated than externals. Similarly, when somatic anxiety was analyzed, the results showed that internals interpreted their somatic trait anxiety symptoms more facilitative than externals. Furthermore, in support of the third hypothesis, the chi-square analysis revealed that internals could be quite clearly distinguished from externals on the basis of their positive interpretation of their trait anxiety symptoms. Specifically, 21.62% of the athletes with an internal locus of control, belonged to the "debilitated" group and 78.38% to the "facilitated" group. These percentages are in direct contrast to the 60% and 40% of the athletes who had an external belief system and interpreted their trait anxiety symptoms as debilitative and facilitative respectively.

16 16 Therefore, the above results verify earlier findings from the general psychology literature (e.g. Butterfield, 1964; Feather, 1967; Watson, 1967) that internal locus of control, in comparison to external locus of control, is associated with greater facilitative and less debilitative anxiety. Furthermore, the results revealed that somatic anxiety direction and cognitive anxiety direction contributed more substantially to maximising differences among the two locus of control groups. A cross-classification analysis using the CTAI-2 subscales as the predictor variables and the two groups as the dependent variables, correctly classified 65.06% of the participants into one of the two groups. The findings of the present study provide support for the control model of facilitative and debilitative competitive anxiety (Jones, 1995), since they show that the perceived control an individual has over a situation can affect the interpretation of his/her anxiety symptoms. In view of the above model, the results of this study can also be linked with those of Jones and Hanton s (1996) study. Specifically, the latter study showed that perceptions of control over performance goals to a greater extent, and over process and outcome goals to a lesser extent, were associated with more facilitative anxiety responses. Therefore, it seems that control is a key concept in understanding the nature and the interpretation of competitive trait anxiety. Control can be considered as a part of the intrapersonal factors component of Martens et al. s (1990) expanded model of competitive anxiety. Intrapersonal factors interact with the objective competitive situation (e.g. importance of competition) to create a perception of threat which will later lead to state anxiety responses. It should be acknowledged that I-E scale is probably not the best one to measure the degree of control that athletes perceive they can exert over both the environment and the self. For example, Palenzuela (1988) argued that the I-E scale is not multidimensional, it has centered exclusively on the concept of luck to represent external control, and its items

17 17 are not sufficiently representative of the locus of control domain. However, there is a lack of extensively used and validated sport-specific and multidimensional inventories of the locus of control construct. As Ormel and Sanderman (1989) emphasized, a decrease in explanatory power should be expected when a general locus of control measure is used instead of a situation-specific instrument to predict outcomes in a specific environment. A future research priority should be the construction of multidimensional inventories which will attempt to assess the degree of control that athletes perceive they have over their behavior and the sport environment at a particular moment (state) or across time (trait). For example, whether sport performers perceive that officials, administrators, referees, weather conditions, or the opponent(s) can have a decisive impact on their performance, is information of a particular interest to the coach and to the applied sport psychologist. Furthermore, the degree of the perceived control that athletes can have over their emotions, attentional focus, and various cognitions while performing, is also important information for effective psychological guidance and support. Factors such as self-efficacy, the degree of perceived readiness, the level of fitness, the refereeing decisions, and the tournament organisation, can considerably change the perception of the control athletes have over a specific situation (Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996). In the area of clinical psychology, Mineka and Kelly (1989) suggested that interventions should be targeted at increasing individuals perception of control in order to decrease anxiety symptoms. In sport, it is also necessary that appropriate psychological educational programs are introduced that will develop and foster a sense of control, since the results of the present study suggest that control will lead to more facilitative perceptions of trait anxiety. It should be emphasized, however, that the findings of this, and all the previous studies in this area, are correlational in nature, thus eliminating a cause and effect explanation linking locus of control and trait anxiety. Future studies should investigate if

18 18 anxiety leads to an external belief system, or if externality leads to anxiety, or if the two constructs have common antecedents. Future research should also explore a number of individual difference factors, which can mediate the adoption of a particular locus of control dimension, such as age, gender, sport experience, cultural background, and skill level (Ormel & Sanderman, 1989). Moreover, future studies should examine athletes with diverse cultural backgrounds, especially from Asian and African countries, in order to expand or amend our existing and Western-biased knowledge of competitive anxiety and the psychological variables that it correlates with. Furthermore, Lazarus (1993) and Jones (1995) have emphasized the need to examine other cognitions and emotions, besides anxiety and stress, which may influence sport performance to a greater extent. Emotions are an inherent characteristic of physical activity and sport and deserve the appropriate attention from sport psychologists. Finally, the perception of control represents only one aspect of the control model (Jones, 1995). Although some studies (e.g. Jones et al., 1994; Jones et al., 1996) have examined various aspects of the model, what is also needed is research which will test the model as a whole with the help of contemporary statistical techniques, such as structural equation modelling. These findings add to the growing body of literature indicating that competitive anxiety is not necessarily debilitative to sports performance. Indeed, both cognitive and somatic trait anxiety were experienced as facilitative by 43% of the participants, with only 23% experiencing both modes of anxiety as debilitative. Although Eysenck (1982) has proposed that the positive effects of anxiety on performance are the result of increasing effort and motivation, Jones et al. (1994) suggested that when sport performers perceive cognitive intrusions as facilitative to their performance, this condition does not represent anxiety, but probably a state of "anticipatory excitement" or of being "psyched up". These results also have implications for the employment of conventional anxiety inventories

19 19 which tend to neglect the cognitive labelling of the anxiety symptoms by sport performers. They also pinpoint the importance of distinguishing between intensity and direction of multidimensional competitive anxiety in sport psychology.

20 20 References Albrecht, R.R., & Feltz, D.L. (1987). Generality and specificity of attention related to competitive anxiety and sport performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, Alpert, R., & Haber, R.N. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, Archer, R.R. (1979). Relationship between locus of control and anxiety. Journal of Personality Assessment, 43, 6. Burton, D. (1988). Do anxious swimmers swim slower? Re-examining the elusive anxietyperformance relationship. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, Burton, D. (1990). Multimodal stress management in sport: Current status and future directions. In G. Jones, & L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and performance in sport (pp ). Chichester: Wiley. Butterfield, E.C. (1964). Locus of control, test anxiety, reactions to frustration, and achievement attitudes. Journal of Personality, 32, 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 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1988). A control-process perspective on anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1, Chalip, L. (1980). Social learning theory and sport success: Evidence and implication. Journal of Sport Behavior, 3, Davidson, F.J. & Schwartz, G.E. (1976). The psychobiology of relaxation and related states: A multiprocess theory. In D.I. Mostofsky (Ed.) Behavior Control and Modification of Physiological Activity. Englewood Cliffs; NJ: Prentice Hall.

21 21 Eysenck, M.W. (1982). Attention and Arousal: Cognition and Performance. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Feather, N. T. (1967). Some personality correlates of external control. Australian Journal of Psychology, 19, Fejgin, N. (1994). Participation in high school competitive sports: A subversion of school mission or contribution to academic goals? Sociology of Sport Journal, 11, Gould, D., Petlichkoff, L., Simons, J., & Vevera, M. (1987). Relationships between competitive state anxiety inventory-2 subscale scores and pistol shooting performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, Gould, D., Petlichkoff, L., & Weinberg, R.S. (1984). Antecedents of, temporal changes in and relationships between CSAI-2 components. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, Hall, E.G. (1980). Comparison of post performance state anxiety of internals and externals following failure or success on a simple motor task. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, Hall, E.G. (1985). The application of locus of control to sport and physical activity. In L.K. Bunker, R.J. Rotella, & A.S. Reilly (Eds.) Sport Psychology: Psychological considerations in maximising sport performance, (pp ). Ann Arbur, MI: McNaughton & Gunn. Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport: Theory and practice of elite performers. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Jambor, E.A. & Rudisill, M.E. (1992). The relationship between children s locus of control and sport choices. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 22, Jones, G. (1991). Recent developments and current issues in competitive state anxiety research. Psychologist, 4,

22 22 Jones, G. (1995). More than just a game: Research developments and issues in competitive anxiety in sport. British Journal of Psychology, 86, Jones, G., & Cale, A. (1989). Relationships between multidimensional competitive state anxiety and cognitive and motor subcomponents of performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 7, Jones, G., & Hanton, S. (1996). Interpretation of competitive anxiety symptoms and goal attainment expectancies. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Swain, A.B.J. (1994). Intensity and interpretation of anxiety symptoms in élite and no-élite sports performers. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, Jones, G., & Swain, A.B.J. (1995). Predispositions to experience debilitative and facilitative anxiety in élite and non-élite performers. The Sport Psychologist, 9, Jones, G., Swain, A.B.J., & Cale, A. (1990). Antecedents of multidimensional competitive state anxiety ad self-confidence in élite intercollegiate middle-distance runners. The Sport Psychologist, 4, Jones, G., Swain, A.B.J., & Cale, A. (1991). Gender differences in precompetition temporal patterning and antecedents of anxiety and self-confidence. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3, Jones, G., Swain, A.B.J., & Hardy, L. (1993). Intensity and direction dimensions of competitive state anxiety and relationships with performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 11, Jones, G., Swain, A.B.J., & Harwood, C. (1996). Positive and negative affect as predictors of competitive anxiety. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, Lazarus, R.S. (1993). From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 1-21.

23 23 Lefcourt, H.M. (1982). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.. Liebert, R.M. & Morris, L.W. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20, Martens, R. (1977). Sport competition anxiety test. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 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 ). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. McCready, M.L., & Long, B.C. (1985). Locus of control, attitudes toward physical activity, and exercise adherence. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, McKelvie, F.J., Valliant, P.M., & Asu, M.E. (1985). Physical training and personality factors as predictors of marathon time and training injury. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, Mineka, S., & Kelly, K.A. (1989). The relationship between anxiety, lack of control and loss of control. In A. Steptoe and A. Appels (Eds.), Personal Control and Health (pp ). Brussels-Luxembourg: Wiley. Morris, L.W., Harris, E.W., & Hutchings, C.H. (1981). Cognitive and emotional components of anxiety: literature review and a revised worry-emotional scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, Ormel, J. & Sanderman, R. (1989). Life events, personal control and depression. In A. Steptoe and A. Appels (Eds.), Personal Control and Health (pp ). Brussels- Luxembourg: Wiley. Palenzuela, D.L. (1988). Refining the theory and measurement of expectancy of internal vs. external control of reinforcement. Personality and Individual Differences, 9,

24 24 Parfitt, C.G., & Hardy, L. (1993). The effects of competitive anxiety on memory span and rebound shooting tasks in basketball players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 11, Persson, C.V. (1988). The adaptation and validation of a sport-specific measure of locus of control. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene. Phares, E.J. (1976). Locus of control in personality. Morristown, J.J.: General Learning Press. Rotter, J.B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalised expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (Whole No 609). Rotter, J.B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal vs. external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 48, Skinner, E.A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation, and coping. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Anxiety as an emotional state. In C.D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research, (pp ). New York: Academic Press. Swain, A.B.J., & Jones, G. (1996). Explaining performance variance : The relative contribution of intensity and direction dimensions of competitive state anxiety. Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 9, Watson, D. (1967). Relationship between locus of control and anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, Watson, D., & Clarke, L.A. (1984). Negative Affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96,

25 25 Watson, D. & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, Weiner, H. (1985). The psychobiology and pathophysiology of anxiety and fear. In A.H. Tuma, & J.D. Maser (eds.) Anxiety and the anxiety disorders (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Weiss, M.R., Bredemeier, B.J., & Brustad, R.J. (1987). Competitive trait anxiety in children's sport: The relationship to perceived competence, perceived control, and motivational orientation. Paper presented at the meeting of the North American Society of the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Vancouver, BC. Whitehead, J.R., & Corbin, C.B. (1988). Multidimensional scales for the measurement of locus of control reinforcements for physical fitness behaviors. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59, Wine, J.D. (1980). Cognitive-attentional theory of test anxiety. In I.G. Sarason (Ed.), Test Anxiety: Theory, Research and Applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Wong, E., & Bridges, L.J. (1994). Age-related differences in inter- and intrapersonal variables related to motivation in a group sport setting. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134,

26 26 Figure Caption Figure 1. A Control Model of Debilitative and Facilitative Competitive State Anxiety. Note. From More than just a game: Research developments and issues in competitive anxiety in sport, by Jones, G. (1995), British Journal of Psychology, 86, Copyright 1995 by the British Psychological Society. Reprinted with permission.

27 27 STRESSOR INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES CONTROL? YES i.e. positive expectancies of (a) ability to cope (b) goal attainment NO i.e. negative expectancies of (a) ability to cope (b) goal attainment SYMPTOMS interpreted as FACILITATIVE SYMPTOMS interpreted as DEBILITATIVE

28 28 Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations and F-values for the two Locus of Control groups on the CTAI-2 subscales. Internals Externals M S.D. M S.D. df F p Cognitive anxiety intensity , NS Cognitive anxiety direction , <.01 Somatic anxiety intensity , NS Somatic anxiety direction , <.01

29 29 Table 2. Standardised Discriminant Function Coefficients and Univariate F s for the CTAI- 2 subscales. Variable Function 1 Univariate F Cognitive anxiety intensity Cognitive anxiety direction * Somatic anxiety intensity Somatic anxiety direction * * p <.01, d.f. = 1,81