خوش بینی، بدبینی و اضطراب رقابت در ورزشکاران دانشگاهی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|38207||2002||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||4237 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 32, Issue 5, 5 April 2002, Pages 893–902
Abstract This study examined the effect of optimistic and pessimistic cognitive styles on performance and precompetition anxiety. Collegiate athletes (female=39; male=35) completed the Defensive Pessimism Questionnaire and were grouped as optimists, defensive pessimists or real pessimists. Defensive pessimism is a strategy through which individuals set low expectations so as to protect themselves from potential failure, but has no adverse effect on performance. Such a strategy differs from the real pessimist approach, which results in both low performance expectations and achievements. Predicted precompetition anxiety was assessed via the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Yl). Results revealed that females exhibited significantly (P<0.05) higher levels of predicted precompetition anxiety than males. However, when anxiety responses were re-analyzed by cognitive orientation, it was found that regardless of gender, optimists exhibited significantly lower (P<0.01) levels of precompetition anxiety compared to the pessimists groups. While a majority of the sample (59.9%) possessed a pessimistic style, these findings suggest that performance differences between the groups were not significant. Hence, findings from this study indicate that cognitive orientation style and not gender is the best predictor of precompetition anxiety
1. Introduction In the field of sport psychology, it is commonly held that an optimistic attitude toward competition is essential for success in athletics (LeUnes & Nation, 1996). In contrast, less successful athletes are often portrayed as pessimistic and anxious. As a result of these perceived negative traits many sport psychology interventions typically involve techniques designed to enhance confidence (Weinberg & Gould, 1999) and reduce anxiety (Cox, 1994 and LeUnes & Nation, 1996). However, research findings based on Hanin's (1986) Individual Zones of Optimal Functioning (IZOF) model indicate that the optimal level of anxiety may vary widely across athletes, with between 30 and 45% performing optimally when anxiety is high (Raglin & Hanin, 2000). Moreover, it has been proposed that some forms of pessimism may not be inherently harmful to performance. Specifically, Norem and Cantor (1986a) have identified two distinctive styles in which pessimism is employed. Defensive pessimism is characterized as a strategic mechanism in which individuals set unrealistically low expectations in order to protect themselves from potential failure, and as motivation to avoid future failure. Olympic speed skater Dan Jansen provides an example of this approach when, after winning a gold medal in speed skating during the 1994 Winter Olympics, he admitted, “I went in with such low expectations because I didn't want to set myself up for disappointment” (Wolff, 1994). Research has further indicated that defensive pessimists do not appear to suffer performance impairments compared with individuals who utilize an optimistic approach (Norem & Cantor, 1986a and Showers & Ruben, 1990). This differs from the real pessimist who both expects and achieves low levels of success. In this case, pessimism becomes a maladaptive response leading to negative outcomes associated with higher levels of anxiety (Showers & Ruben, 1990). Additionally, studies examining cognitive orientation styles (Norem & Cantor, 1986a, Norem & Cantor, 1986b, Showers, 1988, Showers, 1992, Showers & Ruben, 1990 and Spencer & Norem, 1996) have found that individuals possessing an optimistic attitude towards an assigned task do not outperform those employing a defensive pessimistic orientation. In fact, Sanna (1998) has demonstrated that manipulations that interfered with the typical moods and mental simulations used by defensive pessimists actually worsen performance levels. Specifically, when attempts were made to induce positive mood or downward counterfactuals in which the participants anticipated performing prior to the actual performance, the level of performance for optimists was not impaired while the defensive pessimists suffered significant drops in performance. The implication that defensive pessimists benefit from adopting a negative perspective towards upcoming performances, with elevated anxiety serving a facilitative function has potential implications for the IZOF model. While IZOF research has found that a considerable proportion of athletes perform best with substantially elevated anxiety, factors that contribute to this variability have not been identified (Raglin & Hanin, 2000). Additionally, IZOF research has found that athletes are generally capable of accurately predicting their own precompetition anxiety up to several days prior to actual competition (Hanin, 1986, Raglin et al., 1990a, Raglin & Morris, 1994, Raglin & Turner, 1992 and Wilson & raglin. 1997), and this information is used to identify those athletes possessing anxiety levels outside their optimal zone prior to competition. However, in some circumstances, athletes fail to make accurate predictions, leading to potentially erroneous attempts to raise or lower anxiety. An unexplained finding in IZOF research has been that young female athletes consistently “overpredict” levels of anxiety for easy competitions (Raglin et al., 1990a, Raglin et al., 1990b, Raglin & Turner, 1992 and Wilson & raglin. 1997), but are accurate in predicting anxiety prior to difficult meets. In contrast, young and adult males have been shown to be capable of making accurate predictions for both easy and difficult competitions (Raglin & Turner, 1992, Turner & Raglin, 1996 and Wilson & raglin. 1997). The finding that defensive pessimists commonly use upward counterfactuals in which they ponder alternative outcomes that are better than they actually expect may potentially explain cases in which athletes overestimate to achieve their own precompetition anxiety levels prior to actual competition. The present study was conducted to explore the degree to which optimistic and pessimistic cognitive orientations were present in a sample of collegiate track and field athletes. In addition, this study sought to determine if pessimistic or optimistic cognitive orientations influence predicted, actual and recalled precompetition anxiety values. It was anticipated that both defensive and real pessimists would have higher levels of anxiety compared with optimists, whereas optimists would exhibit lower recalled values. Moreover, it was also hypothesized that defensive pessimists would tend to overpredict precompetition anxiety.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
. Results Comparisons were made between anxiety measurements (predicted vs. actual) and between meets using within group ANOVAs. Comparisons were made between gender and between groups classified on the basis of optimism and pessimism using between groups ANOVAs. Correlations between predicted and actual, and actual and recalled precompetition anxiety were made via Pearson Correlation techniques. 3.1. Predicted, actual and recalled optimal precompetition anxiety by meet and gender Comparisons of mean predicted and actual competition anxiety for the easy and difficult meets revealed that both predicted and actual anxiety was significantly higher for the difficult meet (Mpred=47.00, S.D.pred=10.91; Mact=45.51, S.D.act=11.31) than for the easy meet (Mpred=43.50, S.D.pred=11.76; Mact=41.54, S.D.act=10.77), F (1, 73)=20.95, P<0.001. In addition, predicted anxiety was significantly higher than actual anxiety for both meets, F (1, 73)=7.65, P<0.01. Comparisons were next made between men and women in order to determine whether they exhibited different patterns in their perceptions of anxiety for the easy and difficult meets. For the easy meet, comparisons of mean predicted and actual competition anxiety revealed that female track and field athletes in this study showed a trend, F (1, 38)=3.70, P<0.10, for higher levels of predicted precompetition anxiety (M=44.74, S.D.=14.32) compared with actual values (M=41.59, S.D.=12.73), whereas these values did not differ for the males (Mpred=42.11, S.D.pred=8.00, Mact=41.49, S.D.act=8.23), F (1, 34) < 1.00. However, predicted and actual precompetition anxiety values were significantly correlated for both the female (r=0.72, P<0.001) and male (r=0.79, P<0.001) athletes. For the difficult meet, the values of predicted and actual anxiety did not differ for females (Mpred=48.72, S.D.pred=11.82, Mact=46.92, S.D.act=12.80), F (1, 38)=2.37, or for males (Mpred=45.09, S.D.pred=9.60, Mact=43.94, S.D.act=9.31), F (1, 34) < 1.00. Similar to the easy meet, predicted and actual precompetition anxiety values were significantly correlated (rfem=0.83, P<0.001; rmale=0.66, P<0.001). Finally, males and females did not differ in optimal precompetition anxiety levels, F (1, 72) < 1.00 (Mfem=44.26, S.D.fem=14.29; Mmale=41.60, S.D.act=1). 3.2. Predicted, actual and recalled optimal precompetition anxiety by cognitive orientation style Utilizing individual scores on the Defensive Pessimism Questionnaire according to procedures described by Showers and Ruben (1990), each participant was next categorized into one of three cognitive orientation groups: optimist, defensive pessimist or real pessimist. Based on their performance criteria it was found that 41% of the entire sample was classified as possessing an optimistic cognitive style, 24% were defensive pessimists, and 35% real pessimists. However, gender differences in this study were also found in cognitive orientation styles. When compared to females, males more often employed an optimistic (46% vs. 36%) or defensive pessimistic (29% vs. 20%) orientation. Yet, a greater proportion of females (44% vs. 25%) possessed a real pessimistic style. Actual, predicted and recalled optimal precompetition anxiety values were next compared for each of these groups. A 2 (meet) × 2 (gender) × 3 (optimist group) mixed ANOVA revealed a significant effect for optimism, F (2, 68)=9.26, P<0.001. Follow-up analysis revealed that for both the easy and difficult meet, optimistic athletes in this study reported lower predicted (M=38.43, S.D.=9.16, and M=42.13; S.D.=9.17) and actual (M=36.23, S.D.=8.70, and M=39.97, S.D.=10.27) precompetition values when compared to the predicted (M=50.12, S.D.=11.94, and M=51.65, S.D.=11.40) and actual (M=46.69, S.D.=10.84, and M=52.15, S.D.=9.04) values of the real pessimists, F (1, 54)=23.13, P<0.001. Furthermore, this same finding was replicated between the optimist (Mpred=38.43, S.D.=9.16, and Mpred=42.13; S.D.=9.17; Mact=36.23, S.D.=8.70, and Mact=39.97, S.D.=10.27) and defensive pessimist groups (Mpred=42.39, S.D.=11.27, and Mpred=48.39; S.D.=9.98; Mact=42.94, S.D.=10.16, and Mact=45.17, S.D.=11.29), although to a lesser extent, F (1, 46)=4.70, P<0.05. Correlations between predicted and actual precompetition anxiety for the easy and difficult competition were significant for the optimists (reasy=0.75, P<0.001; rdiff=0.80, P<0.001), defensive pessimists (reasy=0.82, P<0.001; rdiff=0.79, P<0.001), and real pessimists (reasy=0.54, P<0.01; rdiff=0.65, P<0.001). z-Score transformations indicated the defensive pessimists displayed a trend for a significantly higher relationship between predicted and actual precompetition anxiety than the real pessimists, z=1.67, P<0.10. No other correlations differed (all zs⩽1.30). Comparisons of recalled optimal precompetition values revealed a similar trend with the optimists (M=38.83, S.D.=11.12) exhibiting significantly lower optimal values than the real pessimists (M=46.42, S.D.=12.91), t (54)=2.36, P<0.05, and a trend to exhibit lower values than the defensive pessimists (M=45.00, S.D.=13.28), t (46)=1.73, P<0.10, which themselves did not differ, t (42) < 1.00. It is also interesting to note that in the 2 (meet) × 2 (gender) × 3 (optimist group) mixed ANOVA, whereas the effect for optimism was significant, as indicated above, the gender differences observed for the entire sample became negligible, F (1, 68) < 1.00 (see Table 1). Moreover, females who were optimists had lower predicted and actual competition anxiety values compared to males that were defensive or real pessimists, F (1, 31)=5.85, P<0.05. This is also true for male optimists compared to female defensive pessimists and real pessimists, F (1, 39)=10.87, P<0.01. Hence, personality and not gender was the best predictor of anxiety. Table 1. Cognitive orientation by gender for predicted, precompetition and recalled anxiety Easy meet Difficult meet Recalled best Predicted Actual Predicted Actual Optimistic Female 38.93 36.29 43.65 39.79 37.64 (12.01) (11.58) (10.87) (12.81) (13.55) Male 38.00 36.19 40.81 40.13 39.88 (6.08) (5.50) (7.49) (7.86) (8.82) Defensive pessimist Female 41.38 40.25 47.75 45.38 46.25 (13.84) (11.20) (11.63) (13.20) (13.00) Male 43.20 45.10 48.90 45.00 44.00 (9.45) (9.27) (9.06) (10.25) (14.09) Real pessimist Female 51.12 46.59 53.35 53.53 48.76 (14.40) (13.01) (11.44) (9.35) (14.14) Male 48.22 46.89 48.44 49.56 42.00 (4.97) (5.40) (11.25) (8.29) (9.34) Table options 3.3. Performance and cognitive orientation style The comparison between performance and cognitive orientation style was based on each athlete's performance in terms of percentage of the NCAA qualifying standard for their specific event. The NCAA qualifying standard is a performance standard that athletes must meet or exceed in order to advance to the NCAA Championship Competition for a specific event. For example, in 1998 the NCAA qualifying standard for the 400 m sprint was 52.0 s for females. If a female sprinter ran 54.0 s for this event, her time was converted to 93% of the NCAA standard. Through this method, it was found that the defensive pessimist group achieved the highest mean performance, with a season's best performance averaging 91.2% (S.D.=7.2) of the NCAA qualification standard. This was closely approximated by the optimistic athletes, who had a season best average of 90.5% (S.D.=8.3) of the NCAA qualifying standard. Athletes grouped as real pessimists achieved the lowest rate of success, performing at a season average of 88.4% (S.D.=5.7) of the NCAA qualifying standard. However, analysis via one-way ANOVA revealed no (P<0.05) significant differences among the groups in terms of best performance means.