بررسی مجدد رابطه اضطراب رقابتی حالت- صفت
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|35997||2002||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||5458 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 33, Issue 7, November 2002, Pages 1125–1136
The purpose of this study was to examine the multidimensional competitive anxiety trait-state relationship and explore the effects of trait anxiety upon directional interpretations of state responses. Competitive soccer players (N=102) completed the SAS [Smith, Smoll, & Schutz (1990) Anxiety Research 2, 263] and modified CSAI-2 [Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith (1990) In: Martens, Vealey, & Burton, Competitive anxiety in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics] including intensity and direction subscales [Jones & Swain (1992) Perceptual and Motor Skills 74, 46]. High trait anxiety performers responded with significantly greater state anxiety levels than low trait performers. Investigation of directional interpretations of state anxiety symptoms revealed low trait concentration disruption performers perceived state responses as more facilitating than their high trait counterparts. The findings highlight the role of directional interpretations in the experience of competitive state anxiety symptoms in sports that require high levels of perceptual attention.
Since the conception of an interactional model of anxiety distinguishing trait and state symptoms (Spielberger, 1966), considerable understanding of the debilitating effects of anxiety upon sporting performance has been made. A large contribution has come from the development of sport-specific competitive anxiety theory (Martens, 1977), which states that, in advance of sporting competition, an individuals' competitive trait anxiety directly affects their perception of threat, subsequently mediating the level of state anxiety experienced (Smith, Smoll, & Wiechman, 1998). Further advancement has established competitive state anxiety to be a multidimensional concept, possessing at least cognitive and somatic components (Davidson & Schwartz, 1976 and Martens, Burton et al., 1990). The adoption of a multidimensional approach, together with the development of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2; Martens, Burton, et al., 1990), have resulted in a plethora of literature investigating competitive state anxiety symptoms of sport performers (Woodman & Hardy, 2001). Despite the proliferation of competitive state anxiety investigations, research examining the personality variable of multidimensional competitive trait anxiety has received little attention. This is somewhat surprising given the considerable amount of existing literature that has adopted unidimensional trait anxiety measures, such as the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) and Sport Competition Anxiety Test (SCAT, Martens, 1977). Findings have observed global trait anxiety to be consistently related to high cognitive and somatic state anxiety responses (Crocker et al., 1988, Gould et al., 1984 and Maynard & Howe, 1987). In addition, studies have adopted a trait version of the multidimensional CSAI-2, the Competitive Trait Anxiety Inventory-2 (CTAI-2), with relative success (cf. Hanton & Jones, 1999a, Hanton & Jones, 1999b and Jones & Swain, 1995). However, despite the majority of investigations reporting moderate to strong internal reliability coefficients, the psychometric properties of the scale, such as construct validity, have yet to be fully explored and tested. In an attempt to address the imbalance in competitive trait anxiety investigations the multidimensional Sports Anxiety Scale (SAS; Smith, Smoll, & Schutz, 1990) has been developed. The scale adopts a more conceptually sound and theoretically grounded approach to measure competitive trait anxiety (Smith et al., 1998). The model is constructed upon conceptions of emotionality and anxiety from research in anxiety and emotion, including those of Spielberger, 1966 and Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, and Smith (1989). Included in the conceptualisation is the trait-state distinction, the differentiation between situational, cognitive, physiological, and behavioural components of the process of anxiety, and the directional component of competitive anxiety (Jones & Swain, 1995). Test construction of the SAS has reported strong reliability and validity measures (Krane & Finch,1 1991 and Smith et al., 1990). Despite the initial impressive psychometric properties of the scale, due to the attention accorded to competitive state anxiety research, few studies have actually adopted the SAS as a measure of multidimensional competitive trait anxiety since its inception. The limited investigations have examined competitive trait anxiety in several modalities including, situation criticality (Krane, Joyce, & Rafeld, 1994), injury prediction (Smith, Ptacek, Everett, & May, 1995) and in intervening to reduce levels of coach experienced stress (Smith, Smoll, & Barnett, 1995). According to Spielberger's (1966) original conceptualisation of the relationship between trait and state anxiety, high trait anxious performers should respond to stressful situations by demonstrating high levels of state anxiety intensity. Studies adopting both unidimensional and multidimensional measures of competitive state anxiety have supported this relationship (e.g. Cooley, 1987, Martens & Simon, 1976 and Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990), however, few studies have employed multidimensional trait measures of anxiety. Krane and Finch (1991) have reported predictive validity for the SAS in samples of collegiate tennis and golf athletes, while Leffingwell and Williams (1995) found similar support in collegiate tennis players and cross-country athletes. Although this initial research provides partial support for the multidimensional trait-state relationship, collectively, the findings represent a relatively small weight of evidence to support the theory and utility of the SAS as a measure of competitive anxiety. As Smith et al. (1998) acknowledged: More work is needed to evaluate predictive patterns of A-state in large samples of athletes who are competing in actual sporting events in order to assess this important aspect of SAS validity (p. 122). In addition to the lack of empirical multidimensional studies examining differences between trait-state comparisons, contention exists regarding the conceptual predictions of the direct mediating effect of competitive state anxiety upon the relationship between trait anxiety and performance. Hardy, Jones, and Gould (1996) questioned Spielberger et al.'s (1970) and Martens, Burton et al.'s (1990) basic premise that highly trait anxious performers will always respond to stressful situations by demonstrating high levels of state anxiety. Specifically, Hardy et al. (1996) challenged the assumptions of multidimensional anxiety theory that insinuate the impact of competitive anxiety upon performance is totally mediated by performers' state anxiety responses, such that trait anxiety's only influence upon performance is via changes in state anxiety (p. 160). Hardy et al. (1996) cited evidence from cognitive psychology which maintains that performance, considered in terms of attentional selectivity, is determined by an interaction between state and trait levels of anxiety (Eysenck, 1992). High trait anxious subjects who are state anxious are therefore purported to selectively attend towards threatening information, whilst low trait anxious subjects who experience state anxiety are proposed to show an attentional bias away from such information. Hardy et al. (1996) also suggest that dependent upon the level of perceptual attention involved in competitive performance, low trait anxious individuals will experience high state anxiety as facilitating, whilst high trait anxious individuals will experience state anxiety symptoms as debilitating. The notion of interpretation of competitive state anxiety symptoms (i.e. facilitative versus debilitative) has recently received considerable attention in the competitive anxiety literature, via the employment of a modified directional version of the CSAI-2 (Jones & Swain, 1992). Support for the distinction between intensity and direction has been provided in several empirical studies examining a range of both person and situation variables (Jones, 1995 and Woodwan & Hardy, 2001). The findings not only appear to support the view that there is value in examining the interpretation of anxiety responses, but that ‘direction’ appears to be more sensitive in distinguishing between individual difference groups when compared with the intensity of responses (Jones & Hanton, 2001). The current evidence would seem to indicate that predispositions to experience high or low competitive anxiety symptoms may have a mediating influence upon the interpretation of state anxiety responses as either facilitating or debilitating to performance. Several studies have investigated the impact of directional interpretations of competitive trait anxiety symptoms, adopting the CTAI-2, with variables such as affect and emotional states prior to performance (Jones et al., 1996 and Mellalieu et al., in press), yet none have made direct trait-state comparisons. The research in competitive trait anxiety highlights several areas for further investigation. First, due to the relative neglect in sport psychology, research is required to examine the multidimensional competitive anxiety trait-state relationship. Second, further investigation of the utility of the SAS as a measure of competitive trait anxiety is required. Finally, the potential mediating effects upon the multidimensional competitive anxiety trait-state relationship also require investigation, in particular, the impact upon the interpretation of state anxiety symptoms by competitive trait anxiety. In light of these requirements, the intention of this study was to examine the conceptual relationship between multidimensional competitive trait and state anxiety, together with the potential mediating effects of trait anxiety symptoms upon state anxiety interpretation, in a sample of competitive athletes. Based upon the predictions of Martens, Burton et al. (1990) and Hardy et a