Thursday, 6 November 2014

Anxiety and the Impairment of Sport Performance

One of most leading causes of impairment in sport performance, especially when the activity is complex and focus demanding, is anxiety (Derakshan & Eysenck, 2009). This has been a well-researched area in sport psychology for the past decade (Englert & Bertrams, 2012). Although the relationship between anxiety and sport performance has never been fully understood, many theories have been formed in hopes to find the answer. Along with these theories many techniques have been formed in anticipation to reduce anxiety and increase performance.  Not all theories, however, explain the techniques and how they can help overcome anxiety in sport performance.

Figure 1. Drive Theory
Some theories that are commonly known are the drive theory, inverted-U hypothesis, multidimensional theory and the catastrophe theory. The drive theory states that higher levels of anxiety will result in greater performance in comparison with those of lower levels of anxiety (Taylor, 1956). With this theory, anxiety would be encouraged, but this does not explain why some people fold under pressure and anxiety (see Figure 1). Another theory is the inverted-U hypothesis (see Figure 2) which states that performance is best at moderate levels of arousal (Hardy & Parfitt, 1991). However this theory also shows inaccuracy because there is no explanation of cognition and it shows that performers gradually get worse when anxiety is heightened where performance should just drop (Hardy & Parfitt, 1991).

Figure 2. Inverted-U Theory


The multidimensional theory deals with both components of somatic and cognitive anxiety (see Figure 3). Cognitive which is the fear of failure and somatic which is the sensitivity of mental stress on the physical response.  Somatic anxiety can appear on entering a performance area but disappear once performance starts. Somatic anxiety shows to be uncorrelated, seen to have an inverted-U shape relation with performance. On the other hand cognitive anxiety changes when there is a change of success. Cognitive anxiety also remains high and stable before an important event. This is seen to have a negative impact on performance with a linear relationship (Hardy & Parfitt, 1991). The multidimensional theory measures both components separately with performance when they should be measured together. This theory also does not have a great understanding of somatic anxiety effects on performance (Hardy & Parfitt, 1991).
Figure 3. Multidimensional Theory

The catastrophe model on the other hand was used to clarify some of the multidimensional problems and help explain more than one aspect of anxiety. This is the most popular theory that best explains the connection between anxiety and performance. The catastrophe theory shows the non-linear behaviour of the 3 dimensions (cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and performance), with two predictors and one dependent variable (Krane, 1992; Hardy et al., 2007). 

Somatic arousal is determined by the splitting factor of cognitive. This splitting factor will determined whether the somatic arousal will be smooth and small or large and catastrophic (Hardy & Parfitt, 1991).  When cognitive anxiety is low and somatic anxiety is low performance can be seen to be unchanging. On the other hand when cognitive anxiety is high and somatic anxiety is high, this can be seen to impair sport performance, this is known as the “catastrophe”. When the catastrophe hits it is hard to come back from. When somatic anxiety is low and cognitive anxiety shows to be increasing this is associated with enhanced performance (Hardy & Parfitt, 1991). In Figure 4 we see a breaking wave in cross section that tries to illustrate the characteristics of anxiety-performance relationship (Hardy & Parfitt, 1991).
Figure 4. Catastrophe Theory
In today’s world it is all about self-confidence and how to make people have positive thoughts about themselves. This starts at a young age with coaches, parents, friends and fans (Smith et al., 2007). Techniques such as self-statement, imagery and cognitive restructuring can all be used to help self-confidence. Somatic relaxation techniques are those such as deep breathing and meditation, this is used to ease tension and lower physiological stress(Amasiatu & Uko, 2013). Most athletes will have a lower somatic anxiety because with exercise and practice this part of anxiety lowers whereas cognitive anxiety gets higher. More pressure is put on a player when they increase in performance (Schwartz et al., 1978).

All humans are diverse and will react differently to altered levels of anxiety. The catastrophe theory is more like a model rather than a theory. It predicts human behaviour and performance but does not explain how it happens. How people get high cognitive anxiety with low somatic anxiety or vice versa, is not explained through this theory. This theory does not give a clear pathway in which techniques should be use to lower anxiety.

When looking at the catastrophe theory in correlation to the techniques to reduce stress, we see that there is a fine line in how high anxiety should be and how high performance will be. Every person has different levels of anxiety and people cope differently to anxiety, depending on their personalities (Derakshan & Eysenck, 2009).  We are complex creatures, there is no distinct answer. Anxiety is not just up and down.







References:

Amasiatu, A. N., & Uko, I. S. (2013). Coping with pre-competitive anxiety in sports competition. European Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences, 1(1), 1-9.

Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (2009). Anxiety, processing efficiency, and cognitive performance. European Psychologist, 14(2), 168-176.

Englert, C., & Bertrams, A. (2012). Anxiety, Ego Depletion, and Sports Performance. Journal Of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34(5), 580-599.

Hardy, L., & Parfitt, G. (1991). A catastrophe model of anxiety and performance. British Journal of Psychology, 82(2), 163-178.

Hardy, L., Beattie, S., & Woodman, T. (2007). Anxietyinduced performance catastrophes: Investigating effort required as an asymmetry factor. British Journal of Psychology, 98(1), 15-31.

Jones, M. (2003). Controlling emotions in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 471-486.

Krane, V. (1992). Conceptual and methodological considerations in sport anxiety research: From the inverted-U hypothesis to catastrophe theory. Quest,44(1), 72-87.

Schwartz, G. E., Davidson, R. J., & Goleman, D. J. (1978). Patterning of cognitive and somatic processes in the self-regulation of anxiety: Effects of meditation versus exercise. Psychosomatic medicine, 40(4), 321-328.

Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Cumming, S. P. (2007). Effects of a motivational climate intervention for coaches on young athletes' sport performance anxiety.Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 29(1), 39.


Taylor, J. A. (1956). Drive theory and manifest anxiety. Psychological Bulletin,53(4), 303.

No comments:

Post a Comment