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 |
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).
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 |
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). Anxiety‐induced 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