Individual differences, perceived control and competitive trait anxiety.

Hanton, Sheldon ; O'Brien, Michael ; Mellalieu, Stephen D. 等

Interpretations of symptoms associated with multidimensional competitive anxiety experienced by athletes have received considerable attention in the recent sport psychology literature. 'Directional Perceptions' refer to the extent to which individuals interpret the intensity of symptoms associated with pre-competition anxiety as either facilitating or debilitating to performance (Jones, 1995). A large body of research has subsequently examined performers' interpretations of symptoms associated with competitive anxiety as a function of both situational and individual difference variables including performance (Jones, Swain, & Hardy, 1993; Swain & Jones, 1996); competitive orientation (Jones & Swain, 1992); gender differences (Perry & Williams, 1998); the antecedents of competitive anxiety (Hanton & Jones, 1997); the temporal patterning of the anxiety response (Wiggins, 1998); the nature of the sport (Hanton, Jones, & Mullen, 2000) the use of psychological skills (Fletcher & Hanton, 2001); and, hardiness (Hanto n, Evans & Neil, in press). Collectively these studies support the value of distinguishing between the intensity and direction of symptoms associated with competitive anxiety. Despite some conceptual concerns (cf., Burton & Naylor, 1997) the literature also suggests that 'direction' may be more sensitive variable in distinguishing between group differences when compared with the intensity of the response (Jones & Hanton, 2001; Mellalieu, Hanton, & Jones, in press; Swain & Jones, 1996).

An important source of discrepancy in the underlying mechanisms of directional interpretations is the notion of perceptions of control. Performers who have least confidence in their ability to control themselves and the environment in order to achieve their goals are suggested to experience debilitative symptoms associated with competitive anxiety (Borkovec, Metzger, & Prusinsky, 1986; Carver & Scheier, 1986, 1988; Jones & Hanton, 1996). Based upon the work of Carver and Scheier (1986, 1988) and other researchers in the test anxiety literature (Borkovec et al., 1986; Rich & Woolever, 1988) the concepts of perceptions of control and anxiety direction were adapted by Jones (1995) to the motor performance domain with a proposed control model of debilitative and facilitative competitive anxiety. Jones' (1995) control model is broadly conceptualized as the cognitive appraisal of the degree of control the performer is able to exert over both the environment and the self. Performers who perceive themselves as being in control and able to cope with their anxiety and achieve their goals are predicted to interpret symptoms associated with competitive anxiety as facilitative while those who perceive themselves not in control, and possess negative expectancies regarding goal attainment, are predicted to interpret symptoms as debilitative (Jones, 1995). Preliminary support for the model's predictions has subsequently been provided in both empirical and qualitative investigations (Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Jones & Hanton, 1996; Ntoumanis & Jones, 1998).

A central tenant of the control model concerns goal setting and athletes' expectations of achieving these goals in a competitive environment. In Jones' model the link between different goal type (i.e., outcome, performance, and process) and interpretation of symptoms (i.e., debilitative or facilitative) lies in the degree of(perceived) control the performer is able to exert over goal achievement (Jones, 1995). Despite a relationship between goal type and the intensity of anxiety symptoms having been established (cf., Burton, 1988) only Jones and Hanton (1996) have examined anxiety direction as a function of goal expectation. Indeed, Jones and Hanton (1996) suggested that future research should examine the generalizability of their findings and determine if perceptions of control over goal attainment differ as a function of the sporting environment. Specifically, an open skilled team sport, in which the outcome is the product of interactive performances in a frequently changing environment, represents a differ ent context where the nature of the goals set and the perceptions of control may differ from those of an individual, closed skill sport environment examined by Jones and Hanton (1996).

Other key individual difference variables highlighted as influencing the direction of the competitive anxiety response include the skill level of the performer and the level of self-confidence experienced. For example, investigations have shown that while elite and nonelite performers do not differ between the intensity of symptoms experienced, elite performers report significantly more facilitative interpretations of symptoms associated with competitive anxiety that their nonelite counterparts (Jones, Hanton, & Swain, 1994; Jones & Swain, 1995; Perry & Williams, 1998). Support for self-confidence as a key variable in the experience of anxiety direction can be found in several investigations that have consistently observed 'facilitators' to report higher levels of self-confidence than their debilitating counterparts (e.g., Jones, Hanton, & Swain, 1994; Jones & Swain, 1995). Self-confidence has also been observed to correlate more strongly with performers' directional interpretations of their cognitive and som atic symptoms than with the intensity of these responses (Jones, Swain, & Hardy, 1993). In a recent qualitative study by Hanton, Mellalieu, and Hall (2002a) changes in anxiety levels during the pre-competition period, if associated with high levels of self-confidence, were reported to lead to positive perceptions of control and facilitating interpretations. Similarly, low confidence and increased anxiety symptoms were associated with poor perceptions of control and debilitative interpretations of symptoms associated with competitive anxiety.

Although the importance of individual differences within Jones' model, such as the nature of the sporting environment, has been highlighted by a number of publications it has also been suggested that the study of the interaction (not solely main effects) between individual differences and different stressors (e.g., sport type) within the models framework are critical to its development (Jones, 1995; Jones & Hanton, 1996). While skill level and self-confidence have been highlighted as key variables in understanding the concept of control and anxiety interpretation, neither variable has been incorporated and tested directly within Jones' (1995) conceptual framework. Further explanation for the underlying mechanisms of Jones' model of control may also come from an understanding of athletes' predispositions to interpret and experience anxiety symptoms in a specific direction (Jones & Hanton, 2001; Jones & Swain, 1995; Hanton, Mellalieu, & Hall, 2002b; Perry & Williams, 1998). From an applied and theoretical persp ective an understanding of athletes' dispositional traits is important in order to aid the practitioner to assess the client away from the competitive environment in a manner which is relatively unobtrusive, quick and effective (cf., Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996; Jones & Hanton, 2001; Hanton et al., 2002b).

In summary, there are several areas in the understanding of the underlying mechanisms of directional perceptions of symptoms associated with competitive anxiety that require consideration. First, potential moderating anxiety-direction variables such as skill level and the sporting environment have only been studied in isolation, without examination of the potential influence of the interaction of such situation and individual difference variables. Second, while self-confidence has been highlighted as a potential moderator of anxiety direction (cf., Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Hanton et al., 2002a) this concept has not been directly investigated in Jones' (1995) proposed model. Finally, the predictions of Jones' (1995) proposed model of control have not been fully examined in a trait context. In light of these considerations the aim of the current investigation was to test the predictions of Jones' (1995) control model of debilitative and facilitative competitive state anxiety in a trait context in an open-ski lled sport and examine the influence of self-confidence and skill level. Based upon Jones' (1995) control model it was predicted that elite performers with positive expectations over goal achievement would not differ on the intensity of anxiety symptoms but would report greater perceptions of control and experience more facilitative interpretations of symptoms associated with competitive anxiety compared to nonelite performers with negative goal expectancies. In line with the findings of Jones and Hanton (1996) and Hanton et al. (2002a) it was also proposed that interpretation of anxiety symptoms would differ as a function of goal expectation and level of self-confidence. Performers experiencing greater self-confidence and perceptions of control over goal attainment would experience more facilitative interpretations of their symptoms associated with competitive anxiety than those performers with lower self-confidence and lesser perceptions of control over goal attainment.

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 233) comprised male (n = 141) and female (n = 92) competitive athletes of elite (n = 90) and nonelite (n = 143) status from a number of open skilled sports including cricket (n = 71), rugby union (n = 87), and soccer (n = 75) with ages ranging from 19 to 34 (M = 23.56, SD = 6.38) years. The sports were selected on the basis that they were representative of open skilled activities with outcomes that were a product of interactive performance in a constantly changing and unstable environment. This conceptual framework was deemed important, as the nature of the situation is a key variable in relation to the control model of competitive anxiety and the concept of perception of control (cf., Hanton et al., 2000). In order to obtain an appropriate sample size, participants were approached at random from numerous teams and institutions. Skill level (elite versus nonelite) was based upon previous classifications established on the basis of current performance level (e.g., Hanton & Connaughton, 2002). The criterion for elite was that participants had competed internationally at major championships, such as the Olympic Games, European Championships, and World Championships. The nonelite criteria defined that individuals could range from County to District standards (equivalent to 'State' honors) but not exceed National standards.

Instrumentation

Modified Version of the C TA 1-2. A modified version of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2; Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1990) was employed to measure trait cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence. Although essentially a measure of state anxiety, the CSAI-2 test instructions have been successfully modified by previous researchers (i.e., Jones & Swain, 1995; Hanton et al., 2002b). Each item is converted in terms of how the participant usually feels so that a general or trait measure is created, the modified version of the Competitive Trait Anxiety Inventory-2 (CTAI-2). Similar procedures have been effectively employed by a number of other developers of state-trait measures (e.g., McNair, Lorr, & Dropleman, 1971; Vealey, 1986). The CTAI-2 comprises 27 items, with nine items in each subscale. The response scale had participants rate how the intensity of each symptom was generally experienced on a scale of 1 ("not at all") to 4 ("very much so"), resulting in scores rangin g from 9 to 36 for each subscale. Internal consistency for the scale has been reported with coefficients of .78, .84, and .84 for cognitive anxiety intensity, somatic anxiety intensity, and self-confidence intensity respectively (Perry & Williams, 1998). In addition, a direction scale developed by Jones and Swain (1992) was included for the cognitive and somatic anxiety items in which each participant rated the degree to which the experienced intensity of each symptom was either facilitative or debilitative to performance on a scale from -3 ("very debilitative") to +3 ("very facilitative"). Thus, possible direction scores on each subscale ranged from -27 to +27, where a positive score represented a state of facilitation, and a negative one debilitation, and a score of zero as an interpretation that intensity levels were unimportant to performance. Internal consistency for the direction scale has been reported with coefficients ranging between .79 and .85 for cognitive anxiety direction and between .73 and .83 for somatic anxiety direction (Jones & Hanton, 2001; Perry & Williams, 1998).

Trait Goal Attainment Expectancy Scale (GAS). The GAS was used to measure participants' general (trait) expectancies (positive or negative and uncertain) of goal attainment. Participants were provided with written instructions as follows:

"Goal setting is all about setting targets for performance. There are essentially three types of goals that performers may set themselves for a match or competition. These are: (1) outcome goals (e.g., beating an opponent); (2) performance goals (e.g., the amount of points you aim to score in a match); (3) process goals (e.g., concentrating on specific aspects of your technique for a given skill). For this study refer to the goals that you would normally set for an important match. Please note that it is possible to set more than one type of goal".

In addition the GAS, originally developed by Jones and Hanton (1996), was revised and applied to each sport type identified with examples of each goal classification relative to the activity highlighted. The scale was divided into three sections asking participants about outcome, performance and process goals. Within each section, participants were asked to specify the goal (if applicable) they may set for an important match or competition. For each goal set, participants would respond to the question, "To what extent do you think you will achieve the goal?". The response scale ranged from -4("definitely no") to +4 ("definitely yes"), with the midpoint of 0 representing uncertain.

Procedure

Participants were randomly approached and asked to participate in the study where details of their required involvement were given. In addition, permission was sought and granted from the relevant coaches and organizers of the respective performers (where appropriate) to involve the participants. Specific verbal and written instructions regarding the content of the questionnaires or scales were then provided. Participants completed CTAI-2 and GAS scales away from the competitive environment in order to avoid any contextual influences (e.g., audience effects). Before completing responses, performers were presented with respective anti-social desirability instructions based upon the recommendations of Martens et al. (1990). These directions emphasized the confidentiality of the responses at an individual level, the need for honesty, and an indication of the thoughts and feelings the performer would usually experience just prior to competing in an important competition.

Data Analysis

Employing a moderate effect size, the sample size used gave a statistical power that exceeded the required value of .80 (Cohen, 1988). Data analysis was then divided into four stages. First, data screening procedures were conducted to investigate the accuracy of the data and measure the influence of any potential covariates such as gender, age, or sport type, as highlighted in previous anxiety-direction studies (e.g., Hanton, et al., 2000; Perry & Williams, 1998). Second, internal consistencies and correlations were calculated for this sample. Stage three of the analysis adopted procedures conducted by Jones and Hanton (1996) whereby elite and nonelite participants were divided into negative and uncertain or positive groups based on their expectancies of goal attainment. Only participants who set all three types of goal were included with participants who responded with a positive score to the question, "To what extent do you think you will achieve the goal?" made up the positive group, and those with a nega tive score and a score of 0 made up the negative and uncertain group. These groups were created for each of the outcome, performance, and process goals. Three separate two-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) within each of the three goal types were then conducted with competitive trait anxiety intensity and direction scores as the dependent variables and goal expectancy (negative and uncertain or positive) and skill level (elite or nonelite) as the independent variables. Finally, follow up univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted in the cases of any significant MANOVA effects.

Results

Preliminary Data Analysis

Participants' scores on the CTAI-2 were examined for accuracy of data entry, missing values and fit between their distribution and the assumptions of multivariate analysis. No missing values were recorded and there were no univariate or multivariate within-cell outliers at p = .001. In accordance with recommendations of Tabachnick and Fidell (1996), the assumptions of normality, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices (F (3, 63612) = 1.31, p > .05), linearity, and multicollinearity were also observed to be satisfactory. Additional analyses were performed to measure the influence of any potential covariates. In accordance with the previous direction literature (e.g., Jones & Hanton, 2001; Mellalieu et al., in press) separate one-way MANOVAs were then conducted to determine the possible effects of age, sport type and gender on the modified CSAI-2 scores with each covariate group acting as the independent variable and CSAI-2 intensity and direction, and trait and state subscale scores acting as the dependen t variables. Non-significant effects were observed for gender, sport type, and age (p > .05).

Internal consistency analyses were conducted on the trait CSAI-2 direction subscales with coefficients of .81 (p < 0.01) for cognitive anxiety direction and .79 (p < 0.01) for somatic anxiety direction respectively. These values were similar to results previously reported (Mellalieu, et al., in press; Perry & Williams, 1998). A correlation coefficient of .44 (p < 0.01) was observed between scores for cognitive and somatic anxiety intensity, representing less than 19.4% common variance. Correlations between cognitive anxiety intensity and direction and somatic anxiety and direction scores were -.23 (p < 0.05) and -.21 (p < 0.05) respectively, representing less than 5.3% common variance. These findings further support the multidimensional nature of cognitive and somatic anxiety components, and the separate measurement of intensity and direction dimensions of the response (Jones & Hanton, 2001).

Competitive Trait Anxiety Scores as a Function of Goal Expectation and Skill Level Outcome Goals

For outcome goals 143 participants (75 elite; 68 nonelite) had positive expectations and 90 (15 elite; 75 nonelite) reported negative or uncertain attainment expectations. Two-way MANOVA (skill x goal attainment expectation) revealed significant main effects for skill (Wilk's lambda = 0.68, F (5, 225) = 20.71, p < .01, ES = .21) and goal attainment expectation (Wilk's lambda = 0.58, F(5, 225) = 33.13, p <.01, ES = .34) with a significant interaction for skill and goal attainment expectations (Wilk's lambda = 0.92, F (5,225) = 4.12, p <.01, ES = .45). Follow-up ANOVAs indicated significant skill level effects for cognitive anxiety intensity (p < .01, ES = .04) and direction (p < .01, ES = .05), somatic anxiety direction (p < .01, ES = .10) and self-confidence (p < .01, ES = .21). For goal attainment significant effects for cognitive anxiety direction (p < .01, ES = .31), somatic anxiety direction (p < .01, ES = .17) and self-confidence intensity (p < .01, ES = .21) were observed. Significant interaction effect s were found for cognitive anxiety direction (p < .05, ES = .02) and self-confidence (p < .01, ES = .04). Means, standard deviations and F ratios for the two-way univariate analyses for outcome goals are presented in Table 1. Scheffe tests revealed that the elite positive group reported greater interpretations of cognitive anxiety symptoms than the nonelite positive group (p <.01). Both groups also demonstrated significantly greater directional interpretations of cognitive anxiety symptoms than the elite negative and nonelite negative groups (p < .01). The elite positive group reported greater self-confidence than the remaining three groups (p <.01) while the elite negative and nonelite positive groups reported greater levels of self-confidence than the nonelite negative group (p < .05).

Performance Goals

A total of 148 (72 elite; 76 nonelite) participants reported positive attainment expectations regarding performance goals and 85 (18 elite; 67 nonelite) had negative or uncertain expectations. The second two-way MANOVA (skill x goal attainment expectation) revealed significant main effects for skill (Wilk's lambda 0.69, F(5, 225) = 20.18, p<.01, ES = .27) and goal attainment expectation (Wilk's lambda = 0.58, F(5, 225) = 33.14, p<.01,, ES = .43) with a significant interaction for skill and goal attainment expectations (Wilk's lambda = 0.93, F(5,225) = 3.63, p<.01, ES = .36). Follow-up ANOVAs indicated significant skill level effects for cognitive anxiety intensity (p<.001, ES = .05) and direction (p<.001, ES = .08), somatic anxiety direction (p<.00, ES = .11) and self-confidence (p<.00, ES = .16). For goal attainment significant effects for cognitive (p<.01, ES = .29) and somatic anxiety direction (p<.01, ES = .17) and self-confidence intensity (p<.01, ES = .21) were observed. Significant interaction effects were only found for self-confidence (p <.01, ES .23). Means, standard deviations and F ratios for the two-way univariate analyses for performance goals are presented in Table 2. Scheffe tests revealed that the elite positive group had greater self-confidence levels than the other three groups (p <.01). A similar effect was between the nonelite positive group and the nonelite negative group (p <.01).

Process Goals

Positive process goal attainment expectancies were reported by 147 (72 elite; 75 nonelite) participants with 86 (18 elite; 68 nonelite) identifying negative or uncertain expectations. The final two-way direction MANOVA revealed significant main effects for skill (Wilk's lambda 0.67, F (5,225) = 21.95, p <.01, ES = .31) and goal attainment expectation (Wilk's lambda 0.54, F (5, 225) = 39.02, p <.01, ES = 48) with a significant interaction for skill and goal attainment expectation (Wilk's lambda = 0.94, F (5,225) = 2.87, p <.05, ES .25). Follow-up ANOVAs indicated significant skill level effects for cognitive anxiety intensity (p <.01, ES .06) and direction (p <.01, ES .08), somatic anxiety direction (p <.01, ES .12) and self-confidence (p <.00, ES = .17). For goal attainment significant effects for cognitive (p <.01, ES .36) and somatic anxiety direction (p <.01, ES= .17) and self-confidence intensity (p < .01, ES= .26) were observed. Significant interaction effects were only found for self-confidence (p < .0 1, ES= .28). Means, standard deviations and F ratios for the two-way univariate analyses for process goals are presented in Table 3. Scheffe tests revealed that the elite positive group had greater self-confidence levels than the other three groups (p < .01). A similar effect was between the nonelite positive group and the nonelite negative group (p < .01).

The purpose of this study was to further test the predictions of Jones' (1995) control model of debilitative and facilitative competitive anxiety in a trait context, incorporating skill level as an individual difference variable. The results confirmed the conceptual basis of the model in a trait perspective with those participants' that were positive in their goal attainment expectations reporting more facilitative interpretations of symptoms associated with competitive anxiety than those with negative expectations, across all three goal types. The findings also suggest a dispositional relationship between anxiety interpretation and perceived achievement of competition goals. Main effects were also established between direction variables as a function of skill level across all three goal groups. However, the skill level findings should be interpreted with some caution as moderate to low effect sizes were reported. Further, the nature of the skill level classification is recognized as difficult to standardize and operationalize across and within sports in order to establish significant effects (e.g., Jones et al., 1994; Perry & Williams, 1998). Significant differences were also established for the three goal groups between elite and nonelite participants for cognitive anxiety intensity. Potential explanations for lower intensity levels in the nonelite group may be attributed to factors such as lower expectations regarding success resulting in a discrepancy between coping resources and a subsequent reduction in the rate of progression relative to the perceived demands (cf., Lazarus, 1984; Carver& Scheier, 1986, 1988).

Discussion

A significant interaction effect was found for cognitive anxiety direction within the outcome goal group with the elite positive group possessing the highest perceptions of control over goals set and the greatest perceptions of facilitating interpretations of cognitive symptoms. This finding not only confirms Jones' (1995) predictions regarding control, goal attainment, and direction, but also highlights the importance of individual differences in the proposed control model (cf., Jones, 1995; Jones et al., 1994). Additional analyses of the significant two-way data within the outcome goal group revealed that the elite negative group had debilitating interpretations of symptoms associated with competitive anxiety together with consistently poor perceptions of control over outcome goals. Similarly, the nonelite positive group had facilitative interpretations symptoms associated with cognitive anxiety with positive perceptions of control. These findings contrast previous studies that have established a strong ass ociation between elite performers and facilitative interpretations of symptoms associated with competitive anxiety (e.g., Jones et al., 1994; Jones & Swain, 1995; Perry & Williams, 1998), suggesting that expectations of competition goals may be a more important mediator of direction than skill level alone (Jones, 1995). In addition, while a small amount of data from previous research has identified a similar pattern of results between skill level and different anxiety interpretations (e.g., Jones et al., 1994) the data in the present study suggests perceived control over outcome goals and an open-skilled environment as a potential explanation. Indeed, the nature of the sport has been identified as an important variable in relation to directional perceptions (Hanton et al., 2000). More specific explanations for this patterning can also be found in recent qualitative work by Hanton and Connaughton (2002) who reported perception of control as a key moderating variable in elite and nonelite athletes' directional anxiety interpretations. Here, lesser skilled participants reported facilitative interpretations of symptoms associated with competitive anxiety provided that strong perceptions of control and high levels of self-confidence were evident.

Despite the elite negative participants reporting debilitative interpretations of cognitive anxiety symptoms in relation to outcome goal attainment, the degree of debilitation was moderate. Even though a causal relationship between skill level and perceived control cannot be inferred from this investigation, the fact that the performers were of elite status but also debilitative and consistently negative (over outcome goal attainment) is something of a paradox. Indeed, these athletes were also negative in terms of their performance and process goals set. Hanton and Connaughton (2002) found elite performers often view cognitive state anxiety as initially debilitative which then triggers cognitive and behavioral strategies (e.g., rationalization of thoughts & feelings) in order to overcome the negative cognitions and replace them with positive ones. In the current study the elite negative participants may therefore have recalled only this initial negative interpretation but the relatively high levels of trait s elf-confidence reported may in some way have protected against the debilitating effects of anxiety, allowing a "turn-around" in interpretations in specific competition (state) situations (cf., Hanton et al., 2002a; Jones et al., 1994). While, this process does go some way to account for their elite status however, a degree of caution should be exercised with the elite negative results, as only 15 participants actually reported this pattern.

Although further support for the conceptual structure of Jones' (1995) control model in a trait context has been provided in this investigation very little is known about the exact mechanisms by which perceived control of factors such as goal attainment influence directional interpretations of anxiety symptoms and subsequent performance. Across all three goal types significant interaction effects were reported for self-confidence with the elite positive group reporting consistently higher levels. The findings confirm the proposals that confidence is a key variable in relation to perceptions of control and directional anxiety and may in some way protect against the debilitating effects of anxiety (Carver & Scheier, 1986, 1988; Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Hanton et a]., 2002a; Jones et al., 1994). According to Hardy (1996) self-confidence may be one of the most powerful qualities that elite performers possess, and recent work has suggested that if anxiety and self-confidence are experienced simultaneously, then performance can be improved, whereas under conditions of low confidence, anxiety may exert a negative influence upon performance (Jones & Hanton, 2001). Future empirical investigation is therefore needed to determine the precise impact this variable has upon the performer's psychological state. In addition to self-confidence, skill level and trait anxiety, the interaction of other individual difference variables upon Jones' (1995) model also requires further investigation. One such example of a potential moderating variable is attributional style, where anxiety related symptoms have been suggested to have a facilitating effect upon performance provided the individual develops attributions that result in heightened perceived control (Hanton & Connaughton, 2002).

While the directional variable appears to be an important construct in understanding athletes' precompetitive trait and state responses little is known about its association with performance. Quantitative and qualitative research has alluded to facilitative interpretations of symptoms associated with competitive anxiety being associated with high levels of performance yet the exact nature of the relationship between certain symptoms and performance is unknown. Further understanding of this relationship will come from the identification of the antecedents of perceived control and the interaction with goal attainment and performance related variables such as the athletes' affective state in the period leading up to and directly prior to competition. While the findings of the current investigation offer further understanding of the relationship between perceptions of control, goal attainment and anxiety direction, we do, acknowledge, however, that the statistical outcomes observed may have been limited somewhat by the uneven cell sizes for both skill level and gender groups. Although in our study we reported moderate to strong effect sizes to support our statistical inferences the notion of even cell sizes between groups clearly presents an important issue for future researchers to consider when investigating the effects of individual difference variables upon anxiety direction responses.

The practical implications of this study suggest that athletes should set competition goals that are realistic, controllable and ensure positive expectations of achievement. Further, athletes who are consistently negative or positive in their goal expectancies appear to interpret their anxiety symptoms in a certain direction. Applied practitioners should therefore attempt to identify at a young age those goals the athlete feels comfortable with in terms of control and attainment allowing consistent expectations to be developed over time. It is also recommended that coaches and practitioners implement appropriate strategies during this period that serve to enhance perceptions of control (e.g., attribution re-training), as interpretations of control are suggested to be developed and constructed longitudinally (Carver & Scheier, 1986, 1988; Skinner, 1995). The role of the coach early in the career of the performer also appears to be increasingly important (cf., Hanton & Jones, 1999a). Within the context of open- skilled team sport environments the use of process goals that are attainable independently of other performers provide a starting point to allow regular feedback in order to enhance confidence. However, process goals do present something of a paradox with regard to the conscious-processing hypothesis (cf., Baumeister, 1984; Masters, 1992). Skilled athletes should therefore set "holistic" process goals (e.g., smooth or tempo) whereas lesser skilled athletes may benefit from "traditional" process goals (e.g., technical aspects of performance). Finally, athletes should be encouraged to make use of multiple goal setting techniques that set performance and outcome goals along side process goals as different targets are salient at different times (Burton, 1993; Hardy, 1997; Kingston & Hardy, 1997).

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviation and F Ratios for Analyses of Variance on
CTAI-2 scores by Skill and Goal Attainment for Outcome Group

Cognitive Anciety

 Elite Non-Elite

 Positive Negative Positive Negative
 M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD)

Intensity 25.55 (5.73) 24.20 (2.04) 21.85 (5.46) 22.57 (5.25)
Direction 12.20 (5.41) -1.27 (1.79) 6.02 (7.95) -2.51 (6.80)

Somatic Anxiety

Intensity 17.19 (5.17) 18.67 (3.09) 17.40 (5.48) 17.62 (5.49)
Direction 9.61 (6.04) 1.40 (1.50) 3.19 (7.30) -2.28 (5.38)
Self-confidence 24.01 (4.98) 18.07 (1.28) 18.06 (2.64) 15.63 (1.89)




 df F p

Intensity 3,229 1.39 n.s
Direction 3,229 5.17 <.05

Somatic Anxiety

Intensity 3,229 0.53 n.s
Direction 3,229 1.88 n.s
Self-confidence 3,229 10.50 <.01

Note. Elite (positive n = 75; negative n = 15), nonelite (positive n =
68; negative n = 75)

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviation and F Ratios for Analyses of Variance on
CTAI-2 scores by Skill and Goal Attainment for Performance Group

 Elite Non-Elite

 Positive Negative Positive Negative
 M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD)

Cognitive Anxiety
Intensity 25.50(5.64) 24.87(3.05) 21.97(5.31) 22.45(5.44)
Direction 11.54(6.03) 0.31(4.25) 5.96(7.68) -3.59(6.23)

Somatic Anxiety
Intensity 17.20(5.09) 19.13(3.50) 17.27(5.32) 17.78(5.90)
Direction 9.14(5.94) 1.19(1.83) 2.81(7.06) -2.55(5.37)
Self-confidence 23.70(5.08) 16.81(3.01) 17.76(2.70) 15.01(2.51)




 df F p

Cognitive Anxiety
Intensity 3,229 1.39 n.s
Direction 3,229 5.17 u.s.

Somatic Anxiety
Intensity 3,229 0.53 n.s.
Direction 3,229 1.88 n.s.
Self-confidence 3,229 10.50 <.01

Note. Elite (positive n = 72; negative n = 18), nonelite (positive n 76;
negative n = 67).

Table 3

Means, Standard Deviation and F Ratios for Analyses of Variance on
CTAI-2 scores by Skill and Goal Attainment for Process Group

 Elite Non-Elite

 Positive Negative Positive
 M(SD) M(SD) M(SD)

Cognitive Anxiety
Intensity 25.49 (5.63) 25.28 (3.69) 21.97 (5.40)
Direction 11.72 (5.96) -0.50 (3.31) 6.08 (7.57)

Somatic Anxiety
Intensity 17.25 (5.05) 18.89 (3.37) 17.29 (5.26)
Direction 8.79 (6.30) 1.33 (1.65) 2.65 (7.29)
Self-confidence 23.61 (5.02) 16.83 (3.09) 18.03 (2.43)

 Non-Elite

 Negative
 M(SD) df F p

Cognitive Anxiety
Intensity 22.31 (5.24) 3,229 0.11 n.s.
Direction -3.91 (5.74) 3,229 1.28 n.s.

Somatic Anxiety
Intensity 17.57 (5.95) 3,229 0.68 n.s.
Direction -2.91 (4.78) 3,229 1.01 n.s.
Self-confidence 14.94 (2.52) 3,229 11.35 <.001

Note. Elite (positive n = 72; negative n =18), nonelite (positive n =
75; negative n = 68)

References

Albrecht, R.R., & Feltz., D.L. (1987). Generality and specificity of attention related to competitive anxiety and sports performance. Journal of Sport Psychology 9, 231-248.

Baumeister, R.F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46, 610-620.

Borkovec, T.D., Metzger, R.I., & Pruzinsky, T. (1986). Anxiety, worry, and the self. In I.M. Hartman, & K.R. Blankstein (Eds.), Perception of self in emotional disorder and psychotherapy (pp. 261-312). New York: Plenum.

Burton, D. (1988). Do anxious swimmers swim slower? Re-examining the elusive anxiety performance relationship. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 10, 45-61.

Burton, D. (1993). Goal setting in sport. In R.N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L.K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sp ort psychology (pp. 467-491). New York: Macmillan.

Burton, D., Naylor, S. & (1997). Is anxiety really facilitative? Reaction to the myth that cognitive anxiety always impairs performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 9, 295-302.

Burton, D., Naylor, S., & Holliday, B. (2001). Goal setting in sport: Investigating the goal effectiveness paradox. In R. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas, & G.M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 497-528). New York: Wiley.

Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1986). Functional and dysfunctional responses to anxiety: The interaction between expectancies and self-focused attention. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Selfrelated cognitions in anxiety and motivation (pp. 111-141). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1988). A control-process perspective on anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1, 17-22.

Cohen, J. (1988). St at istical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Earibaum.

Eysenck, M.W., & Calvo, M.G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognitive and Emotion, 6, 409-434.

Fletcher, D., & Hanton, S. (2001). The relationship between psychological skills usage and competitive anxiety responses. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2, 89-101.

Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). Perceived control of anxiety and its relationship to self-confidence and performance: A qualitative inquiry. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 87-97.

Hanton, S., Evans, L., & Neil, R. (in press). Hardiness and the competitive anxiety response. Anxiety. Stress and Coping: An International Journal.

Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (1997). Antecedents of intensity and direction dimensions of competitive anxiety as a function of skill. Psychological Reports, 81, 1139-1147.

Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (1999a). The acquisition and development of cognitive skills and strategies. I: Making the butterflies fly in formation. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 1-21.

Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (1999b). The effects of a multimodal intervention program on performers. 11: Training the butterflies to fly in formation. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 22-41.

Hanton, S., Jones, G., & Mullen, R. (2000). Intensity and direction of competitive anxiety as interpreted by rugby players and rifle shooters. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90, 513-521.

Hanton, S., Mellalieu, S.D., & Hall, R. (2002a). Protection mechanisms: The relationship between self-confidence and anxiety direction. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. (Manuscript Submitted).

Hanton, S., Mellalieu, S.D., & Hall, R. (2002b). Re-examining the competitive anxiety trait-state relationship. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 1125-1136.

Hardy, L. (1996). A test of the catastrophe model of anxiety and sports performance against multidimensional anxiety theory models using the methods of dynamic differences. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An International Journal, 9, 69-86.

Hardy, L. (1997). The Coleman Roberts Griffith Address: Three myths about applied consultancy work. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 277-294.

Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport: Theory and practice of elite performers. Chichester: Wiley.

Jones, G. (1995). More than just a game: Research developments and issues in competitive anxiety in sport. British Journal of Psychology, 86,449-478.

Jones, G., & Hanton, S. (2001). Precompetitive feeling states and directional anxiety interpretations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 3 85-395.

Jones, G., & Hanton, S. (1996). Interpretation of competitive anxiety symptoms and goal attainment expectations. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 144-157.

Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Swain, A.B.J. (1994). Intensity and interpretation of anxiety symptoms in elite and nonelite sports performers. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 657-663.

Jones, G., & Swain, A.B.J. (1992). Intensity and direction dimensions of competitive state anxiety and relationships with competitiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 467-472.

Jones, G., & Swain, A.B.J. (1995). Predispositions to experience debilitative and facilitative anxiety in elite and nonelite performers. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 201-211.

Jones, G., Swain, A.B.J., & Hardy, L. (1993). Intensity and direction dimensions of competitive state anxiety and relationships with performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 11, 525-532.

Kingston, K.M., & Hardy, L. (1997). Effects of different types of goals on processes that support performance. The Sport Psychologist, 11, 277-293.

Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Erlbaum.

Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal-setting and task performance. Engle-Wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R.S., Bump, L.A., & Smith, D.E. (1990). Development and validation of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). In R. Martens, R.S. Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive anxiety in sport (pp. 117-213). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Masters, R.S.W. (1992). Knowledge, knerves, and know-how. British Journal of Psychology 83, 343-358.

McNair. D.M., Lorr. M., & Dropleman, L.F. (1971). Manual for the profile of mood states. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Services.

Mellalieu, S.D., Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (in press). Emotional labeling and competitive anxiety in preparation and competition. The Sport Psychologist.

Ntoumanis. N., & Jones, G. (1998). Interpretation of competitive trait anxiety symptoms as a function of locus of control beliefs. International Journal of Sport Psychology 29, 99-114.

Perry, J.D., & Williams, J.M. (1998). Relationship of intensity and direction of competitive trait anxiety to skill level and gender in tennis. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 169-179.

Rich, A.R., & Woolever, D.K. (1988). Expectancy and self-focused attention: Experimental support for the self-regulation model of test anxiety. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 7, 246-259.

Skinner, E.A. (1995). Perceived control, motivation and coping. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.

Swain, A.B.J., & Jones, G. (1996). Explaining performance variance: The relative contribution of intensity and direction dimensions of competitive state anxiety. Anxiety, Stress and Coping: An International Journal, 9, 1-18.

Vealey, R.S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Sport Psychology 8, 221-246.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins.

Wiggins, M.S. (1998). Anxiety intensity and direction: Preperformance temporal patterns and expectations in athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 201-211.

Address Correspondence To: Sheldon Hanton, Ph.D., School of Sport, Physical Education & Recreation, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, Cyncoed, Cardiff, CF23 6XD, United Kingdom. Tel: 00-44-029-2041-6952, Fax: 0044-029-2041-6589 Email: SHanton@uwic.ac.uk