Sport can be characterized as an environment where physical activities can be developed. Participation in athletic activities is accompanied with an increasing anxiety. This leads to young or beginner players not performing according to their potentialities (Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996; Orlick & Partington, 1988). The anxiety refers to situations of emotional arousal and intensity.
The
personal perception of anxiety is usually assessed by self-report
questionnaires. One specialized sport related questionnaire is that
of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). The CSAI-2 is
used to assess somatic, cognitive anxiety, and self-confidence
(Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1990). Cognitive anxiety
is defined as the concern, the perception of unpleasant feelings
related to the athletic performance and the inability to concentrate
(Borkovec, 1976). The term somatic anxiety refers to physiological
and emotional factors resulting from the activation of the autonomic
nervous system (ANS) and the experiencing of unpleasant emotions,
manifested by increased heart rate, extra muscle tension, tightness
in the stomach, sweaty palms, etc. (Morris et al., 1981;
Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990). Self-confidence is a realistic
expectation of athletes that can succeed, it is the belief in
themselves and in their strengths (Martens, 1987).
By
using the CSAI-2, Burton (1988) proved that cognitive anxiety has a
negative linear relationship with performance. Klein (1990) by using
the technique of meta-analysis concluded that the negative
relationship of anxiety and performance is: a) stronger in female
athletes than in male athletes, b) stronger in young athletes than in
older athletes, c) stronger in low- level athletes and d) stronger in
team than in individual sports. On the other hand self-confidence
shows a positive linear relationship, while the relationship between
somatic anxiety and performance has the shape of an inverted U.
However, the above findings of Burton (1988), were not fully
confirmed by further researches
that followed (Craft, Magyar, Becker, & Feltz, 2003; Woodman &
Hardy, 2003).
The purpose of
this study was to investigate athletes' pre competitive anxiety in
the category of young handball athletes, and possible differences in
relation to their performance (winner, loser and draw).
Methology
Sample
The sample consisted of 264 athletes (male, n
= 125; female, n
= 139). Their age ranged from 13-16 years (M
= 15.83, SD
= .92). All participated in the National Handball Championship
2008-09.
Process
In
order to carry out the research, permission was first asked from the
organizing committee of the league. The consent of the coaches of
teams participating in the league was also given. The questionnaires
were completed voluntarily half an hour before the start of the game.
Measurement
For data collection the questionnaire of competitive state
anxiety inventory (CSAI-2; Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, &
Smith, 1990) was used, which was modified for the Greek population by
Kakkos, Zervas, and Psychountaki (1998). This questionnaire measures
cognitive anxiety (5 items), somatic anxiety (5 items) and
self-confidence (5 items), it also measures the direction and
intensity of the above symptoms (15 items) .The participants were
also asked how they usually feel before the match. The answers were
given on a 4- point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very
much) referring to the extent the symptoms appeared. The extent to
which each answer, on a scale of intensity, was evaluated as
facilitative or inhibitory for the performance was also recorded in a
7-point scale.
Statistical Analysis
The
statistical package SPSS 10.1 was used for the statistical analysis
of the data. Descriptive statistical analysis was used to find means
and standard deviations of all players to test differences between
dependent and independent variables used in multivariate analysis.
Results
The
descriptive statistics and Cronbach's alpha coefficients are
presented in Table 1. Generally, male and female athletes reported
that they had high scores in cognitive anxiety, moderate in somatic
anxiety and high in self-confidence. Regarding the direction of the
intensity symptoms, the results showed that the direction of
cognitive and somatic anxiety does not affect the performance,
whereas the direction of self-confidence plays a facilitative role
during the performance.
Table 1.
Descriptive statistic and alpha coefficients
Variables Anxiety |
M |
SD |
Cronbach’s alpha |
1. Cognitive |
2.55 |
.68 |
.83 |
2. Somatic |
2.02 |
.67 |
.81 |
3. Self-confidence |
2.78 |
.66 |
.91 |
4. Direction cognitive |
3.56 |
.89 |
.80 |
5. Direction somatic |
3.88 |
.78 |
.86 |
6. Direction self-confid. |
4.92 |
1,11 |
.91 |
Differences
between pre-competitive anxiety and performance.
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted in
order to examine the effect of performance on the dimensions of
pre-competitive anxiety (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). A one-way
multivariate analysis of variance was performed by using six scales
of anxiety (cognitive, somatic, self-confidence, direction of
cognitive, direction of somatic, direction of self-confidence) as
dependent variables and performance as an independent variable. The
results revealed a significant multivariate effect of performance
(Wilks' lambda = .778, F
(6, 12) = 5.7, p
<.001).
Sequentialies
univariate analysis showed that performance was significantly varied
in cognitive anxiety F
(2, 264) = 23.79, p
<.001, somatic anxiety F
(2, 264) = 6.33, p
<.001, and self-confidence F
(2, 264 ) = 7,97, p
<.001. Similar significant differences were found in the direction
of cognitive anxiety F
(2, 264) = 11.14, p
<.001, somatic anxiety F
(2, 264) = 10.64, p
<.001 and self-confidence F
(2, 264) = 8.60, p
<.001.
Tukey's multiple
comparison procedure was used to identify the group mean differences
(Table 2). The findings showed an important statistical difference
between winners and losers; winners have lower scores of cognitive
anxiety in contrast to losers and draw who showed a higher score.
Similarly, in somatic anxiety winners seem to have statistically
significant low scores in comparison to losers and draw. As for the
self-confidence of the male/ female players, there is also a
statistically significant difference between winners and losers,
where winners have higher scores. Also regarding the directions of
cognitive, somatic anxiety and self-confidence, winners in comparison
to losers and draw showed a statistically significant difference. The
direction of self-confidence has a facilitative effect on winners’
performance during the match. In contrast, loser and draw have high
scores of cognitive and somatic anxiety which, as a result impedes
their performance.
Table 2. Descriptive statistic variables of Anxiety concerning with performance
Variables Anxiety |
Performance |
N |
M |
SD |
Significant |
Cognitive |
1. Winner |
115 |
2.25 |
.61 |
1 & 2 p < .001 |
|
2. Loser |
83 |
2.84 |
.67 |
1 & 3 p < .001 |
|
3. Draw |
66 |
2.70 |
.62 |
2 & 3 p < .05 |
Somatic |
1. Winner |
115 |
1.86 |
.58 |
1 & 2 p < .001 |
|
2. Loser |
83 |
2.17 |
.68 |
1 & 3 p < .001 |
|
3. Draw |
66 |
2.14 |
.77 |
2 & 3 p < .05 |
Self confidence |
1. Winner |
115 |
2.96 |
.67 |
1 & 2 p < .001 |
|
2. Loser |
83 |
2.67 |
.68 |
1 & 3 p < .001 |
|
3. Draw |
66 |
2.60 |
.63 |
2 & 3 p < .05 |
Dir. cognitive |
1. Winner |
115 |
3.84 |
.87 |
1 & 2 p < .001 |
|
2. Loser |
83 |
3.28 |
.88 |
1 & 3 p < .001 |
|
3. Draw |
66 |
3.44 |
.84 |
2 & 3 p < .05 |
Dir. somatic |
1. Winner |
115 |
4.12 |
.74 |
1 & 2 p < .001 |
|
2. Loser |
83 |
3.64 |
.78 |
1 & 3 p < .001 |
|
3. Draw |
66 |
3.77 |
.79 |
2 & 3 p < .05 |
Dir. Self confidence |
1. Winner |
115 |
5.24 |
1.07 |
1 & 2 p < .001 |
|
2. Loser |
83 |
4.69 |
1.12 |
1 & 3 p < .001 |
|
3. Draw |
66 |
4.66 |
1.07 |
2 & 3 p < .05 |
Discussion
The
purpose of this study was to assess the pre-competitive anxiety of
male/female athletes before the start of the match concerning their
performance (winners-losers-draw)
As far as the results from
the use of the questionnaire of CSAI-2 are concerned, the athletes of
the sample showed satisfactory averages of self-confidence in a
4-point scale, also in a 7-point scale, the direction of
self-confidence seems to play a facilitative role on their
performance during the match. According to the results both cognitive
and somatic anxieties were in relatively moderate level, and their
direction does not seem to have any impact on performance, or at
least to impede the performance of athletes. Kais and Raudsepp
(2005), having examined the relationship between the intensity and
direction of pre-competitive anxiety of twelve basketball athletes
and twelve volleyball athletes, found similar moderate levels of
cognitive and somatic anxiety, high levels of self-confidence and
only the intensity of cognitive anxiety could be interpreted as
facilitative factor to the performance of athletes. Swain and Jones
(1993), mentioned that cognitive and somatic anxiety increased
significantly for both men and women as the match was about to begin.
Adversely, Klein (1990), argued that the negative relationship
between anxiety and performance is: a) stronger in female athletes
than in male athletes, b) stronger in young male/female athletes than
in older ages, c) stronger in low-level male/female athletes and d)
stronger in team sport than in individual one.
Regarding the
results of the survey in relation to the winners and losers, winners
have lower scores on cognitive anxiety than the losers and draw.
Also, the direction of cognitive anxiety seems to have a facilitative
effect on winners in contrast to losers and draw, where it impedes
their performance. The results of this study contradict the study of
Cox (1994), which was conducted among basketball players and its
results suggest that cognitive anxiety, even if at low levels,
affects performance negatively. However, the present results are
similar to those of a Covassin and Pero survey (2004), conducted
among 24 college tennis players. They found that winners had
significantly lower scores of cognitive and somatic anxiety and high
self-esteem in relation to losers. Moreover, they found that athletes
who had high self-esteem tended to stay more calm and relaxed under
pressure conditions, without being influenced by negative emotions.
In
the results of this research regarding self-confidence it was found
that winners had higher scores on self-confidence, compared to losers
and draw. Similarly, in the direction of self-confidence winners in
the match had relatively high scores, where self-confidence seems to
have a facilitative effect on the performance in comparison to losers
who appear to be unaffected. Perry and Williams (1998), in their
research examined the intensity of anxiety and self-confidence acting
as a facilitator or a constraint on performance. The sample consisted
of 3 groups of tennis players. Specifically, those groups were
divided into three levels, high (winners), medium (draw) and low
(losers). CSAI-2 was used as a measuring instrument. As far as
somatic anxiety is concerned they found no statistically significant
difference, but the low level sample showed low scores of cognitive
anxiety and players of high level had high self-esteem scores with a
facilitative direction during their performance. Similarly, Jones and
Hanton (2001), in their research
with a sample of 190 swimmers, supported that for those who had
higher averages of self confidence, the direction showed it acted as
a facilitator on their performance during the match. Moreover, other
similar studies such as those of Jones and Hardy (1990), and Hemery
(1986), stressed the importance of self-confidence in elite athletes.
Similar results are found by Reilly, Williams, Nevill and Franks
(2000) in a research with a sample of 31 athletes age of 15 to 16
years so as to set talent in football. In particular, the elite
athletes showed high levels of self-confidence, concentration, and
perceived anxiety as a positive factor.
The results of
the present study also showed that the winners had less somatic
anxiety than losers and draw. Likewise, the direction of somatic
anxiety for winners had a facilitative effect compared with the
losers and draw. These results are supported by the survey of
Filaire, Alix, Ferrand and Verger (2008), who examined the
physiopsychologic profile of 16 tennis players (8 men, 8 women)
during their first tournament. CSAI-2 was used as a measuring
instrument, including the intensity and the direction of their
abilities. The results showed a statistically significant difference
between women who had higher somatic anxiety scores and men who had
higher scores in self-confidence. The winners were found to have
statistically lower levels of cognitive anxiety and higher
self-confidence scores than losers, who had statistically higher
somatic anxiety which impeded their performance. Similarly, a survey
of Jones, Hanton and Swain (1994) examined the directions of symptoms
of anxiety and of their performance. The sample consisted of 97 high
level swimming athletes (elite) and 114 lower level swimming athletes
(non-elite). No statistically significant difference between the two
groups regarding the intensity of cognitive and somatic anxiety was
found. However, elite athletes expressed that they consider anxiety
as a facilitative factor for their performance. Further analysis
showed that performance of non-elite athletes was impeded by their
anxiety.
In conclusion, in order to improve the performance
of athletes, psychological support to young handball players during
the training process should be taken seriously into consideration. A
study of athletes' competitive emotional state before and during the
game is crucial for the performance; there should be special
psychological programs which can contribute to the high efficiency of
athletes.
Further research
is needed to be done so as to generalize the results regarding Greek
handball.
References
Craft, L., Magyar, T., Becker, B., & Feltz, D. (2003). The relationship between the competitive state anxiety inventory-2 and sport performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 44-65.
Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport: Theory and practice of elite performers. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Jones, G., & Swain, A. (1992). Intensity and direction as dimensions of competitive state anxiety and relationship with competitiveness. Department of Physical Education, 74(2), 467-472.
Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Swain, A.B.J. (1994). Intensity and interpretation of anxiety symptoms in elite and non-elite sports performers. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 657–663.
Klein, D. (1990). Anxiety and sport performance: A meta-analysis. Anxiety Research, 2, 113-131.
Kristjan, K., & Lennart, R., (2005). Intensity and direction of competitive state anxiety, self-confidence and performance. Kinesiology, 37(1), 13-20.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R., Bump, L., & Smith, D. (1990). The competitive state anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). In R. Martens, R.S. Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive anxiety in sport (pp. 117-190). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Martens, R., Vealey, R., & Burton, D. (1990). Competitive anxiety in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Mοrris, L., Davis, Μ., & Ηutchings, C. (1981). Cognitive and emotional components οf anxiety: Literature review and a revised Worry-Εmοtionality Scale. Journal of Educational Ρsychοlοgy, 73, 541-555.
Orlick, T., & Partington, J. (1988). Mental links to excellence. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 105-130.
Tabashnick, L.S., & Fidell, B.G. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Woodman, T., & Hardy, L. (2003). The relative impact of cognitive anxiety and self-confidence upon sport performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 443-457.
Zervas Y., Ekkekakis P., Psychoudaki M., Kakkos V. (1993). Adaptation to Profile of Mood States (Schacham,1983). Unpublished paper. Department of Physical Education & Sport Sciences. University of Athens.