Catastrophe Theory, Individualized Zone of Optimal Functioning, and Reversal Theory - Coursework Example

Catastrophe theory, individualized zone of optimal functioning, and reversal theory Student’s name The name of the course Name of institution Individualized zone of optimal functioning The Individualized zone of optimal functioning was first described by Hanin whereby he explained the arousal performance relationship centered in the argument that athletes state anxiety varies broadly, therefore casting distrust on the inverted-u hypothesis. Particularly, Hanin argued that instead of recognizing a single optimal level of state anxiety, athletes have a zone, or range of optimal functioning just preceding to competition. This zone, that he refers to as individualized zone of optimal functioning (IZOF), contains an optimal state of arousal unique for each athlete. He further stated that this arousal zone will be much greater for some athletes than the rest. The athlete has to be capable of determining this zone, and then be capable of reproducing this “optimal” arousal state constantly from one contest to the next. The IZOF is calculated by getting the participator average state anxiety score on Spielberger’s STAI, and adding or deducting four points. Hanin foretold that athletes with state anxiety level falling within their IOZF would function better than athletes with state anxiety was beyond their IZOF assumption although is unable to describe the state anxiety functioning link. Weaknesses of Individualized zone of optimal functioning Even though the IZOF has lately captured researcher’s attention by, further study is required to investigate and authenticate this fact further. Landers and Arent however, have doubts on the IZOF’s validity because “the IZOF model has only been functionalized with measures of anxiety. The questionnaires used did not evaluate arousal. The second weakness of Hanin’s model is the use of psychological measures of anxiety instead of arousal as described earlier; these are unlike constructs and are described and expressed in a different method in self-report measures. Even as the IZOF models gives interesting perceptions into comprehending and measuring optimal arousal, more study is required that merges both somatic and cognitive measures. Catastrophe Theory The catastrophe the­ory imparts the prediction that high state of anxiety will enhance performance up to an optimal level. The inverted-U also predicts that more increase in arousal or anxiety will weaken performance in an expected, curvilinear manner. Catastrophe theory pre­dicts that further physiological arousal and cognitive anxiety will result in a large and dramatic decline in performance. Hardy argues that the inverted-U hypothesis explains the relationship between stress and performance, but does not indicate anecdotal evidence in sport that this relationship should not be symmetrical. Alternatively, differing to the inverted-U hypothesis, overexcited athletes suffer a fast, not a steady, drop in their performance and they are unable to return quickly to desired performance levels. Therefore, the relationship between physiological arousal and performance is determined by on the performer's level of cognitive anxiety; only when cognitive anxiety is greater in combination with high physiological arousal, occurrence of "catastrophic" change in performance will result. "Choking" described as bad performance as a result of high per­ceived pressure) is one likely result. The strengths of catastrophe theory is that it focuses on the effects of both physiological and cognitive dimensions of arousal on performance, and it suggests real sport circumstances more convincingly; sport is not usually perfectly sym­metrical and predictable. Weakness of catastrophe theory However, one weakness of catastrophe theory is the high level of complexity and involves a lot of assessments of the same athletes over time to test it. Its legality of catastrophe theory waits for additional study by researchers. Reversal Theory Reversal theory (Kerr, 2001) focuses on the premise that individuals are able to inter­pret their arousal level into one of two groupings: excitement (pleasurable) or anxiety (unpleasant). Low arousal levels may be explained as relaxation (pleasant) or boredom (unpleasant). The idea of psychological reversal stems from shifting an individual interpretation of his or her feelings. For instance, being involved in a risky, adventurous activity such as rock climbing or downhill ski­ing causes increased arousal, called anxiety in this theory. Nonetheless, when the risky activity or state is learnt or performance is undoubtedly im­proved, the anxiety quickly "reverses" and becomes excitement. These psychological reversals change an individual’s emotional condition. It is crucial in reversal theory that athletes are capable of interpreting their present and changed arousal states with the aim of explaining and predicting the result of emotion on sport performance. Weaknesses One weakness of reversal theory is the way in which it describes meta-motivational states and reversals by reference to the fringe and focus of the phenomenal field. The essential difficulty with this division of the phenomenal field as that reversal theory requires that the fringe and the focus be interchangeable (for reversals to occur), yet the fringe can be divided in many different ways. It is also un-clear how a person's focusing of his phenomenal field creates meta-motivational states, since exactly the same focusing mechanisms are used to explain cognitive and perceptual differentiations in the phenomenal field. (Apter, Kerr & Cowles, 1988) Explanations of each theory on athlete’s optimal level of arousal The catastrophe and reversal theory can be used further to explain Optimal Arousal levels. First some questions should be considered before this theory is explained such as the "best" arousal level for a particular situation or for a given athlete and how the appropriate or customary level of arousal can be ascertained. These are challenging ques­tions for sport psychology researchers and practition­ers. Generalizations about the "right way" to do something are rarely valid for all participants. To indi­vidualize the prescription and treatment for optimal arousal for each competitor is more desirable. According to (Klavora, 2001) an athlete's customary performance quality is associated with his or her customary arousal level. Klavora suggests that competitor’s arousal level immediately prior to and during the contest should be compared with their subsequent performance. Then, after the contest, the coach and athlete should jointly determine whether changing the arousal level before or during future contests is desirable. To test this strategy, Klavora examined senior year high school basketball players, comparing their pregame arousal with the quality of their game performance. The participants completed the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) just before the game. Then, after the game, the coach evaluated each player's performance on customary arousal level. Klavora suggests that competitor’s arousal level immediately prior to and during the contest should be compared with their subsequent performance. Then, after the contest, the coach and athlete should jointly determine whether changing the arousal level before or during future contests is desirable. To test this strategy, Klavora examined senior year high school basketball players, comparing their pregame arousal with the quality of their game performance. The participants completed the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) just before the game. Then, after the game, the coach evaluated each player's performance on a three-point scale indicating poor or below perform­ance ability, average or close to performance ability, or (an outstanding performance). One concern about Klavora's study was the method by which arousal was measured. The STAI is a measure of anxiety, not arousal. As indicated earlier, contemporary scientists acknowledge that anxiety and arousal are not the same (Landers & Arent, 2005). Further, Klavora's assessment of arousal was not corroborated with physiological measures such as heart or respiration rate, blood pressure, gal­vanic skin response, or other available somatic meas­ures as suggested by Martens et al. Because arousal has been traditionally measured as a physio­logical response it might be argued that the players in Klavora's study felt an unpleasant emo­tion other than arousal, such as anxiety, rather than more positive feelings such as excitement, enthusiasm, or happiness. Nevertheless, Klavora addresses not only an area in need of further research, but also a topic that has direct application in determining the athlete's optimal arousal level. Further study is needed to test the inverted-U hypothesis and the use of valid ways to determine an athlete's optimal arousal level prior to competition. One possible approach to determining optimal arousal the difference between feeling "up" as op­posed to feeling "uptight" is to pose questions that help the performer to identify certain feelings. These questions are intended to self-monitor feelings and physiological responses prior to and during competi­tion, to identify the athlete's feelings accurately, and to remind them to use appropriate physical and mental strategies that can favorably affect mental status. Counseling sport psychologists typically ask ath­letes to identify the time or game in which they felt they performed at their best and at their worst, to describe these performances as accurately as possible, and to describe their feelings and mental attitudes during this time. Specific questions include: anything the athlete was thinking about during this event; if their concentration was easily attained, or if they had to work hard to concentrate; if they were relaxed or tense, and the reason for such feelings and to describe their focus of awareness and attention directed towards whom in particular. Based on an athlete's responses to these questions, coaches or sport psychology consultants suggest mental strategies that the performer can use to alter levels of arousal and anxiety to improve his or her mental preparation for competition, The coach's or consul­tant's objective in asking these questions is to identify athletes' feelings associated with desirable and unde­sirable performance, and to recall their perceptions of physiological responses they experience at the time of competition. This approach was used by in his "mental plan" model. Orlick asked athletes to identify certain feelings, example self-confidence level and emo­tions on a scale from 1 (very low) to 10 (very high). This self-monitoring tech­nique encourages athletes to become more aware of their mental status at any given time. But perhaps more important, athletes' increased awareness al­lows them to compare the kinds and intensity levels of feelings/emotions that accompany good perform­ance outcomes with the feelings and emotions linked to poorer performance outcomes. In this way, when conducted over several contests, the athlete's opti­mal arousal state can be identified, according to Orlick. An athlete’s optimal level of arousal is also best explained in individualized zone of optimal functioning in that (Landers and Arent, 2005) it developed the most extensive description of factors affecting the arousal– performance relationship. These factors are: the athlete skill, fitness level, personal experience, and personality; the sport situation task difficulty and task demands, cognitive appraisal of demands, of resources, of consequences, of meaning of conse­quences, and of bodily reactions); emotional or physiological responses heart rate, muscle tension, brain waves, and skin conductance and behavior (motor performance, decision-making, perception, and retention of learned material). Landers and Arent also acknowledge the importance of motor skill complexity: "the complexity characteristics of the motor skill need to be analyzed to determine how much arousal is optimal" The concept of optimal arousal is derived from numerous sources and the optimal level of arousal in one situation or for one athlete would likely be very different in other situations and for other athletes. References Kerr, J.H. (2001). Counseling Athletes: Applying Reversal Theory. London: Routledge. Mark H. Anshel, (2012) Sport Psychology: From Theory to Practice Fifth Edition M.J. Apter., J.H. Kerr & M.P. Cowles (1988) Progress in Reversal Theory Peter Klavora, (2001) Dynavision Training Guide: Athletic Performance Enhancement through Sensory-Motor Integration Shawn M. Arent and Daniel M. Landers (Jul 31, 2005) Arousal, anxiety, and performance: a reexamination of the inverted-U hypothesis. Read More