Anxiety Effects on Penalty Taking in Rugby - Essay Example

Running head: ANXIETY EFFECTS ON PENALTY TAKING IN RUGBY Anxiety effects on penalty taking in rugby of the School Introduction Anxiety, a persistent and inherent feature of competitive sport, consists of time-limited and short-term events (e.g., making an error or receiving a penalty from the official during the contest) can unfavorably affect performance. Typical responses to stressful events include over-arousal, heightened anxiety, muscular tension, emotional turmoil, and slower, less accurate decision-making (Anshel, 1995). Long term consequences of ineffective coping with anxiety include psychological burnout and the athlete's withdrawal from competitive sport. Present paper is a research of anxiety in rugby sports that discusses the importance of proper coping to maintain performance efficiency during penalty and competition. Goals of the Study While limited evidence exists in the general psychology literature for penalty anxiety in coping, there is a salient dearth of similar research on competitive athletes coping strategies during competition. Thus, the purpose of the present study is to examine the ability to predict the use of coping strategies following selected stressful events after the penalty among adult competitive athletes in rugby sports. It is hypothesized that the athletes' gender could be significantly predicted based on their selected use of coping strategies. Literature Review Based on a fifteen year research program on competitive anxiety, Martens et al. (1990) have suggested a three factor causal model, incorporating perceived uncertainty of outcome (PU), perceived importance of outcome (PI), and competitive A-trait as the most significant variables affecting perception of threat, and thus competitive anxiety reactions during the penalty in rugby sports. They hypothesized that the first two precursors, PU and PI are multiplicative, with both needing to be present for threat (T) to exist. This relationship is symbolically expressed as, T = f(U x I). The third factor, competitive trait anxiety (A-trait), affects perception of threat independently of importance or uncertainty. Perceived Uncertainty Although Martens et al. (1990) do not provide a direct definition of uncertainty of outcome, they refer to Kagan (1972) who, in discussing sources of uncertainty, states that it is the "inability to predict the future, especially if the doubt centers on the experience of potentially unpleasant events like punishment, physical harm, failure or rejection" (p. 52). In a recent study, Marchant, Andersen, and Morris (2005) found that the relationship of uncertainty and anxiety is more complex than the Martens et al. model suggests. Perceived uncertainty, however, is beyond the scope of this study and will not be discussed in detail. Perceived Importance Perceived importance of outcome relates to the perceived value of attaining a favorable result. According to Martens et al. (1990), the perceived value is a combination of the intrinsic and extrinsic consequences of the result. Extrinsic consequences include tangible rewards, such as money or positive reinforcement, whereas intrinsic consequences include a sense of mastery, feelings of competence, and increased self-esteem. The Martens et al. model uses perceived importance of outcome as an umbrella term covering both extrinsic and intrinsic factors. Another concept that Martens et al. incorporate when discussing their model is Atkinson's (1964) Probability of Success (Ps)' The relationship between [P.sub.s] importance is difficult to predict. Martens et al. (1990) advance two seemingly opposing arguments to explain this relationship. Using Atkinson's (1964) risk-taking theory, Martens et al. suggest that when confidence is low, the incentive value of success is increased. This makes intuitive sense, because beating a more highly rated player is a particularly satisfying result for most athletes, but one that is not highly probable. In contrast, Martens et al. also suggest that when [P.sub.s] is low, importance may be diminished as a defense mechanism to cope with the likely failure. They quote Mechanic (1970) who found that "persons who gave the impression of 'having given up' were less tense than those who were struggling actively against extremely difficult problems" (p. 113). This line of reasoning opposes the McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, and Lovell (1953) achievement motivation theory. According to McClelland et al., the incentive values of success increases as the chances of success decrease. Martens et al. acknowledge this high incentive situation that likely losers may face in competitive situations but favor the likelihood of psychological distancing as a defense mechanism. Nevertheless, the activation of ego defense strategies in situations of indisputable importance, may not be a viable option for some athletes in the case of penalty. Choosing to perceive a situation as unimportant becomes increasingly difficult when this perception is at odds with the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. For example, a professional rugby player battling to make a living and facing a highly ranked player in the first round of a tournament (low P,) would be unlikely to enter into defensive protective thinking and this perception may cause anxiety and, therefore, a loss during the penalty. Having invested considerable time, effort, and money into developing a rugby career, it would be extremely difficult for this player to reduce perceived importance to a low level. A-State as a Global Reaction Martens et al. (1990) included A-state as a global term in their model, rather than making the distinction between cognitive and somatic anxiety before the penalty. This decision appears rather odd in view of the extensive work the same group of authors have committed to differentiating between cognitive and somatic A-state in sport. For example, the development of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory - 2 (CSAI - 2) was due, at least in part, to a perceived need to provide sport specific measures that differentiate between cognitive and somatic A-state. Given the numerous studies that have investigated differences between cognitive and somatic reactions, it is surprising that Martens et al. have not discussed possible differences between how perceived uncertainty and perceived importance influence cognitive and somatic A-state. The model relies heavily on cognitive perceptions of uncertainty and importance, and these may be better predictors of cognitive, rather than somatic, A-state. Martens et al. propose that cognitive A-state, the worrying thoughts associated with sport competition, is based on a social evaluation process, whereas somatic A-state originates in conditioned responses to stimuli in the competitive environment. It is reasonable to suggest that the perception of importance, another cognitive process, will directly influence cognitive A-state. At the same time, the presence of a prize for victory is a common stimulus in sport that might readily activate the conditioned response of somatic anxiety. Clearly, the model needs further testing and development before possible links between causes of anxiety and specific responses are predictable. Martens et al. (1990) have highlighted the absence of experimental verification to validate their theory and have invited researchers to test the model in sporting contexts. To date, only two published studies have sought to test the Martens et al. model. Marchant et al. (2005) measured the perceived uncertainty, perceived importance, state anxiety, and self efficacy of female volleyball players prior to a regular season intercollegiate match. based on a correctional analysis, uncertainty of outcome was closely associated with cognitive anxiety, but importance of outcome was related more to somatic anxiety. Because there was no effort to actively manipulate the variables (perceived uncertainty and perceived importance), or measure player perceptions on more than one occasion, these results are inconclusive. Using a path analysis, Prapavessis, Cox, and Brooks (1996) found little support for the model. Their study did, however, contain a couple of methodological limitations. First, the design was correlational and no attempt was made to manipulate the independent variable in a true experimental manner. Second, perceived importance was measured one to three days prior to competition. Given that perceived uncertainty and perceived importance are state measures, the reliability of such measured as predictors of another state measure, taken up to three days later is somewhat questionable. The results of published studies examining athletes' use of coping strategies have jointly revealed that athletes in various sports have demonstrated certain types of coping strategies following acute stress experienced during the contest. With the exception of the Williams and Krane study of college female golfers and Anshel and Kaissidis' study of Australian basketball players, researchers have focused primarily on male athletes. While the area of coping with stress in competitive sport has been surprisingly understudied, in general, examining gender differences in the use of coping strategies in sport has apparently been virtually ignored. Gender differences have received far more attention in the general psychology literature. While several studies have showed that physiological, social psychological, and environmental factors each predict gender differences in the use of coping strategies, research results have been less than conclusive. For example, several studies have indicated that males, significantly more than females, use direct action in coping with stress. Both studies showed that females used distraction as a coping strategy, whereas men were more likely to use information-seeking. Along these lines, in an Australian study, Frydenberg and Lewis (2001) found that males, more than females, reported higher percentage of appraisals which lead to direct action and a lower percentage of appraisals which inhibit action. Ptacek, Smith, and Dodge (2004) also found gender differences in coping with college examinations. Females reported greater use of social support and emotion-focused coping strategies (e.g., expressing feelings, avoiding the situation), while males were more likely to use problem-focused coping, such as thinking about solutions and ways of controlling the situation. However, Miller and Kirsch (1997), in their reviews of related literature, have each concluded that women, more than men, use problem-focused coping strategies, such as obtaining assistance and seeking information. According to Miller and Kirsch, "Women are more likely than men to blunt out stress-relevant information in a variety of situations" (p. 289). Along these lines, Belle explained that "men may refrain from help-seeking because of explicit social sanctions against such behavior" (p. 264), and that "seeking social support is considered a feminine activity" (p. 265). Whether similar gender differences exist between male and female competitive athletes is heretofore unknown. In a rare sport study on gender differences and coping, Madden, Kirkby, and McDonald (1999) examined the coping styles of male and female elite runners. Specifically, females were more likely to react to a slump with greater emotion (e.g., anger, accepting sympathy) than males, who preferred problem-focused coping techniques. One framework with which researchers have studied coping in the general psychology literature has been to categorize them as approach (also called sensitization, engagement, vigilance, or attention) and avoidance. For example, Roth & Cohen dichotomize coping strategies into approach and avoidance categories. An approach strategy consists of confronting the source of stress and attempts to reduce it deliberately. At times, however, avoiding anxiety-inducing stimuli and the consequences is preferable to an approach strategy in response to these stimuli. Each technique has its advantages and disadvantages. Approach coping is the process of taking active steps in attempting to deal with the stressor to ameliorate its effects. Examples include initiating direct action, increasing one's efforts, and attempts to initiate a coping strategy in a pre-planned manner. Roth and Cohen (1996) hypothesize that approach coping is preferable: (a) when the situation is controllable, (b) when the source of stress is known to the person, or (c) when outcome measures are long-term such as the need to remain "on task" after a period of inactivity following the stressor. Roth and Cohen (1996) contend that approach coping is more effective when action is required; approach is an orientation towards situation-relevant characteristics, while ignoring distracting, irrelevant information. In some instances, a more appropriate coping response may be to ignore or dissociate oneself from the stressor, an avoidance coping technique. Examples include avoiding a stressor by seeking out other people, or by engaging in another task rather than the task at hand. Roth and Cohen (1996) suggest using an avoidance coping style when: (a) emotional resources are limited (e.g., low self-confidence/low self-esteem), (b) the source of stress is not clear, (c) the situation is uncontrollable, or (d) when outcome measures are immediate or short-term. For instance, athletes cannot afford to become distracted nor demotivated if an umpire or referee makes a "wrong" call in situations in which sport activity is ongoing. Such externally-controlled sources of stress warrant an avoidance coping strategy because confronting the stressor will rarely improve the situation or the outcome. In one rare (descriptive) sport study in this area, Krohne and Hindel (1998) compared successful and unsuccessful elite male table tennis players on their selection of coping strategies following performance errors. They found that successful players, as opposed to their less successful teammates, experienced less anxiety and used what they called avoidant coping strategies in sport situations. Less successful players tended to use approach coping strategies. The researchers surmised that approach coping may actually induce or foster state anxiety, which may, in turn, distract the athlete from relevant cues. Avoidance coping techniques, on the other hand, protects the athlete against interfering thoughts and actions. Thus, it appears that certain sport situations require competitors to psychologically distance themselves from the source of the unpleasant information, and to be more objective - and selective - in perceiving the potentially stressful situation. A number of studies have investigated the relationship between psychological skills and competitive anxiety. For example, Fletcher and Hanton (2001) examined the intensity and direction of competitive state anxiety in swimmers who differed in their use of psychological skills. Findings showed that performers who reported a greater usage of relaxation strategies experienced lower levels of anxiety and interpreted symptoms as more beneficial to performance than their comparison groups. Maynard and colleagues found similar results when they employed an intervention approach with nonelite soccer players. A number of other intervention investigations have also found support for the use of both individual skills and multimodal psychological skill packages in changing interpretations of symptoms in elite and nonelite populations respectively. Taken together the studies that have considered the influence of psychological skills upon symptom interpretation in elite and nonelite populations suggest that lesser skilled performers experience their anxiety intensity levels as debilitative and appear to use primarily relaxation strategies, relying minimally on other psychological skills. In contrast, elite athletes appear to use a combination of psychological skills, including goal setting, imagery, and self-talk strategies, and interpret their symptoms associated with anxiety as facilitative. However, these findings are tentative due to the exploratory nature of a number of the previous research designs adopted and the fact that no studies have directly compared elite and nonelite performers' anxiety responses and their respective psychological skill usage. In addition, as the majority of investigations have sampled performers from individual sports there is a need to explore psychological skills usage and anxiety interpretation across other sport types (e.g., team, contact-based). Lastly, in the context of professional practice, knowledge of how elite and nonelite athletes respond in stressful circumstances and the techniques they adopt are of important value for practitioners concerning the implementation of psychological skills training and intervention with athletes of different standards. The aim of this study therefore was to compare the intensity and direction of the competitive anxiety response together with psychological skills usage as a function of skill level in rugby union. Method Participants Subjects of current study will consist of male and female athletes ranging from about 15 to 2 yrs within the UK. The athletes had participated in rugby sports that subjects will classify as their "major" sport. Survey Development and Instrumentation Modified Sport Anxiety Scale (SAS). A modified version of the SAS (Smith et al., 1990) will be used to measure the intensity and direction of the trait component of worry and somatic anxiety and comprised 16 of the 21 original items. The scale measuring concentration disruption will be removed due to its reported failure to function in accordance with theoretical expectations. Examples of the anxiety subscale include "I feel nervous" and "I am concerned about performing poorly", while the somatic scale contains items such as, "I feel tense in my stomach" and "My heart races". For the intensity measure, respondents rated each item on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so). Intensity subscale scores will range from 7 to 28 (worry) and 9 to 36 (somatic anxiety). Procedures The survey's primary objective is to examine evidence of coping strategies in rugby during sports competition within the context of this study, and intends to serve as an instrument with the required psychometric properties used to identify and predict the athletes' use of coping strategies in sport beyond the present sample. The generation of survey is both theoretically and empirically-based. The theoretical framework follows the guidelines of Roth and Cohen (1996), from the general and sport psychologies. Survey will therefore entail: (a) identifying typical sources of anxiety experienced in rugby during penalty, (b) developing an array of coping responses for each stressor within the approach and avoidance theoretical framework, and (c) determining the individual's use of coping strategies based on their "typical" responses to each type of anxiety that they had actually experienced. Sport psychology academics and graduate students in sport psychology will help to generate the anxiety and the list of coping strategies for each stressor, and reach 100% consensus on categorizing the items into approach and avoidance strategies. The selection of anxiety and coping strategies were derived from interviews with athletes, coaches, and sport psychologists, as well as from extant sport psychology research and, to a lesser extent, from the anecdotal sport literature (i.e., magazine and newspaper interviews with athletes). The main anxiety will be highlighted in the following stressors: (a) making a physical or mental error, (b) being criticized by their coach, (c) observing cheating by an opponent, (d) experiencing pain or injury, (e) receiving a "bad" call or penalty from the official, (f) opponent's successful performance, and (g) poor environmental conditions (e,g., poor weather or playing conditions, crowd reactions). The subjects will also complete the questionnaire under the supervision of a researcher. The average time to complete the survey is approximately 15.5 min. For each stressor, subjects will indicate extent of agreement for each coping strategy on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very untrue) to:5 (very true). References: 1. Anshel, M.H. (1995). Anxiety in sport. In T. Morris & J. Summers (Eds.), Sport psychology: Theory, applications, and issues (pp. 29-62). Brisbane, Australia: John Wiley. 2. Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. 3. Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (2001). How adolescents cope with different concerns: The development of the Adolescent Coping Checklist (ACC). Psychologist Test Bulletin, 3, 63-73. 4. Kagan, J. (1972). Motives and development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 51-66. 5. Krohne, H.W., & Hindel, C. (1998). Trait anxiety, state anxiety, and coping behavior as predictors of athletic performance. Anxiety Research, 1, 225-234. 6. Madden, C.C., Kirkby, R.J., & McDonald, D. (1999). Coping styles of competitive middle distance runners. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 287-296. 7. Marchant, D. B., Andersen, M. B., & Morris, T. (2005). Perceived uncertainty of outcome as a contributing factor in competitive state anxiety. The Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 29, 41-46. 8. Martens, R., Vealey, R. S., & Burton, D. (1990). Competitive anxiety in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 9. McClelland, D. D., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. W., & Lovell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 10. Mechanic, D. (1970). Some problems in developing a social psychology of adoption to stress. In J. E. McGrath (Ed.), Social and psychological factors in stress (pp. 104-123). New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston. 11. Miller, S.M., & Kirsch, N. (1997). Sex differences in cognitive coping with stress. In R.C. Barnett, L. Biener, & G.K. Baruch (Eds.), Gender and stress (pp. 278-307). New York: The Free Press. 12. Ptacek, J.T., Smith, R.E., & Dodge, K.L. (2004). Gender differences in coping with stress: When stressor and appraisal do not differ. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 421-430. 13. Roth, S., & Cohen, L.J. (1996). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41, 813-819. Read More