Coping in sport: A systematic review

Transcription

1 Journal of Sports Sciences, January 1st 2007; 25(1): Coping in sport: A systematic review ADAM R. NICHOLLS 1 & REMCO C. J. POLMAN 2 1 Carnegie Research Institute, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds and 2 Department of Sport, Health and Exercise Science, The University of Hull, Hull, UK (Accepted 8 February 2006) Abstract The aim of this paper was to systematically review the literature on coping in sport, examining evidence for both the trait and process perspectives, the types of coping strategies used by athletes, gender differences, age-related differences, and coping effectiveness. A comprehensive literature search of SPORTdiscus, PsychLIT, and PsychINFO in November 2004 yielded 64 studies spanning 16 years ( ). The results indicated that athletes use a variety of coping strategies. Forty-six papers supported or adopted the process perspective (Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). There were also gender and agerelated differences. Evidence was found to support three of the different models of coping effectiveness (goodness-of-fit approach, choice of coping strategy, and automacity). Based on this evidence, future research should address some of the methodological and measurement limitations of the sport psychology coping literature. In particular, prospective research designs that minimize the time delay between recall and the stressful experience are required to assess how coping changes over time. More attention to developmental issues to guide the formulation of sport-specific models to enhance our theoretical understanding is also required. Finally, coping effectiveness should be examined both in the short and long term, as a greater understanding of coping effectiveness has the potentional to make a significant impact on applied practice. Keywords: Process perspective, age, gender, coping effectiveness Introduction When athletes compete in sport they may appraise an array of potential stressors, including pain, fear, lack of confidence, psychological demands, coach stress, and the demands of playing sport (Dale, 2000; Gould, Eklund, & Jackson, 1993a; Holt & Hogg, 2002; Nicholls, Holt, & Polman, 2005a). The inability to cope with stress is a significant factor in the failure of athletes to function fully in many types of athletic performance (Lazarus, 2000a). It is therefore widely accepted within the sport psychology literature that athletes of all ages and abilities need to be able to cope with performance stressors, not only to perform to the best of their ability, but also to make sport a satisfying experience. The scientific literature consists of an abundance of definitions and descriptions of coping. Most prominent in the sport psychology literature are the trait and process perspectives. Within the trait approach, individuals are classified according to their stable coping styles, and measured generally through interviews or questionnaires (Penley, Tomaka, & Wiebe, 2002). Carver, Scheier and Weintraub (1989) suggested that the trait approach assumes that people do not approach each coping context anew, but rather bring to bear a preferred set of coping strategies that remains relatively fixed across time and circumstances (p. 270). The trait approach is reflected in the wording of questions, where participants are asked what they usually do to handle a situation (Aldwin, 1994). Alternatively, the process or transactional approach states that coping with stress is a dynamic and recursive process that involves interactions between a person s internal (i.e. beliefs about self, goals, and values) and external (i.e. situational) environments (Lazarus, 1999). Coping from this perspective has been defined as constantly changing cognitive and behavioural efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141). Lazarus (1999) and Lazarus and Folkman (1984) identified primary and secondary appraisal as crucial constructs in the stress appraisal and coping relationship. Primary appraisal has to do with whether what is happening is perceived to be relevant to goal Correspondence: A. R. Nicholls, Carnegie Research Institute, Leeds Metropolitan University, Headingley Campus, Fairfax Hall, Leeds LS6 3QS, UK. a.r.nicholls@leedsmet.ac.uk ISSN print/issn X online Ó 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: /

2 12 A. R. Nicholls & R. C. J. Polman commitments, values, beliefs about self, and situational intentions. In particular, goal commitment has been viewed as a crucial factor, as without goal commitment there is nothing of adaptational importance at stake in an encounter to arouse a stress reaction (Lazarus, 1999, p. 76). If an evaluation is made that what is happening is important to the person and endangers the well being of the person, there are four alternative appraisals. Harm/loss consists of damage that has already occurred. Threat consists of potential damage in the future. Challenge is when people feel joyous about an ensuing struggle. Benefit was added to the revised model (Lazarus, 1999) and is descrbed as an individual gaining or benefitting from a stressful situation. That is, the person can feel positively toned emotions imediatately following the event as well as experiencing long-term positive emotions. Secondary appraisal is the cognitiveevaluative process of the coping options available to the person, especially when there has been an appraisal of harm/loss or threat. Secondary appraisal is not actual coping, but the instance where the individual decides what they are going to do to cope (Lazarus, 1999). Dimensions and categories of coping Athletes potentially have a large number of coping strategies at their disposal to deal with stressful situations. At the macro level, researchers have identified higher-order coping dimensions that discriminate among different coping strategies based on their function and intention (Crocker, Kowalski, & Graham, 1998). The most widely used coping dimensions have been problem- and emotionfocused coping. Problem-focused coping strategies are intended to alter the stressful situation, whereas emotion-focused coping deals with the emotional distress associated with the situation (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). However, more recently other macro-level coping dimensions have been proposed. Avoidance coping includes both behavioural (e.g. removing self from the situation) and psychological (e.g. cognitive distancing) efforts to disengage from a stressful situation (Krohne, 1993). Approach coping involves confronting the source of stress and deliberately attempting to reduce it (strategies include taking direct action, increasing effort, and planning) (Roth & Cohen, 1986). Appraisal-focused coping involves the re-evaluation of a situation to reduce its importance and refers to strategies such as situation re-structuring (Cox & Ferguson, 1991). These broad dimensions of coping are useful in that they provide an overall characterization of athletes responses to stress. However, they mask the heterogeneity and complexity of the different subtypes of coping responses (Compas, Connor- Smith, Saltzman, Harding Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001). That is, at the micro level the higher-order coping dimensions have been found to be characterized by several specific categories or subtypes of coping. These categories of coping have been grouped into subtypes of the broader dimensions of coping on the basis of factor analysis or conceptual grouping of items (Compas et al., 2001). Problemfocused coping, in this respect includes diverse subtypes of coping such as seeking information, planning and setting goals, and assertive confrontation Examples of emotion-focused coping include items like seeking emotional support, relaxation or meditation, and wishful thinking. Since the early 1990s, there has been a plethora of published studies examining coping in sport. Researchers have identified coping as being an extremely crucial factor in performance and satisfaction, due to the realization that coping research has the potential to contribute significantly to applied practice (Lazarus, 2000a). The choice of a systematic review was prompted for three specific reasons. First, a meta-analysis of the literature would not be suitable, as a Meta-analysis is only properly applicable if the data summarised are homogenous (Eysenck, 1995, p. 70). Systematic reviews are of use when there is a lack of homogeneity among participant sample sizes, methods of data collection, and variables measured (Eysenck, 1995). These are all evident in the sport psychology coping literature. Conducting a meta-analysis in the sport psychology coping literature would be like as Eysenck (1995) eloquently put it, adding apples and oranges together. Second, less effective forms of coping with stress have been found to lead to sport withdrawal (Klint & Weiss, 1986; Smith, 1986), decreased performance (Lazarus, 2000a), and athletes not being able to pursue careers in professional sport (Holt & Dunn, 2004a). It is therefore important for both researchers and coaches working with athletes to have a greater understanding of coping in sport. Systematic reviews in this respect provide a powerful tool to establish generalizability of scientific findings across populations and settings (Murlow, 1994). Third, there has been a substantial increase in the number of both quantitative and qualitative studies on coping in sport over the last few years, which has seen coping being examined with many different variables. It is important to summarize the research findings to provide ideas for future research and formulate guidelines for interventions (Murlow, 1994). As such, there were five purposes to this systematic review: (a) to examine the evidence for both the trait and process perspectives in sport settings; (b) to examine the types of coping strategies

3 Coping in sport: A systematic review 13 used by athletes, and any implications; (c) to examine any gender coping differences in sport; (d) to examine age-related coping differences in sport; (e) to examine coping effectiveness in sport settings. Methods Methods of data collection The methodology used for the systematic review was based on the guidelines described by Chalmers and Haynes (1995), Lloyd Jones (2004), and Mulrow (1995). An editorial on literature reviews published in the Psychological Bulletin (Cooper, 2003) also provided guidelines for taxonomy and reporting. Types of studies Studies were considered for inclusion if they provided quantitative or qualitative data on coping in sport and had been published as full papers or research notes in peer-reviewed journals. Studies were excluded if they had been published as abstracts or conference proceedings, which is in accordance with previous recommendations on conducting systematic reviews (Knipschild, 1995). Studies were obtained through electronic literature searches on SPORTdiscus (1975 to present), PsychLIT (1975 to present), and PsychINFO (1975 to present), which were all searched in November Sifting retrieved citations Sifting was carried out in three stages as recommended by Lloyd Jones (2004) and Meade and Richardson (1997). Papers were first reviewed by title, then by abstract and, finally, by full text, excluding those at each step that did not satisfy the inclusion criteria (Lloyd Jones, 2004). Six hundred and nine references were removed after reading their title during the first phase of sifting (see Figure 1). The abstracts of articles that could not be excluded at the sifting stage were then read and 129 references were excluded from the study at the second stage of sifting. A total of 80 full papers were screened, 16 of which were excluded. Thus, 64 papers were included in the systematic review (see Appendix I). Results Of the 64 papers in this systematic review, 52 were quantitative and 12 were qualitative (for a summary of each study, see Appendix I). The number of participants in the quantitative studies ranged from 21 to 1491 (mean ¼ , s ¼ 237.1). The mean age of the participants in the quantitative studies ranged from 13 to 33.8 years (mean ¼ years, Figure 1. Summary of study selection and exclusion all electronic literature searches. s ¼ 5.08). The mean percentage of males in the quantitative studies ranged from 0 to 100% of the sample (mean ¼ 60.28, s ¼ 23.12). The mean percentage of females in the quantitative studies ranged from 0 to 100% of the sample (mean ¼ 39.72, s ¼ 23.12). The number of participants in the qualitative studies ranged from 1 to 180 (mean ¼ 27.9, s ¼ 50.2). The mean age of the participants in the qualitative studies ranged from 11.9 to 26.6 years (mean ¼ years, s ¼ 5.95). The mean percentage of males in the qualitative studies ranged from 0 to 100% of the sample (mean ¼ 61.5, s ¼ 41.82). The mean percentage of females in the qualitative studies ranged from 0 to 100% of the sample (mean ¼ 38.5, s ¼ 41.82). Coping as a trait and a process Of the 64 papers in this systematic review, 11 explicitly found support for the trait approach. That is, they found evidence for coping consistency or styles. This was the case in studies on table tennis players (Krohne & Hindel, 1988) and Korean athletes (Yoo, 2001). In both studies, it was reported that elite performers deal with stressful situations by consistently using avoidance coping strategies. Two studies found support for both the trait and process perspectives (Anshel, 1996; Crocker & Isaak, 1997). With a sample of adolescent swimmers, Crocker and Isaak (1997) found partial evidence to

4 14 A. R. Nicholls & R. C. J. Polman support the trait perspective as the swimmers reported consistent coping in training. However, coping was not found to be consistent in competition. The majority of studies either explicitly supported or adopted the process perspective of coping (46 studies). A crucial aspect of the model proposed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) was the interaction between stressors and the coping strategies deployed. Anshel and colleagues (Anshel, 1996; Anshel, Raviv, & Jamieson, 2001; Anshel, Williams, & Hodge, 1997) found that the stressor faced by participants affected the type of coping strategy deployed by the athlete, lending support to the transactional perspective on coping. Other papers have also found evidence to support the process perspective. For instance, Gould and colleagues (Gould et al., 1993a; Gould, Finch, & Jackson, 1993b), Holt and Hogg (2002), and Poczwardowski and Conroy (2002) found evidence from retrospective interviews to suggest that coping occurs as a dynamic process. The athletes used a variety of different coping responses, often in response to the same stressor. Caution is warranted though, as most of the studies have been retrospective in nature rather than using longitudinal prospective designs to examine coping as a process (Lazarus, 2000b). In this respect, Gaudreau and colleagues (Gaudreau & Blondin, 2004a; Gaudreau, Amiot, Blondin, & Blanchard, 2002b; Gaudreau, Lapierre, & Blondin, 2001) found evidence that coping changes across different phases of competition. Similarly, using an idiographic prospective design, Holt and Dunn (2004b) found that coping responses influenced subsequent stress appraisals and coping. Finally, seven studies were found to be a- theoretical in nature. That is, they did not state whether their findings supported either a trait or process perspective. Types of coping in sport and implications The studies in this systematic review used several methods to assess participants coping responses to stressful situations. Thirty-eight studies used a socalled self-selected paradigm that is, participants chose their own specific stressful event (e.g. the most stressful event during the previous Olympic Games). The researcher-selected paradigm was adopted in 13 studies. In these studies, the researcher selected particular stressors to which participants had to report their coping responses (Penley et al., 2002). Of these 13 studies, nine used multiple stressful events that athletes would commonly experience in their respective sports. In five studies, researchers asked participants to respond on how they would cope with a slump in performance. Additionally, in nine studies researchers asked their participants how they generally would cope with stressful events in their respective sporting activity. Finally, in three studies researchers used an experimental manipulation to assess coping responses. Athletes have reported using a variety of problemfocused strategies in response to stressors encountered. These responses included approach-cognitive strategies (Anshel, 2001), being aware of cues (Dale, 2000), task-orientated coping (Amiot, Gaudreau, & Blanchard, 2004; Gaudreau & Blondin, 2004a), concentrating on goals (Gould et al., 1993a), time management (Gould et al., 1993a), learning about opponents (Holt, 2003), practice (Holt & Mandigo, 2004), and appropriate training (Park, 2000). The types of coping strategies reported by athletes serving an emotion-focused purpose include seeking social support (Crocker, 1992; Park, 2000), imaging/ visualizing (Dale, 2000; Gould et al., 1993a), venting unpleasant emotions (Gaudreau & Blondin, 2002), humour (Giacobbi, Foore, & Weinberg, 2004), and remaining confident (Poczwardowski & Conroy, 2002). Sport psychology researchers have found evidence that athletes use other coping strategies that can be classified into different higher-order dimensions. For instance, Kowalski and Crocker (2001) found that a third dimension of coping is appropriate to adolescent athletes, called avoidance coping. The avoidance coping dimension can consist of both behavioural (e.g. physically removing self from stressor) and cognitive (e.g. blocking) avoidance of a stressor (Anshel, 2001). Avoidance coping strategies have been reported in several studies (e.g. Anshel et al., 2001; Anshel & Kaissidis, 1997; Crocker, 1992; Giacobbi et al., 2004). Yoo (2000, 2001) suggested that Korean athletes use another form of coping classified as transcendental coping. This type of coping refers to the elimination of mundane desires and expectations by means of self-acceptance. Yoo (2000) argued that although this type of coping appears similar to avoidance coping, it does not involve denial or attempts to avoid stress. The coping strategies used by athletes have been found to have significant implications for psychological parameters. For instance, athletes who report more emotion-focused and avoidance coping tend to experience greater cognitive anxiety (Hammermeister & Burton, 2001; Ntoumanis & Biddle, 2000). Problem-focused coping has been found to predict positive affect, whereas emotionfocused coping has been reported to predict negative affect. That is, perceived coping effectiveness predicted positive affect, and negatively, negative affect (Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1998). Although not the aim of the current systematic review, there appears to be a number of performance

5 Coping in sport: A systematic review 15 and psychological variables that influence the type of coping response used by athletes. These mediating variables include self-esteem (Lane, Jones, & Stevens, 2002), motivational orientation (Ntoumanis, Biddle, & Haddock, 1999; Pensgaard & Roberts, 2003), self-confidence (Cresswell & Hodge, 2004), previous performance (Grove, Eklund, & Heard, 1997; Madden, Kirkby, & McDonald, 1989), and choking (Wang, Marchant, & Morris, 2004). Coping in sport and gender Researchers explicitly examined coping in sport and gender differences in 11 studies. Three additional studies also examined gender differences, but did this on a post-hoc basis. That is, gender differences were not part of the initial aims and objectives of these investigations. Studies were conducted in a variety of sports and used athletes of verying skill. The results provide tentative support for the commonly held belief that men and women exhibit different coping behaviours. Goyen and Anshel (1998) reported that although male and female athletes use both problem- and emotion-focused coping, there were significant differences between the coping strategies used by male and female athletes. For instance, male athletes preferred to use problem-focused coping strategies in response to stressors such as pain, injury, and criticism. On the other hand, females preferred to use emotionfocused coping in response to these stressors (see, for example, Anshel, Porter, & Quek, 1998; Madden et al., 1989). In congruence with Goyen and Anshel (1998), Yoo (2001) also found evidence to suggest that males use more problem-focused coping strategies than females. In addition to females using more emotion-focused coping, they also used more transcendental coping strategies. Hammermeister and Burton (2004) found that males and females appraised stressful situations in a similar manner. However, females used more social support, venting of emotions, positive reinterpretation, and dissociation. Males used suppression of competing activities and association to cope with the same stressor. Several studies found support for the notion that females are more likely to use social support to cope with stressful situations (Campen & Roberts, 2001; Crocker & Graham, 1995; Kolt, Kirkby, & Lindner, 1995; Philippe, Seiler, & Mengisen, 2004). However, Anshel and Delany (2001) found that males and females did not differ on social support and wishful thinking. Other studies have found only partial support for gender differences in coping. For instance, Crocker and Graham (1995) and Kolt et al. (1995) reported that there were no gender differences in the use of problem-focused coping strategies. However, both these studies found evidence to suggest that female athletes use more emotion-focused coping strategies such as seeking social support than males. Additionally, ego-orientation has been found to have a strong mediating influence in elite female athletes, but not elite male athletes, on the coping behaviours exhibited. That is, female athletes high in ego orientation are less likely to use active coping and planning and use more denial (Pensgaard & Roberts, 2003). Finally, Bebetsos and Antoniou (2003) and Pensgaard, Roberts and Ursin (1999) did not find any gender differences in coping with stressful events in sport. Coping in sport and age Only two studies have focused on age-related differences in coping responses. Bebetsos and Antoniou (2003) found that older athletes are better prepared to cope with adversity, and reported higher emotional self-control in badminton. Goyen and Anshel (1998) found that adults responded more frequently with concentration and focusing on what they had to do next in comparison to adolescents. Additionally, Goyen and Anshel (1998) suggested that older athletes are more able to control their negative emotions following stressful events than adolescents. Other research has focused specifically on adolescents (10 studies) and children s (two studies) attempts at coping. Gaudreau and Blondin (2002) examined coping and performance goal discrepancy among an adolescent sample, whereas Gaudreau and Blondin (2004a) examined this among an adult sample. These two studies suggested that taskorientated coping and disengagement-orientated coping increased during competition. There is evidence to suggest that there are coping differences between young and adult athletes, particularly in the effectiveness of the coping strategies reported, with older athletes coping better with stress. However, coping with stress as a function of age has not featured prominently in the sport literature. Additionally, most of this research has investigated adolescent athletes attempt to cope with stress using adult and elite athletes coping processes as a frame of reference. This is despite the notion that the coping processes of children and adolescents are significantly different to those of adults (Compas, 1987). Coping effectiveness Coping effectiveness in a sport setting refers to the extent to which a coping strategy, or combination of strategies, is successful in alleviating the negative emotions caused by stress. An important issue in coping is whether the strategies employed by athletes

6 16 A. R. Nicholls & R. C. J. Polman have achieved their objectives. To this end, nine of the 64 studies specifically investigated coping effectiveness. It has been suggested that problem-focused coping will be more effective during encounters in which the athlete has the potential for personal control, whereas emotion-focused coping has been proposed as being more effective during encounters in which the athlete has very little control. This is known as the goodness-of-fit model (Folkman, 1991, 1992). Within the sport psychology literature, evidence has been found to support this model. Anshel (1996) and Anshel and Kaissidis (1997) observed a high level of controllability to be positively linked to problem-focused coping and more emotion-focused coping was used when there was less perceived controllability. Additionally, Haney and Long (1995) also found that the perceived level of control and self-efficacy were related to engagement coping strategies. Kim and Duda (2003) found partial support for the goodness-of-fit approach. When stressors were perceived to be controllable, athletes were more likely to report problem-focused coping. However, it was perceived psychological difficulties rather than controllability that emerged as a predictor of mental withdrawal coping strategies. Finally, Cresswell and Hodge (2001) found when athletes were confronted with uncontrollable environmental stressors, the athletes who reported that they had coped the most effectively focused on elements of the situation that they could control. Another alternative explanation of coping effectiveness was proposed by Gould et al. (1993a), who suggested that the automaticity of coping responses was strongly related to coping effectiveness and superior performance. This explanation received support from Dugdale, Eklund and Gordon (2002), as their athletes who rated their coping to be more effective during competition rated their coping as being more automatic. This finding would suggest that elite athletes can deploy their coping strategies much more quickly based on the amount of practice they have had at deploying coping strategies. A third model of coping effectiveness has been proposed within the sport psychology literature. Eubank and Collins (2000) found evidence to suggest that coping effectiveness is related to the choice of coping strategy employed. Strategies such as positive self-talk and thinking ahead were found to be effective, whereas thinking about irrelevant things and negative self-talk were ineffective. Summary and future directions Coping as a trait and a process The first aim of this systematic review was to examine the evidence for both the trait and process perspectives. Although there is partial evidence to support the trait theory of coping (e.g. Crocker & Isaak, 1997; Krohne & Hindel, 1998; Yoo, 2001), the majority of research suggests that coping is both recursive and dynamic and thus supports the transactional perspective (e.g. Anshel, 1996; Anshel et al., 2001; Gould et al., 1993a,b; Holt & Hogg, 2002; Poczwardowski & Conroy, 2002). This would indicate that athletes do not have preferred coping styles, but that their coping attempts fluctuate based upon their appraisal of the situation and previous coping attempts. Theoretical development in the sport psychology literature on stress and coping is limited by the fact that most studies have been retrospective in nature and often included a significant time delay between the actual experience of the stress coping interaction and the recall of this event. For example, many studies have asked participants to recall how they coped with a stressful experience in a recent important competition (e.g. Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1998; Pensgaard & Ursin, 1998). In the study of Gould et al. (1993a), there was a delay of 6 months between the recall and the actual event. A major assumption underlying the use of timedelays on self-reported coping is that people are capable of accurate retrospective reports of coping behaviours (Stone et al., 1998). However, such approaches to coping measurement have been plagued by problems associated with the unreliability of recall (Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996; Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). With the passage of time, people provide less accurate accounts of how they coped with a stressor (Ptacek, Smith, Espe, & Raffety, 1994; Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996; Smith, Leffingwell, & Ptacek, 1999). Another concern is the concept of retrospective bias or adding effort after meaning, which refers to the idea that reports of coping with resolved events could be distorted by knowledge about the success of efforts to resolve the situation (Brown & Harris, 1978). Similarly, knowledge of results has also been shown to influence retrospective recall in sport situations (Brewer, Van Raalte, Linder, & Van Raalte, 1991). To help overcome the limitations of retrospective recall in future studies, consideration must be given to minimizing the time between the event and recall. Researchers have already developed some research protocols that reduce the recall period. This has included the measurement of daily coping (Stone & Neale, 1984), diary approaches (Nicholls, Holt, Polman, & James, 2005b; Porter & Stone, 1996), ecological momentary assessment (Stone et al., 1998), and think-aloud protocols (Nicholls, Holt, & Polman, 2005c). The implementation of such research protocols will result in the use of prospective designs, in which multiple assessments are made of

7 Coping in sport: A systematic review 17 athletes coping responses across multiple stressful events that differ in intensity and controllability. Such designs limit the coping response to a specific stressor and will therefore allow the identification of the efficacy of different coping strategies across multiple stressors. Measurement of coping The measurement of coping appears to be a complex process and research in the sport domain, although developing rapidly over the last decade, is still in its infancy. Researchers have used a variety of methods and instruments to shed light on the complexity of coping processes. Most commonly used are selfreport questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The questionnaires used in studies differ significantly in their breadth and specificity (e.g. MCOPE, which measures specific strategies actually used, versus the Coping Style Inventory for Athletes, which measures how an athlete would cope in a given situation). Crocker et al. (1998) have provided a comprehensive review of some of the limitations regarding the measurement of coping in sport. Although progress has been made in the development of more reliable and valid instruments to measure coping (e.g. Anshel, Williams, & Williams, 2000; Eklund, Grove, & Heard, 1998), there is still a need for refinement and development of these instruments and methodologies. In particular, to date most instruments have not taken into consideration gender, ethnic, and/or age differences in the development of coping inventories. It is therefore unclear whether the reliability and factor structure of the instruments used will hold across multiple and more diverse samples. Another issue is that sport psychological research has mainly focused on goal-directed voluntary behavioural, cognitive, and emotional responses towards stressors. Surprisingly, there is little research on athletes involuntary responses to stressful situations. This would include temperamentally based and conditioned reactions that may or may not be within conscious awareness and are not under volitional control (Connor-Smith, Compas, Wadsworth, Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000). In the sporting context, this would include aspects like controlling physiological arousal, repetitive and intrusive thoughts, behavioural routines, and emotions. The distinction between volitional and involuntary coping responses is an important one in particular from a practical perspective. Psychological interventions are generally implemented to manage aspects of cognition and behaviour that are at a strategic level and under voluntary control. Such interventions would only indirectly influence automatic, uncontrollable coping responses (Compas et al., 2001). This systematic review found that athletes from individual sports used more coping strategies than team athletes (e.g. Anshel, 2001; Holt & Dunn, 2004b; Holt & Hogg, 2002; Park, 2000). The notion that individual athletes are ultimately responsible for their own action and cannot attribute failure/success to team-mates could explain the use of more coping strategies. Applied practitioners and coaches working with athletes from team and individual sports can educate their athletes about the coping strategies used by these participants depending on the type of sport they play, with the aim of increasing the coping efficiency of the athletes, with a view to enhancing performance. There appear to be a number of moderator and mediator variables that influence the coping process. Moderator variables are measured or manipulated to establish the effect this has on the direction and/or strength of the relationship between stress (independent variable) and coping (observed phenomenon). Mediating variables (sometimes called intervening or process variables) represent various internal mechanisms that affect the stress coping interaction.that is, mediators explain how stressors take on internal psychological significance and how and why such effects occur (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Moderator variables that have been identified in the literature are gender (e.g. Goyen & Anshel, 1998; Hammermeister & Burton, 2004; Madden et al., 1989), age (Goyen & Anshel, 1998; Bebetsos & Antoniou, 2003), and ethnicity (e.g. Yoo, 2000, 2001). Mediating variables identified in the literature are motivational-orientation (Ntoumanis et al., 1999: Pensgaard & Roberts, 2003), self-confidence (Cresswell & Hodge, 2004), and trait anxiety (Giacobbi & Weinberg, 2000). In the mainstream psychological literature, it has been shown that personality predicts appraisal and coping efforts in the health domain when dealing with a variety of stressful contexts (O Brien & DeLongis, 1996). Newth and Delongis (2004) showed that coping effectiveness in dealing with pain in rheumatioid arthritis patients was moderated by personality using the big five: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1998). In particular, patients high in extraversion were found to be more active copers. Extroverts used more cognitive reframing, active problem solving, and emotional expression in comparison to introverts. Cognitive reframing was deemed to be an effective coping strategy for extroverts, whereas active problem solving and emotional expression were ineffective in managing the pain caused by rheumatoid arthritis. Surprisingly, to date only scant research has been conducted on the relationship between personality characteristics and coping in the sport and exercise domain. A personality characteristic that has been

8 18 A. R. Nicholls & R. C. J. Polman suggested to influence performance and satisfaction is mental toughness (Crust & Clough, 2005). The relationship between metal toughness and coping appears to be an obvious one but has not been investigated to date. Gender There are equivocal findings as to whether gender differences among athletes are prevalent. Some researchers have found evidence to suggest that males use more problem-focused coping and females use more emotion-focused coping (e.g. Goyen & Anshel, 1998; Yoo, 2001), although other researchers have reported that females report more emotionfocused coping strategies and that there are no gender differences in relation to the use of problemfocused coping (e.g. Crocker & Graham, 1995; Kolt et al., 1995; Philippe et al., 2004). The grouping of distinct coping categories under such broad dimensions is, however, not without problems. For example, different studies have classified different coping categories under the broad dimensions of emotion- and problem-focused coping. This makes the generalization of results difficult. Additionally, gender differences could well be limited to one or two categories within these broad dimensions (Tamres, Janicki, & Helgeson, 2002). An additional issue is that most srudies on gender differences have not taken into account the nature of the stressor and the stressor appraisal. With regard to the former, almost no research has compared male and female coping responses on the same acute stressor (for an exception, see Anshel et al., 1998). With regard to the latter, gender differences in coping could well be explained by findings from the mainstream coping literature, which suggest that females appraise stressors as more severe than males (Tamres et al., 2002). The finding that females are more likely to use social support to cope with stressful situations in sport (Crocker & Graham, 1995; Kolt et al., 1995; Philippe et al., 2004) is supported by findings in the general coping literature. In a recent meta-analysis, Tamres et al. (2002) found that the strongest effect for gender differences was for emotional support, ruminating about problems, and using positive selftalk. These findings support the notion above that gender differences might only be apparent in specific categories of the broader coping dimensions. Finally, research on gender and coping in sport has generally been weak. There are potentially two explanations for gender differences in coping. First, the dispositional hypothesis suggests that gender differences in coping are due to underlying personality differences between men and women. The situational hypothesis, on the other hand, suggests that role constraints or socialization processes are responsible for differences in coping between the genders (Ptacek, Smith, & Zanas, 1992; Rosario, Shinn, Morch, & Huckabee, 1988). In the future, researchers should take into consideration the nature of the stressor to determine whether males and females face different sources of stress during participation in sport. For example, when faced with the same sport-specific stressor appraised in a similar manner, do male and female coping responses differ? An additional issue that warrants further investigation is whether differences in coping persist among elite athletes. These are important issues because ultimately they will have consequences for the way practitioners might implement psychological interventions. Age Research concerning child and adolescent coping in sport appears to be relatively underdeveloped. This is surprising since child and adolescent coping has featured prominently in the general and health psychology literature (Compas et al., 2001). Additionally, evidence suggests that coping resources and responses change over a person s lifetime (Boekaerts, 1996). In particular, researchers have not investigated (longitudinally) how cognitive, social, emotional, and biological maturation shapes an individual s appraisal of stressful situations in sport as well as the acquisition of accompanying coping resources. Such information would not just be extremely helpful for talent identification and the development of expertise in sport, but also for optimizing the enjoyment of the sporting experience, preventing drop-out, and increasing adherence. The main conclusion from the current sport literature is that with age it appears that athletes cope more effectively with stress. Researchers have found that the older the athlete, the better prepared they are to cope with stress (e.g. Bebetsos & Antoniou, 2003; Goyen & Anshel, 1998). These findings are in correspondence with observations in the health domain: children and adolescents have a smaller and less flexible coping repertoire than adults (Penley et al., 2002). This would suggest that younger athletes could be taught to cope more effectively by increasing their coping repertoire to enable them to feel more prepared to cope. Coaches and applied practitioners working with adolescent athletes can teach these athletes a variety of coping strategies to help accelerate their coping effectiveness. However, individual differences like age and gender have to be taken into consideration when providing effective interventions. It could even be counterproductive to teach children or adolescents coping strategies used by elite adult athletes.

9 Coping in sport: A systematic review 19 To this end, there is an urgent need for the development of sport-specific developmental coping models that will not just enhance our theoretical understanding, but also provide guidance for practitioners such as coaches and sport psychologists. Coping effectiveness Although the concept of coping effectiveness is not fully understood at this time, it has been found to be associated with improved performance (Haney & Long, 1995; Pensgaard & Duda, 2003), reduced anxiety (Campen & Roberts, 2001), and pleasant affective experiences (Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1998). It is therefore important that researchers examine this area of coping research in sport, as it has the potential to have a large impact on performance and satisfaction. To this end, more research is required to establish which theoretical explanation best describes coping effectiveness. Researchers will need to examine the effectiveness of coping strategies in the short and long term, to gain further insight into coping effectiveness. Such research will help guide the implementation of appropriate and successful coping interventions. Conclusions For the coping literature to advance, researchers need to address some of the methodological issues that have raised questions over validity of data collected in certain sport psychology coping studies. Sport psychologists have relied heavily upon unidirectional methods of data collection, which have only limited effectiveness (Crocker et al., 1998). Unidirectional research techniques, which examine previous coping experiences within a snap-shot manner, are limited. As outlined previously, the time between the recall and the actual event has varied and can sometimes be several months. Research from mainstream psychology (Ptacek et al., 1994; Smith et al., 1999) has strongly suggested that with the passage of time, people do not and perhaps cannot provide highly accurate accounts of how they coped with a stressor. Smith et al. (1999) concluded that this high level of discordance is sufficient to have a negative impact on research findings that are dependent on retrospective recall. Researchers should employ within-participant designs, as well as being prospective (Lazarus, 1999). Lazarus (2000b) accepted that this is a dilemma for researchers because so much time needs to be dedicated to obtaining repeated measures from the same individuals. A consequence of this is that the size of the participant sample is inevitably limited. This limitation makes it impossible to select a representative sample. Research using a within-participants and prospective design (e.g. Holt & Dunn, 2004b; Nicholls et al., 2005c) has yielded interesting findings regarding the relationship between stress and coping, but more work is needed to explore these complex issues in sport settings. A goal of coping research within sport should be to translate new knowledge into practice and thus educate athletes to enable them to cope better with performance stress, which should lead to improved performance (e.g. Haney & Long, 1995; Lazarus, 2000a; Pensgaard & Duda, 2003) and positive experiences of participating in competitive sport (Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1998). Once our understanding of coping effectiveness has improved, athletes of all ages and abilities should be taught and encouraged to use a number of different coping strategies from both problem- and emotion-focused strategies by applied practitioners. However, caution is warranted in recommending the avoidance coping strategies cited in a number of papers in the long term, especially to adolescents, due to the association between avoidance coping and psychopathology (Compas et al., 2001). Researchers should focus attempts on examining coping theory in relation to coping in sport, and develop theories suited to sport. Additionally, interventions need to be tested in ecologically valid settings, so that eventually the recommendations made here and within the sport psychology literature can be examined and made more efficient, thus optimizing the coping effectiveness of athletes (Nicholls et al., 2005a). Understanding more about coping can assist both researchers and applied practitioners with developing a range of strategies to teach people to cope more effectively with stress in sport and thus improve performance and increase enjoyment. References Aldwin, C. M. (1994). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective. New York: Guilford Press. Amiot, C. E., Gaudreau, P., & Blanchard, C. M. (2004). Selfdetermination, coping, and goal attainment in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, Anshel, M. H. (1996). Coping styles among adolescent competitive athletes. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, Anshel, M. H. (2001). Qualitative validation of a model for coping with acute stress in sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, Anshel M. H., & Delany, J. (2001). Sources of acute stress, cognitive appraisals, and coping strategies of male and female child athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, Anshel, M. H., & Kaissidis, A. N. (1997). Coping style and situational appraisals as predictors of coping strategies following stressful events in sport as a function of gender and skill level. British Journal of Psychology, 88, Anshel, M. H., Porter, A., & Quek, J.-J. (1998). Coping with acute stress in sport as a function of gender: An exploratory study. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21,

10 20 A. R. Nicholls & R. C. J. Polman Anshel, M. H., Raviv, S., & Jamieson, J. (2001). Cognitive appraisals and coping strategies following acute stress among skilled competitive male and female athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, Anshel, M. H., & Wells, B. (2000). Sources of acute stress and coping styles in competitive sport. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 13, Anshel, M. H., Williams, L. R. T., & Hodge, K. (1997). Crosscultural and gender differences on coping style in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, Anshel, M. H., Williams, L. R. T., & Williams, S. M. (2000). Coping style following acute stress in competitive sport. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, Arathoon, S. M., & Malouff, J. M. (2004). The effectiveness of a brief intervention to help athletes cope with competition loss. Journal of Sport Behavior, 27, Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, Bebetsos, E., & Antoniou, P. (2003). Psychological skills of Greek badminton athletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97, Boekaerts, M. (1996). Coping with stress in childhood and adolescence. In S. Endler (Ed.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, and applications (pp ). New York: Wiley. Borg, G. (1978). Simpler rating methods for estimation of perceived exertion. In G. Borg (Ed.), Physical work and effort (pp ). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L., Linder, D. E., & Van Raalte, N. S. (1991). Peak performance and the perils of retrospective introspection. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8, Brière, N. M., Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1995). On the development and validation of the French form of the Sport Motivation Scale. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, Brown, G. W., & Harris, T. (1978). The social origins of depression: A study of psychiatric disorder in women. New York: Free Press. Campen, C., & Roberts, D. C. (2001). Coping strategies of runners: Perceived effectiveness and match to pre-competitive anxiety. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, Chalmers, I., & Haynes, B. (1995). Reporting, updating, and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care. In I. Chalmers & D. G. Altman (Eds.), Systematic reviews (pp ). London: BMJ Publishing Group. Compas, B. E. (1987). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 101, Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Harding Thomsen, A., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, Connor-Smith, J. K., Compas, B. E., Wadsworth, M. E., Thomsen, A. H., & Saltzman, H. (2000). Responses to stress in adolescence: Measurement of coping and involuntary stress responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, Cooper, H. (2003). Editorial. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 3 9. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1998). Trait theories of personality. In D. F. Barone, M. Hersen, & V. B. van Hasselt (Eds.), Advances in personality (pp ). New York: Plenum Press. Cox, T., & Ferguson, E. (1991). Individual differences, stress and coping. In C. L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Personality and stress: Individual differences in the stress process (pp. 7 30). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Coyne, J. C., & Gottlieb, B. H. (1996). The mismeasure of coping by checklist. Journal of Personality, 64, Cresswell, S., & Hodge, K. (2001). Coping with stress in elite sport: A qualitative analysis of elite surf life saving athletes. New Zealand Journal of Sports Medicine, 29, Cresswell, S., & Hodge, K. (2004). Coping skills: Role of trait sport confidence and trait anxiety. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98, Crocker, P. R. E. (1992). Managing stress by competitive athletes: Ways of coping. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, Crocker, P. R. E., & Graham, T. R. (1995). Coping by competitive athletes with performance stress: Gender differences and relationships with affect. The Sport Psychologist, 9, Crocker, P. R. E., & Isaak, K. (1997). Coping during competitions and training sessions: Are youth swimmers consistent? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, Crocker, P. R. E., Kowalski, K. C., & Graham, T. R. (1998). Measurement of coping strategies in sport. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp ). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of pathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, Crust, L., & Clough, P. J. (2005). Relationship between mental toughness and physical endurance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100, Dale, G. A. (2000). Distractions and coping strategies of elite decathletes during their most memorable performances. The Sport Psychologist, 14, Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, Dugdale, J. R., Eklund, R. C., & Gordon, S. (2002). Expected and unexpected stressors in major international competition: Appraisal, coping, and performance. The Sport Psychologist, 16, Eklund, R. C., Grove, J. R., & Heard, N. P. (1998). The measurement of slump-related coping: Factorial validity of the COPE and Modified-COPE inventories. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20, Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, Eubank, M., & Collins, D. (2000). Coping with pre- and in-event fluctuations in competitive state anxiety: A longitudinal approach. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Problems with meta-analysis. In I. Chalmers & D. G. Altman (Eds.), Systematic reviews (pp ). London: BMJ Publishing Group. Folkman, S. (1991). Coping across the life span: Theoretical issues. In E. M. Cummings, A. L. Greene, & K. H. Karraker (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 3 19). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Folkman, S. (1992). Making the case for coping. In B. N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory, research and application (pp ). Westport, CT: Praeger. 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, Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55,