1. Effects of Anxiety on Sport Performance October 3, 2002

2. Significant Theories Drive Theory (Hull) Inverted-U (Yerkes & Dodson) Catastrophe ( Hardy & Fazey ) Multidimensional Anxiety (Martens, Burton, & Vealey) Zone of Optimal Functioning (Hanin) Flow State (Csikszentmihalyi)

3. Drive Theory (Hull, 1943) Most simplistic of the theories P = f(H, D) H = Dominant response D = Arousal level (drive)

4. Drive Theory Increased arousal (drive) will elicit the dominant response Response associate with strongest potential to respond is the dominant response

5. Drive Theory Early in learning, or for complex tasks, dominant response is the incorrect response Late in learning, or for simple tasks, dominant response is the correct response

6. Drive Theory - Problems No predictive ability Too simplistic No consideration of skill type (gross vs. fine) Differentiation between anxiety & arousal?

7. Multidimensional Anxiety Theory (Martens, Burton, Vealey, 1990) Focus on anxiety, not just arousal Distinction between cognitive & somatic anxiety Cognitive anxiety always detrimental to performance Somatic - beneficial OR detrimental Depends upon person

8. Inverted-U (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908) Arousal/performance relationship is curvilinear Arousal level for maximal performance varies:  Task complexity  # of decisions/responses increases

9. Inverted-U theory Simpler tasks can be performed successfully under higher arousal levels than complex (examples?) Importance of performer’s skill level Klavora (1977); Sonstroem & Bernardo (1982)

10. Inverted-U: Problems Inability to precisely measure arousal Equates anxiety with arousal Circular reasoning Overly simplistic WHY?? Measurement issues: How much can arousal levels be increased--legally & ethically?

11. Catastrophe Theory (Hardy & Fazey, 1987) Questions idea that small changes to arousal = small changes in perf. If anxiety/arousal reach debilitating levels, catastrophic results may occur (Greg Norman) Cognitive vs. somatic anxiety differences

12. Catastrophe Theory Cognitive anxiety is low, somatic & performance follow inverted-U Cognitive anxiety high, somatic & performance are inverted-U to a point What happens after the “catastrophe”?

13. Catastrophe Theory Research is supportive of this relationship, however… Testing is difficult Predictions?

14. ZOF (Hanin, 1980) Individual’s optimal pre-competition psychological profile in relation to anxiety Too far from optimal = lower performance Equivalent of individual’s optimal state anxiety score +/-.5 standard deviations (CSAI) Weaker opponents?

15. ZOF Each athlete has individual ZOF Bandwidth of optimal function Situational or personal factors (task type/athletic experience) cannot predict optimal zone Cognitive anxiety or physiological ?

16. ZOF Research generally supports Better predictor than inverted-U Problems  No explanation of how ZOF develops  Why are best performances more likely in optimal zone?

17. State of Flow (Csikszentmihalyi) “Flow is a state of optimal experiencing involving total absorption in a task, and creating a state of consciousness where optimal levels of functioning often occur” (Jackson, 1995, p. 138) Autotelic experience - an activity performed because it is it’s own reward

18. Defining Characteristics of Flow Requirement of skill/challenge balance Merging of action/awareness Clearly defined goals Clear, unambiguous feedback Total concentration on skill being performed

19. Defining Characteristics of Flow Paradox of control Loss of self-awareness Loss of time awareness Autotelic experience Combination of emotional high and personal best performance

20. Flow - Skill & Challenge Relationship Flow = skilled but challenged Anxiety = challenged, but fears level of skills Apathy = low skill level, low challenge Boredom = skilled, but unchallenging

21. Can Anxiety Benefit Performance? Most research suggests anxiety is detrimental to performance Labeling of info is important Muscle tension = preparedness? “Concern about performing well”? Imprecise measurement of what anxiety is for athletes