An Exploratory Investigation of the Perceptions of Anxiety Among Basketball Officials Before, During, and After the Contest.
Burke, Kevin L. ; Joyner, A. Barry ; Pim, Ami 等
An exploratory investigation of 25 basketball officials'
perceptions of trait anxiety, and state anxiety before, during (half
time), and after a basketball game was conducted. Twenty-five male high
school and college basketball officials were administered a demographic
questionnaire and basketball officiating-modified version of the
Competitive State Anxiety Jnventory-2 (CSAI-2; Martens, Vealey, &
Burton, 1990). The participants completed the CSAI-2 within 30 minutes
of the start, during half time, and within 15 minutes after the
completion of the game. Also after the game, the basketball officials
completed a basketball officiating-modified version of the Sport
Competition Anxiety Test (SCAT; Martens et al., 1990). Results indicated
that the officials reported feeling significantly less cognitive anxiety
after a contest than before a contest (p = .018). Also, no significant
changes in self-confidence and somatic anxiety across the three contest
administrations. Comparisons are made between the officials' sco
res with the norms provided with the CSAI-2 and SCAT (Martens et al.,
1990).
The effects of stress and anxiety in sport, usually in coaches and
athletes, have received much attention (Goldsmith & Williams, 1992;
Kyriacou, 1987; Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990; Rainey, 1995;
Scanlan, 1984; Silva, 1990). However, so little attention has been given
to officials, judges, referees, or umpires (in comparison to athletes)
they have been labeled as the "neglected participants" (Burke
& Miller, 1990). Due to the particular duties in contests that sport
officials have, it is important to investigate the psychological
consequences of this unique type of sport involvement. Of the studies
performed with sport officials, officiating is reported to cause stress
as well as physical illnesses or stress symptoms (Fucini, 1979; Gait,
Cook, Allen, & Duncan, 1979; Rotella, McGuire, & Gansneder,
1985; Zoeller, 1985). Holland (1979) found that high school basketball
officials have reached a heart rate of 80-90% of their maximum during
the beginning of a playoff game. Conti and McClintock (1983) found that
collegiate football officials have experienced a heart rate of 79% of
their maximum during the opening kickoff and a heart rate of 99% of
their maximum during a fight between players. Therefore, officials need
to be physically prepared to handle the physical requirements of the
sport they officiate and able to combat the psychological stressors
associated with this unique sport position. Furthermore, Taylor and
Daniel (1987) have discovered that stress causes officials to become
introspective which, in turn, worsens their performance due to the lack
of a broad external focus on the contest.
Taylor and Daniel (1987) developed the Soccer Officials Stress
Survey (SOSS) to measure the perceived types of stressors among soccer
officials. The SOSS is divided into six subscales of stress: fear of
physical harm, peer conflicts, role culture conflict, fear of failure,
time pressures, and interpersonal conflicts. Results indicated that
soccer officials experience the most stress from fear of failure, and
the least stress from fear of physical harm.
Taylor, Daniel, Lieth, and Burke (1990) used the Ontario Soccer
Officials Survey, a revised form of the SOSS which includes a modified
Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach & Jackson, 1986). They found
that burnout among officials was most related to stress from fear of
failing, interpersonal conflict, role culture conflict, and other
evaluative forms of officiating. Consistent with early occupational
stress research, Taylor et al. (1990) found a positive correlation between total stress factors and total burnout score. Goldsmith and
Williams (1992) also produced a revised form of the SOSS for intramural,
non-certified, and certified volleyball and football officials. The
revised form added two other stressors (pressure game & verbal
abuse) to the SOSS. Results were inconclusive in this study. Rainey
(1995) used a revised version of the SOSS on baseball and softball umpires. Results revealed four correlated factors (fear of failure, fear
of physical harm, time pressure and interpersonal conflict) similar t o
those found in Taylor and Daniel (1987).
Although past research has mainly examined the sources of stress,
recent studies have focused on the intensity of stress experienced by
referees. Rainey and Hardy's (1997) study of 682 rugby referees
from Wales, Scotland, and England detected stress levels to be very
minimal. Stewart and Ellery (1996) discovered very little and moderate
stress among volleyball officials. Rainey and Winterich (1995) reported
that of the 723 basketball referees studied, only 4% reported high
stress. The mean was between a low and moderate stress rating. Gilbert,
Trudel and Bloom's (1995) case study of intramural ice hockey referees discovered that stress was not reported to be problematic.
Very little research (in comparison to athletes) on the sources of
stress and anxiety has been performed with basketball officials (Anshel
& Weinberg, 1995). Kaissidis and Anshel (1993) compared both the
intensity and the sources of stress levels between young and adult
basketball officials. Results showed the young (ages 14-18 years)
referees to be significantly more stressed than their adult (19-46
years) colleagues in making a wrong call and administering a technical
foul. Stressors that were ranked the lowest included presence of the
media, making a mistake in mechanics, and verbal abuse by spectators.
Anshel and Weinberg (1995) found that Australian and American basketball
referees differed markedly in the selected sources of stress. Stressors
such as making the wrong call, verbal abuse by players, verbal abuse by
spectators, and arguing with players were significantly different
between cultures. Anshel and Weinberg (1996) with the use of the
Basketball Officials Sources of Stress Inventory (BOSSI) disc overed
that American and Australian referees were more similar than different
in regards to coping strategies. Although there was a cultural
difference in the self-reported use of behavioral and emotional coping
strategies, similarities arose between the actual coping strategies
(i.e., giving a technical foul). Anshel and Weinberg (1996) also found
that far more Americans (39%) than Australians (13%) used the coping
strategy of calmly talking to the coach in an abusive situation.
Americans also preferred to ignore the coach and remain on task when
arguing, while the Australians opted to discuss the coach's
feelings. Burke (1991) reported a study in which National Collegiate
Athletic Association basketball officials were asked to rank their
stressors. Coaches were listed as two of the top three stressors, and a
total of six of the top 14 stressors that officials encounter (Rotella,
McGuire, & Gansneder, 1985). Although the officials considered their
role to be personally satisfying and rewarding, 90.6% reporte d their
role to be stressful (43.5% = very stressful to stressful; 47.1% =
moderately stressful).
Although previous studies have investigated stress and anxiety
among sport officials either after the season or during the season, the
purpose of this study is to investigate the perceptions of before,
during, and after a basketball game among high school and college
basketball officials. Gathering the officials' perceptions during
an actual contest may allow more accurate perceptions of performance
anxiety. Also, it is possible that officials may experience different
levels of anxiety at different points in a basketball game. It was
hypothesized that basketball officials would experience higher anxiety
levels before and after a game than during the game. Before the game
officials may be anxious about their impending performance, while after
the game they may be anxious about the calls they should have made or
were less certain of. Unlike before or after a game when officials can
choose to think about a game for significant amounts of time, at half
time there is less time (just 10-15 minutes) to focus on pos sible
mistakes because attention will need to be redirected to officiating the
remainder of the game. It was also hypothesized that officials'
self-confidence scores would remain similar throughout the game because
usually officials' only external support comes from their partners.
Therefore, officials may need to exude more self-confidence in order to
deal with the non-supportive environments in which they participate.
Trait and state anxiety was expected to be lower for basketball
officials when compared to norms provided in by Martens et al. (1990)
due to age differences between the samples and the previous literature
cited.
Method
Participants
The participants consisted of 25 male high school and college
basketball officials from two southern states. The average age of the
officials was 43.92 years, with an average of 18.80 years of high school
and college basketball officiating experience.
Procedure and Inventories
All participants were volunteers who were allowed to participate
only once in the study. The CSAI-2, which is a 27-item test that
measures cognitive state anxiety, somatic state anxiety, and confidence
on a 4-point Likert scale, was first administered to the officials.
Scores on the CSAI-2 may range from 9 to 36 on each of the three
subscales. The officials then completed the SCAT which is a 15-item
questionnaire that asks them to respond on a 3-point ordinal scale how
they "generally" feel when they are involved in sports. Scores
may range from 10 (low competitive trait anxiety) to 30 (high
competitive trait anxiety). As suggested by Martens, Vealey, and Burton
(1990) all administrations of the CSAI-2 were completed before the SCAT
was administered. Approximately one hour before each basketball game
each official was asked to take part in the investigation. All officials
who agreed to participate in the investigation then signed a consent
form. Within 30 minutes of the start of the game, each official compl
eted a demographic questionnaire, which also asked the officials to list
their three primary reasons for becoming a basketball official. Then
each participating official completed a basketball officiating-modified
version of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) (Martens
et at., 1990 ). Besides making the questions on this inventory more
specific for basketball, one question ("I am concerned about
losing.") was deleted because it did not apply to officiating.
According to Martens et al. (1990), the CSAI-2 is still valid when only
one item per subscale is omitted. During the 10-minute half-time
intermissions of each game, the modified CSAI-2 was again administered.
Within 15 minutes after completion of the game the modified CSAI-2 was
administered for the third time, and, a basketball officiating-modified
version of the SCAT was given. Both the CSAI-2 and the SCAT have been
shown to be reliable measures of state (cognitive & somatic) and
trait anxiety, respectively (Martens et al., 1990).
Data Analysis
Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine if significant
changes in cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence
occurred for the basketball officials. One sample t-tests were used to
compare the officials' data to previously developed CSAI-2 and SCAT
norms.
Results
Data were analyzed for 25 male basketball officials. The average
age of the officials was 43.92 [pm] 8.07 years with an average of 18.80
[pm] 6.63 years of experience officiating. Twenty-one of the 25 (84%)
had obtained either a four-year degree or a master's degree and 22
of the 25 (88%) had officiated at the college level.
Located in Table 1 are the means and standard deviations for
pre-game, halftime, and post-game measures for cognitive anxiety,
somatic anxiety, and confidence. As shown, the only significant
differences found were a decrease in cognitive anxiety (p [less than]
.05) from before the game to after the game and, from halftime to after
the game. The pre-game measures were also compared to pre-game norms for
basketball players for the CSAI-2 subscales (Marten et al., 1990). As
anticipated, all of the pre-game measures were significantly different
from the published norms (p [leq] .01).
The trait anxiety scores were compared to SCAT norms for basketball
players because these norms were the most closely related norms provided
by Martens et al. (1990). As hypothesized, the mean for the modified
SCAT for the officials' responses (14.96"3.01) was
significantly lower (p [less than] .001) than the norm for basketball
players (19.77).
The reasons given for becoming a basketball official were compiled
into a frequency distribution contained in Table 2. The following other
reasons were given by one official each: ego, hobby, competition,
decision making, link to sports, played basketball in college, get out
of the house, and relaxation.
Discussion
The present data indicated that the officials reported feeling
significantly less cognitive anxiety after a contest in comparison to
before a contest and, after the game in comparison to halftime. Because
the game and task is over for that particular assignment, this may seem
like a natural conclusion. However, many responsible and experienced
officials may be prone to fret after a game due to ruminating about the
uncertain calls they made, or did not make, during the game. This may
occur due to the nature of a basketball officiating assignment which is
usually a fast paced, quick decision style task. Unlike some other
sports where officials may be able to confer with each other (i.e.,
football) about a play, the majority of the calls in basketball are made
individually, and in "split-second" time. However, the results
from this study suggest that if basketball officials "replay"
their performance after the game, it only causes very low anxiety.
There were no significant changes in self-confidence and somatic
anxiety across the three testing administrations. Therefore it may be
concluded that basketball officials remain relatively confident and
experience low levels of physiological anxiety during an entire contest.
Because no anxiety norms were found for basketball officials, a
comparison was made of the participants' perceptions in this
investigation to the pre-contest (game) norms provided by the CSAI-2 for
basketball players (Martens et al., 1990). The officials scored
significantly lower on cognitive and somatic anxiety, and significantly
higher on confidence. These results are in agreement with Gilbert,
Trudel and Bloom (1995), Rainey and Hardy (1997), Rainey and Wintereich
(1995), Stewart and Ellery (1996); findings that officials'
perceptions of stress are low. The reasons for this finding in this
current investigation may be due to the age and/or experience level of
the officials in comparison to the (Martens et al., 1990) norms. The
officials' average age (43.92 years) and experience level (18.80
years) was probably higher than the basketball players used in
establishing the norms provided by Martens et al. (1990). The
officials' wealth of experiences may provide the necessary
development of coping strategies and adjustments to learn how to
effectively cope with anxiety-producing situations. It is also possible
that officials who find their sports role extremely anxiety producing
may quit; which would preclude them from an investigation such as this.
The officials perceived low levels of state and trait anxiety while
officiating. Cognitive anxiety decreased, although not significantly,
across the three administrations. Also, somatic anxiety decreased from
pre-game to halftime but increased from halftime to post-game.
The reasons basketball officials give for choosing to officiate
basketball games are various. However approximately 70 % of all
officials in this study mentioned they officiate basketball games for
"the love of the game and exercise."
Some interesting conclusions may be drawn based upon the results of
this and some of the previous recent literature on sports officials. One
conclusion may be that officiating causes only low levels of anxiety.
Or, officials may have effective coping strategies for dealing with
anxiety-producing situations. Concluding that officials may have
effective coping strategies may be more realistic in that numerous
officiating organizations report that there is a shortage of officials
in almost every sport. It may be the perception of persons who may be
considering to attempt officiating that "refereeing, umpiring, or
judging" a contest is too stressful or anxiety producing. As
mentioned earlier, those who felt that officiating was too anxiety
producing may have already withdrawn from the activity. It may be
fruitful for future researchers to delve into the reasons sports
enthusiasts choose not to enter into this challenging avocation or
profession. It is also possible that officials may quit early (within
the first five years) due to not yet developing the "tools" to
handle this unique type of sport anxiety. Kaissidis and Anshel (1993)
found that young basketball officials were significantly more stressed
than older officials. Officiating is a unique type of anxiety in that
officials almost never have anyone "cheering" for them.
Athletes, usually, at least have the "home" crowd on their
side. Officiating/umpiring/judging requires objective, impartial judgments. Coaches, athletes, and spectators usually are quite partial
and subjective. Normally the only social support officials receive is
from their partners.
Since this study surveyed officials with a significant amount of
experience, future investigations should explore the perceptions of
anxiety among less experienced officials. If learning to effectively
handle anxious situations seems to be a major factor in the drop out of
officials, this need may be dealt with more adequately by those who
train or mentor younger officials. Due to the emphasis placed upon sport
competition, it is easy to understand why researchers devote most of
their time and efforts to coaches and athletes. It is hopeful that
future investigators will continue to examine the challenging and unique
role of sport officials.
References
Anshel, M. H., & Weinberg, R. S. (1995). Sources of acute
stress in American and Australian basketball referees. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 7, 11-22.
Anshel, M. H., & Weinberg, R. S. (1996). Coping with acute
stress among American and Australian basketball referees. Journal of
Sport Behavior 19, 180-203.
Burke, K. L. (1991). Dealing with sport officials. Sport Psychology
Training Bulletin, 2(6), 1-8.
Burke, K. L., & Miller, M. (1990, September). Sports officials:
The neglected participants. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual
Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology Conference,
San Antonio, Texas.
Conti, D. J., & McClintock, S. L. (1983). Heart rate responses
of a head referee during a football game. The Physician and
Sportsmedicine, 11(1), 108-114.
Fucini, J. (1979). Stress. Referee Magazine. 4(11), 26-30.
Gait, B., Cook, K., Allen, M., & Duncan, P. (1979). How game
conditions effect stress level on volleyball officials. Volleyball
Technical Journal, 4(3), 71-82.
Gilbert, W. D., Trudel, P., & Bloom, G. A. (1995). Intramural
ice hockey officiating: A case study. Avante, 1(1), 63-76.
Goldsmith, P. A., & Williams, J. M. (1992). Perceived stressors
for football and volleyball officials from three rating levels. Journal
of Sport Behavior, 15, 106-118.
Holland, J. C. (1979). Heart rate responses of high school
basketball officials. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 5 (1), 68-71.
Kaissidis, A., & Anshel, M. H. (1993). Sources of and responses
to adult and adolescent Australian basketball referees. Australian
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sports, 26, 22-32.
Kyriacou, C. (1987). Teacher stress and burnout: An international
review. Educational Research, 29, 146-152.
Martens, R., Vealey, R. S., & Burton, D. (Eds.). (1990).
Competitive anxiety in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1986). Maslach Burnout Inventory
Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rainey, D. (1995). Sources of stress among baseball and softball
umpires. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7, 1-10.
Rainey, D., & Hardy, L. (1997). Ratings of stress by rugby
referees. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 84, 728-730.
Rainey, D., & Winterich, D. (1995). Magnitude of stress
reported by basketball referees. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 81,
1241-1242.
Rotella, R., McGuire, R., & Gansneder, B. (1985). Stress and
basketball officials: Impact on health, performance, and retention.
Unpublished manuscript.
Scanlan, T. K. (1984). Competitive stress and the child athlete. In
J.M. Silva & R.S. Weinberg (Eds.) Psychological foundations of
sport. (pp 274-305). Champaign, II: Human Kinetics.
Silva, J. M. (1990). An analysis of the training stress syndrome in
competitive athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 5-20.
Stewart, M. J., & Ellery, P. J. (1996). Amount of psychological
stress reported by high school volleyball officials. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 83, 337-338.
Taylor, A. H., & Daniel, J. V. (1987). Sources of stress in
soccer officiating: An empirical study. First World Congress of Science
and Football, (pp. 538-544). Liverpool, England.
Taylor, A. H., Daniel, J. V., Leith, L., & Burke, R. J. (1990).
Perceived stress, psychological burnout and paths to turnover intentions
among sport officials. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 84-97.
Zoller, S. (1985, May). Learning how to live with stress. Referee,
10, 48-49,51.
Means and Standard Deviations for Pre-Game,
Halftime, and Post-Game for Cognitive Anxiety,
Somatic Anxiety, and Confidence for Basketball
Officials
Pre-Game Halftime Post-Game
Measure M SD M SD M SD
Cognitive Anxiety 15.28 [a] 4.48 13.28 [*] 4.86 12.52 [*] 3.90
Somatic Anxiety 13.24 [a] 3.84 11.52 2.52 12.40 3.23
Confidence 29.52 [a] 7.64 30.32 5.81 29.52 7.64
(*.)Significantly different from Pre-Game (p [less than] .05).
(a.)Significantly different from CSAI-2 norms for basketball
players (p [less than] .01; Cognitive Anxiety M = 20.92, Somatic Anxiety
M = 18.57, Confidence M = 24.64) (Martens et al., 1990).
Frequency Distribution for Reasons for Choosing
to Become a Basketball Official
Reason Frequency Percentage [a]
Love of the game 18 72%
Exercise 17 68%
Money 11 44%
Stay close to the game 6 24%
Like young kids 4 16%
Excitement 3 12%
Challenge 2 8%
Give back to the game 2 8%
Something they are good at 2 8%
(a.)Calculated as the frequency divided by the number of officials (N = 25).