Re-examining coping among basketball referees following stressful events: implications for coping interventions.

Anshel, Mark H. ; Weinberg, Robert S.

Acute (short term) stress occurs in response to a person's sudden exposure to stimuli or events that are perceived as unpleasant or challenging (Anshel, 1990, 1996; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Acute stress often experienced in competitive sport include making a mental or physical error, performance errors or limitations of teammates, a cheating opponent, environmental conditions (e.g., crowd behavior), and receiving a 'bad' call from an official. Since acute stress can inhibit an array of psychological and somatic processes that occur during sport competition (e.g., concentration, attentional focus, confidence, effort, arousal), coping effectively with stressful events is imperative for high quality performance (Anshel, Brown, & Brown, 1993; Gould, Eklund, & Jackson, 1993a; Krohne, 1993; Jones & Hardy, 1989).

The primary focus of previous research on coping in competitive sport has been on examining the athlete's use of coping strategies. (e.g., Crocker, 1992; Gould et al., 1993a); Madden, Kirkby, & McConald, 1989; also see Hardy et al., 1996, chapter 8, for a review of this literature). The general research findings of this literature are that athletes use a variety of coping strategies in response to different acute stressors experienced during the contest. In addition, in selected studies (see Hardy et al., 1996, for a review), athletes have differed in their coping effectiveness. For example, Gould, Finch, and Jackson (1993b) found that a champion figure skater coped with pre-competition stress by ingesting whisky, a strategy that may have reduced her stress, but likely had deleterious effects on her health. Examining coping with stress among sports officials, however, has been scant. Another area of research in the sport psychology literature has been examining coping style, an area that is related but conceptually different to the study of coping strategies.

Coping Style

The fundamental difference between coping strategies and coping style is the consistency, or preferred manner, with which an individual responds to stressful events. While coping strategies "involve a reaction to an immediate stressor, (coping style) reflects a consistent manner of dealing with stressors across time and situations" (Kohn, 1996, p. 185). According to Compas (1987), "coping styles are methods of coping that characterize individuals' reactions to stress either across different situations or over time within a given situation" (p. 394), often reflecting the person's tendency to respond in a predictable manner when confronted with specific situations. To Krohne (1993), the assumption that underlies coping style is that "individuals can be differentiated according to the way they habitually (dispositionally) react in threatening situations" (p. 23). These coping tendencies, or styles, are reflected by the type, or category, of coping strategies individuals use following stressful events (Carver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989; Endler & Parker, 1990; Hock, 1993). That is, individuals are thought to possess an orientation, or disposition, toward using a preferred type of coping strategy in response to either chronic or acute stress. One popular conceptual framework for examining coping style in the general psychology literature (Endler & Parker, 1990; Roth & Cohen, 1986; Suls & Fletcher, 1985), and in sport psychology (e.g., Anshel, 1996; Anshel & Kaissidis, 1997; Anshel, Williams, & Hodge, 1997; Krohne & Hindel, 1988), concerns approach and avoidance.

Approach and Avoidance Conceptual Framework

Over the years, researchers and theorists have provided different labels and categories of coping styles. For example, used mostly with respect to coping with medical procedures, Miller (1992) dichotomized coping style as a function of the manner in which individuals prefer to take in and use information for improved coping effectiveness, a style she called monitoring. On the other hand, individuals who tended to avoid information to manage their stress were designated as blunters. Another coping framework, problem-focused and emotion-focused was originally developed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) to define types of coping strategies as well as coping styles (see Aldwin, 1994; Anshel, et al., 1997; and Hardy et al., 1996, for reviews). However, the most common framework for categorizing coping style, and the one that is the most compatible in sport, is approach (also called sensitization, engagement, vigilance, or attention) and avoidance (also called repression, disengagement inattention, or rejection; see Anshel, 1996; Krohne, 1993, 1996; Roth & Cohen, 1986; Suls & Fletcher, 1985, for reviews of this literature). An approach strategy consists of confronting the source of stress in attempting to reduce its intensity or to better understand it. Approach copers take active steps in attempting to deal with the stressor to ameliorate its effects. Similarly, Endler and Parker (1990), Hock (1993), and Krohne (1993, 1996) consider a "vigilant" coping style that intensifies the intake and processing of threatening information. Examples include initiating direct action, increasing one's efforts or emotional arousal, seeking more information that may explain the stress source or to prevent its reoccurrence, and thinking about the stressor by planning a future response should it occur again.

Theorists in general psychology have offered criteria for the most effective use of selected coping styles. For example, Roth and Cohen (1986) hypothesize that approach coping is preferable when the situation is controllable, when the source of stress is known to the person, or when outcome measures are long-term, such as attending to the source of pain instead of risking a more severe or dangerous health outcome. The authors contend that approach coping is more effective when immediate action is required. Thus, if a basketball referee is being verbally abused by a coach, the referee may feel compelled to physically react, perhaps by warning the coach to desist from further remarks or to penalize the coach (or the team) for the coach's actions.

Another type of coping style, called avoidance, consists of turning away from (e.g., ignoring, discounting) threat-related cues. Roth and Cohen (1986) suggest using an avoidance coping style when emotional resources are limited (e.g., low self-confidence, low optimism), when the source of stress is not clear, if the situation is uncontrollable, or when outcome measures are immediate or short-term. Examples of avoidance coping include seeking social support from others, or engaging in a replacement task rather than the task at hand (Anshel et al., 1997; Endlet & Parker, 1990). However, sport research is scant in this area.

Coping Style in Sport

In one related study, Krohne and Hindel (1988) found that skilled table tennis players who used an avoidance coping style in response to performance errors during the match performed better and suffered significantly less state anxiety than athletes using an approach coping style. Improved performance reflected task demands for maintaining attentional control on task, and to either discount or ignore most stressors which may otherwise interfere with performance demands. More recently, Anshel (1996), Anshel and Kaissidis (1997), and Anshel et al. (1997) found evidence of approach and avoidance coping styles among athletes, particularly as a function of the type of stressful event. That is, approach coping was more common in response to some stressors (e.g., making an error; experiencing an injury), while avoidance was preferred for others (e.g., a "bad" call from the referee or successful performance by an opponent). It appears, then, that coping with acute stress in sport reflects the preferred use of certain coping strategies in some situations more than others. To date, however, research investigating coping styles among sports officials, in general, and basketball referees, in particular, has been apparently nonexistent in the sport psychology literature. Only one study (Kaissidis-Rodafinos, Anshel, & Porter, 1997) was concerned with the predictors of coping strategies (not styles) among basketball referees. They found that the referees exhibited avoidance, but not approach, coping strategies consistently in response to selected stressful events experienced during the game. They also found that coping was partly a function of the individual's appraisal of controllability of the situation. Given the virtual absence of research on coping among sports officials, certainly additional study in this area is warranted.

Coping and Sports Officiating

In their review of literature regarding the psychological aspects of officiating, Weinberg and Richardson (1990) acknowledge that sport officials experience an extensive amount of both chronic and acute stress, much of which directly influences their performance quality. According to previous studies (e.g., Anshel & Weinberg, 1995, 1996; Kaissidis & Anshel, 1993; Rainey, 1995), examples of the most extensive sources of acute stress for officials are making a wrong call, verbal abuse and threats of physical abuse from coaches, players and spectators, pain from an injury, criticism in the media, and evaluation by a supervisor. Spectators form among the most intense sources of stress for this group (Lehman & Reifman, 1989). Sources of stress among softball umpires, according to Rainey (1995), includes fear of failure (e.g., critical decisions, an aggressive game), fear of physical harm (e.g., threat or assault by players or coaches), time pressure (conflict between officiating and family), and interpersonal conflict (e.g., player/coach protest, dealing with abusive players).

Sports participants, peers, and supervisors expect basketball referee to cope effectively with sources of stress that are inherent in most games. However, the failure to cope effectively with stressful events may lead to burnout and then dropout (Taylor, Daniel, Leith, & Burke, 1990). For example, Taylor et al. (1990) found that burnout among sports officials was related to stress from interpersonal conflicts, role culture conflict, fear of failure and other evaluative aspects of officiating. When perceived role demands are inconsistent with an official's abilities, goals, values or beliefs, chronic stress, burnout and dropout from further participation may result (Dale & Weinberg, 1990; Smith, 1986). Thus, effective coping with stressful situations in officiating can serve as a buffer against burnout. Beyond the anecdotal literature (e.g., Cebulski, 1987; Mano, 1980; Smith, 1982; Strom, 1990; Zoller, 1985), little is known about the coping tendencies of sports officials in response to acute stress.

In a study of the use of coping strategies among U.S. and Australian basketball referees, Anshel and Weinberg (1996) found that strategies reflected the type of stressful event and cultural differences. For certain unpleasant situations in which the arbiter had little control (e.g., spectator abuse, presence of the media, experiencing an injury), cognitive coping strategies were more frequent. However, for other, more controllable, situations (e.g., abuse by a coach or player, making a mistake in mechanics), behavioral coping strategies were more common. However, the researchers did not statistically examine the referees' consistent use coping strategies, that is, coping style, nor were cultural differences examined using this framework. The present study, in examining the referees' coping style, overcame both of these limitations.

The importance of studying coping style, in addition to coping strategies, is that styles are useful predictors of future coping behavior (Carver et al., 1989). Consequently, the individual can be offered stress management techniques that take into account their preferred, consistent, coping repertoire. Monat and Lazarus (1991) suggest that future work in assessing coping style should focus on obtaining the individual's active coping strategies "as it occurs in a stressful situation and then proceed to infer the particular coping processes implied by the behaviors. This approach has been largely neglected in the study of coping" (p. 8). Thus, coping style was defined in this study as a reflection of the official's "typical" coping responses to each of 14 acute stressors commonly experienced by skilled basketball referees during the game. Evidence that the referees use similar coping skills for all or most game-related stressful situations would be supportive of the trait/dispositional model of coping. The assumption of this model is that coping influences behavior in a wide range of situations. Folkman (1992) argues that "trait measures . . . are generally inadequate with respect to describing the richness and complexity of actual coping processes" (p. 33). Thus, finding that referees employ different coping styles as a function of the type of stressful event would support the transactional (contextual) coping model. Hence, selected theorists propose that the environmental context may have a critical affect on the way in which individuals cope with various stressful events (Folkman, 1992; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

The purpose of the present investigation, then, was to examine the approach and avoidance coping styles of basketball referees following selected acute stressors. Since coping style among sports arbiters has been apparently ignored in the extant research, the secondary purpose of the study was to conduct a cross-cultural comparison of coping styles among basketball referees from the U.S. and Australia. Using the conceptual work of Folkman (1992) and Roth and Cohen (1986), it was hypothesized that approach and avoidance coping styles and, thus, the particular strategies that fall under these general coping style categories, would be a function of particular types of stressful events, supporting the transactional coping theory. In addition, it was also hypothesized, based on previous findings of cultural differences on sources of stress among basketball referees by Anshel and Weinberg (1995), that American and Australian referees would differ on their coping styles, at least on selected stressors. The effectiveness of these coping styles was not examined in this study.

Method

Participants

Participants in the present investigation included 137 adult male basketball referees who volunteered for this study. Surveys were mailed to 116 referees in the southwestern United States and were also distributed to 110 referees at a conference in New South Wales, Australia. Of these, data were collected from 75 (65% return rate) U.S. officials (ages 19-45 yrs, M age = 34.4 yrs.; Md age = 32.6 yrs), and from 62 (56%) of the Australians (ages 20-37 yrs, M age = 33.7 yrs.; Md age = 29.8 yrs). All subjects were currently employed as a basketball referee in organized, competitive basketball, with a minimum of three years of officiating experience. Each referee was categorized by their respective organizations as "highly skilled" in accordance with organizational criteria.

Measurement and Procedure

An inventory, previously used by Anshel and Weinberg (1995, 1996), was employed in the present investigation to ascertain the extent to which the referees used various cognitive and behavioral strategies for coping with each of 14 sources of acute stress. The stressors were identified by Kaissidis and Anshel (1993) and Anshel and Weinberg (1995) based on a survey of large samples of basketball referees to identify the different types of stressful events perceived by basketball referees as highly intense. Anshel and Weinberg (1995) describe the psychometrics of this inventory, including content and construct validation procedures, which identified the referees' sources of acute stress. The present study, consisting of identifying the referees' coping styles, is a re-analysis of our previous study (Anshel & Weinberg, 1996), in which we examined the referees' use of coping strategies as a function of their thoughts and actions following selected stressors "when experienced at its highest intensity."

Following procedures recommended by Patton (1990), a deductive content analysis was conducted. Referees' responses about their use of coping strategies were categorized into predetermined coping styles, designated as approach and avoidance, by three researchers familiar with the study and with the coping conceptual framework. Inter-rater reliability was .97 for designating coping styles, indicating strong agreement between the raters. While some writers in the general psychology literature espouse the oversimplicity of only two coping styles following stressful events (see Aldwin, 1994, for a critique), approach and avoidance coping style categories were based on an extensive review of the conceptual literature (Krohne, 1989, 1993; Roth & Cohen, 1986) and empirical research (e.g., Anshel, 1996; Krohne & Hindel, 1988; Suls & Fletcher, 1985), in which approach and avoidance coping styles have been psychometrically tested and validated.

Results

First, as indicated earlier, in order to operationally define and categorize the coping styles of the officials, a deductive content analysis was conducted in which three researchers who were familiar with the approach and avoidance coping style literature reached consensus on the conceptual definitions of each coping style. Table 1 lists the referees' coping responses identified as approach or avoidance coping styles for each of the 14 acute stressors, and its frequency of use. In addition, approach coping (e.g., calling/warning a technical foul, criticizing the coach, trying to "sell" the call, concentrating on the rules, verbally expressing anger and answering politely) as well as avoidance styles (e.g., ignoring/discounting the coach, quickly continuing play, ignoring the player, staying on task, and concentrating on the game) were the most frequently cited coping examples.

Descriptive Statistics on Coping Styles

The frequencies and percentages with which the referees identified one or more coping strategies for each stressor are listed in Table 2. Whereas Table 1 includes multiple uses of coping responses, only a single listing of the coping style for each group (country) is in Table 2. Abuse by players, abuse by coaches, arguing with coaches, and making a controversial call were the most frequently cited stressors for both American and Australian samples. However, American officials also found spectator verbal abuse a frequent stressor, whereas Australian officials found arguing with players and presence of supervisor frequent stressors. In addition, for the most frequently cited stressors (for both Australian and American referees), avoidance coping responses were most prevalent for "coping with player abuse" and "arguing with coaches," whereas approach coping responses were used more often for dealing with "abuse by the coach."

Chi square Frequency Analysis of Coping Style

A series of chi-square analyses were computed to compare the use of approach and avoidance coping styles by all referees on each of the 13 acute stressors (one stressor was eliminated due to low frequency which prevented a reliable chi square analysis). A second set of chi square analyses was computed to examine the extent to which the groups (American vs. Australian) differed using approach and avoidance coping styles. Since there were 13 stressors, a Bonferroni technique was employed, producing a more powerful alpha level of .01 to reduce the probability of making a Type I error.

Coping Styles For All Referees

Additional chi square analyses were computed to compare the preferred use of approach (AP) and avoidance (AV) coping styles among all referees to determine coping styles among skilled referees. based on an apparent absence of coping style research among sports officials, it was of interest to identify the coping tendencies of the officials in response to each of the 13 stressful events. The results indicated significant differences between coping styles on several stressors.

Results of the first set of chi square indicated statistical significance for the stressor, "coach abuse", [[Chi].sup.2] (1, N = 133) = 7.22, p [less than] .007. Descriptive statistics indicated that referees from both groups tended to use significantly more approach (N = 82) than avoidance coping styles (N = 51). Conversely, however, the stressor, "player abuse," resulted in markedly greater use of avoidance (N = 88) than approach (N = 49) coping, [[Chi].sup.2] (l, N = 137) = 11.10, p [less than] .008). The referees also differed significantly on their types of coping styles for stressors, "argue with coaches", [[Chi].sup.2] (1, N = 137) = 30, 8, p [less than] .001 (N's = 36 AP and 101 AV), "threats of physical abuse", [[Chi].sup.2] (1, N = 31) = 5.45, p [less than] .01 (N's = 22 AP and 9 AV), "verbal spectator abuse", [[Chi].sup.2] (1, N = 105) = 37.8,p [less than] .001 (N's = 21 AP and 84 AV), "making a mistake in mechanics", [[Chi].sup.2] (1, N = 20) = 12.8,p [less than] .001 (N's = 18 AP and 2 AV), "being in the wrong location", [[Chi].sup.2] (1, N = 12) = 5.33, p [less than] .02 (N's = 10 AP and 2 AV), and "presence of a supervisor", [[Chi].sup.2] (1, N = 55) = 11.36, p [less than] .001 (N's = 15 AP and 40 AV). Taken collectively, the referees' coping styles was a function of the type of stressful event. Some stressors (e.g., "coach abuse," "making a mistake in mechanics", being in the wrong location", "threats of physical abuse") required the referees' immediate attention for optimal performance or ensuring personal safety and thus approach coping was predominantly employed. Other sources of acute stress, on the other hand, caused referees to apply avoidance coping responses such as "arguing with coaches," "verbal spectator abuse", and "presence of supervisor". This latter set of events were all characterized by the referees as either beyond their control (e.g., "there is nothing I could do about it"), viewed as a normal part of the game ("I can't let every coach remark upset me"), or did not warrant direct action to ensure optimal performance ("I just thought it was unimportant to my job, and resumed play"). Thus, it was apparent that skilled basketball referees apply different coping styles selectively as a function of situational characteristics.

Table 1. Deductive Content Analysis of Referees' Approach and
Avoidance Coping Styles For Each Stressor

STRESSORS

Abuse by Coach (eg., insults/harassment, disputed calls,
accusations, threats)

Approach Coping n

Criticized coach (self-talk) (97)
Tech. foul/warning (61)
Verbally expressed anger (58)
Mentally reviewed event (38)
Calmly spoke to coach (36)

Avoidance Coping n

Quickly continued play (65)
Took deep breath (55)
Ignored coach (32)
Discounted coach (19)

Abuse by Players (e.g., overcalling, 5th foul, player attitude,
swearing)

Approach Coping n

Tech. foul/warning (108)
Felt tension/upset/anger (39)
Calmed player (18)
Criticized player behavior (11)
Reviewed my call (10)

Avoidance Coping n

Ignored player (41)
Part of job (rationalized) (38)
Quickly continued play (17)
Mentally withdrew (9)

Arguing With Coaches (eg, about calls, rules, coach's behavior)

Approach Coping n

Felt annoyed/frustrated (62)
Answered politely/discussed (50)
Reviewed actions (15)
Gave tech. foul/warning (10)
Calmed coach (8)
Argued with coach (7)

Avoidance Coping n

Ignored/discounted coach (62)
Concentrated on game (39)
Moved quickly to the next task (27)
Stayed calm/deep breaths (15)

Arguing With Players (e.g., about calls, player behavior, fouls)

Approach Coping n

Gave warning (54)
Felt annoyed/upset (44)
Gave tech. foul (38)
Argued with player (24)
Answered politely/gave reasons (13)
Reviewed my actions (6)

Avoidance Coping n

Kept calm (20)
Avoided arguing/walked away (14)
Concentrated on next play (11)

Coping Styles For Each Stressor

Threats of Physical Abuse (e.g., threatened by spectators,
intimidated by coach)

Approach Coping n

Expressed anger/upset (9)
Called for security/police (9)
Had security eject person from facility (8)
Game tech. foul/stopped game (6)
Calmed person (4)
Physically challenge person (4)
Criticized behavior/argued (3)

Avoidance Coping n

Stayed on task (61)
Kept calm/deep breath (5)
Felt like quitting referee job (5)
Left area quickly (5)
Did not take seriously (2)

Abuse By Spectators (e.g., comments, abuse, bias, overcalls)

Approach Coping n

Felt upset/humiliated (43)
Expressed anger (17)
Confronted person(s) (4)
Called security (2)
Focused attention elsewhere (42)
Laughed (12)

Avoidance Coping n

Concentrated on game (91)
Felt it's part of game (74)
Ignored/did not hear (71)
Spectators are ignorant (65)

Working With Partner (e.g., inexperienced/uncooperative, bad call,
"tough" game)

Approach Coping n

Concentrated harder (16)
Provided support/covered extra ground (15)
Talked with partner (3)
Scolded partner (3)

Avoidance Coping n

Got on with my job (14)
Felt empathy toward partner (9)
Worried/felt embarrassed (6)
Unconcerned/didn't care (3)

Making a Wrong Call (e.g., no foul called, costs points/game, block
vs. charge, possession)

Approach Coping n

Tried to "sell" call (12)
Felt annoyed/upset (6)
Felt worried/tense/nervous (5)
Reviewed actions (4)
Blamed myself for error (1)

Avoidance Coping n

Concentrated harder (20)
Tried to forget (10)
Continued on with the game (8)
Refs are allowed to make mistakes (7)

Controversial Call (e.g., hostile arguing by coach or players,
uncertainty)

Approach Coping n

Tried to "sell" the call (60)
Confronted coach/player (34)
Reviewed call with partner (27)
Thought about call (17)

Avoidance Coping n

Continued game (31)
Quickly resumed play (31)
Discounted argument (25)
Ignored others (12)

Mistake in Mechanics (e.g., wrong position, incorrect possession,
violation/foul error)

Approach Coping n

Made correction quickly (18)
Felt upset with self (9)
Defended actions (7)
Felt embarrassed (1)
Apologized (1)

Avoidance Coping n

Got on with the game (17)
Will get it right next time (11)
Concentrated harder on next task (7)

Wrong Location (e.g., "blind," too far away, anticipating play
wrong, fast break)

Approach Coping n

Made corrections (12)
Felt annoyed/upset (11)
Tried to sell call (10)
Consulted partner (4)

Avoidance Coping n

Said, "Try harder; get it next time (12)
Lost confidence: Felt like giving up (1)

Presence of Supervisor (e.g., being evaluated, hoping I perform
well, promotion)

Approach Coping n

Concentrated on rules (44)
Felt intimidated (29)
Became more assertive (29)
Calls more conservative (10)

Avoidance Coping n

Felt confident (28)
Ignored/performed as usual (21)
Relaxed/had fun (6)

Presence of [Media.sup.2] (e.g., worry about correct
interpretations, interviews, unfair criticisms)

Approach Coping n

Felt intimidated/concerned (3)
Resented their presence (2)
Thought about interview before/after game (1)

Avoidance Coping n

Ignored them (6)
Concentrated on game (5)
Positive self-talk/confident in ability (3)

Experiencing Pain or Injury (e.g., worry about further injury or
ability to continue)

Approach Coping n

Felt upset/angry (41)
Applied first aid (33)
Removed self from game (5)
Changed positions with partner (5)

Avoidance Coping n

Ignored/kept moving (33)
Thought it would be ok (32)
Found it humorous (8)
Relaxed and awaited assistance (5)

1 Subjects were invited to indicate more than one coping strategy or
none at all for each stressor.

2 This stressor did not include adequate data for further analyses.

Cultural Differences in Coping

Results from the second chi square analyses revealed several cross-cultural differences [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 2 OMITTED] between American and Australian referees in their approach and avoidance coping styles. Results indicated a significant chi square for the stressor, "arguing with coaches", [[Chi].sup.2] (1, N = 137) = 9.04, p [less than] .01. Both American and Australian referees used more avoidance than approach coping styles. However, American referees used more avoidance coping responses (N = 63) than Australians (N = 38) and fewer approach coping responses (N's = 12 and 24 for U.S. and Australia, respectively). The stressor, "working with a partner" (e.g., inexperience, uncooperative, bad positioning), produced a significant chi square, [[Chi].sup.2] (1, N = 20) = 7.94, p [less than] .01. American referees used more approach (N = 4) than avoidance (N = 1) coping styles, whereas Australian referees employed more avoidance (N = 13) than approach (N = 2) coping. Finally, the results revealed a significant chi square difference for the stressor, "controversial call", [[Chi].sup.2] (1, N = 109) = 25.09, p [less than] .01). American officials used more approach (N = 42) than avoidance (N = 18) coping styles to deal with this stressor, whereas Australian referees employed more strategies allied with avoidance (N = 38) than approach (N = 11) coping styles.

Discussion

The primary focus in the present investigation was to examine the extent to which skilled basketball referees from two cultures, the U.S. and Australia, applied approach and avoidance coping styles following selected stressful events experienced during the game, with implications for psychological interventions. The prediction that coping styles would differ across different acute stressors was supported, as depicted in the transactional coping model. For example, the findings that referees employed an approach style following stressors that were characterized as highly controllable (e.g., making a mistake in mechanics, being in the wrong location, coach abuse) and an avoidance coping style upon experiencing stressful events low in controllability (e.g., presence of a supervisor, verbal spectator abuse) indicates that coping is often a function of situational characteristics (Anshel & Kaissidis, 1997; Folkman, 1992). These findings refute the trait coping model (Krohne, 1993, 1996), in which the individual's coping style predicts his or her use of coping strategies following different types of stressful events and across time. While the present study did not examine the referees' reliance on their coping style over a specific time period, it was apparent that their selection of coping techniques was dependent on situational factors. This finding was supported by Anshel and Kaissidis (1997) in their study of Australian basketball players.

It was also predicted in this study that officials from different cultures would differ in their coping styles. Again, this expectation was supported. In particular, the U.S. sample tended to use an avoidance coping style (e.g., stayed calm; ignored or discounted coach) more than an approach coping style in response to arguing with a coach, whereas Australian referees responded in the opposite manner, far more often employing approach (e.g., answered politely/discussed; argued with coach) than avoidance coping. Stress related to working with a partner also reflected cultural differences, in that Australians tended toward avoidance coping (e.g. got on with my job; felt empathy), whereas their U.S. counterparts preferred approach coping (e.g., provided support; talked with/scolded partner). Finally, Americans and Australians employed approach (e.g., tried to "sell" the call; reviewed call with partner) and avoidance coping (e.g., continued game; discounted argument), respectively, in response to making a controversial call although American referees employed significantly more avoidance coping behaviors than did Australian referees. These results support Duda and Allison's (1990) contention that sport psychology researchers need to take into account cultural differences in generalizing and applying the results of published investigations.

The results of the chi square comparisons also disclosed information about the "appropriateness" of coping styles among basketball referees. For example, Krohne (1993) contends that avoidance coping is preferred when the person wants to avoid an uncontrollable increase in arousal (e.g., spectator verbal abuse, presence of a supervisor), whereas approach coping serves to reduce existing uncertainty and ambiguity (making a mistake in mechanics or location), and to prevent additional uncertainty (unpleasant interactions with coaches). Approach coping also may be helpful to control dangerous situations (e.g. threats of physical abuse; Hock, 1993). Hock contends that approach coping has an informative function, in which input can help the individual anticipate potential dangerous situations or make appropriate, more accurate decisions in assessing or adapting one's behaviors. Roth and Cohen (1986) contend that avoidance coping is preferred when individuals need time to mobilize efforts in order to change the environment (e.g., giving a technical foul; quickly assess and then improve performance quality), to provide protection (e.g., verbal or physical abuse), or to assimilate stressful information (e.g., unpleasant verbal input from others). These guidelines were depicted by the referees in our study. For example, referees in both groups indicated a strong preference toward ignoring or discounting the taunts and other verbal criticisms of spectators. Thus, the results of this study suggest that effective coping styles reflect the referees disposition, or tendency, to use certain coping styles within certain - but not all - situations. This is in agreement with Aldwin (1994) who concluded that individuals assume some degree of situational specificity in selecting their responses to stressful events.

Finally, as indicated earlier, although the present investigation did not include a question about coping effectiveness, researchers in future studies should consider Aldwin and Revenson's (1987) suggestion to examine the subjects' coping style and the perceived efficacy of their style following each type of stressful event. Coping efficacy is an area of needed investigation in the sport psychology literature (Hardy et al., 1996).

Implications for Psychological Interventions

While the coping process is intended to reduce or manage stress, not all coping attempts are necessarily effective. For example, the athlete's response to the acute stress of an opponent's disparaging remarks may illicit harsh physical retribution. While physical punishment of the verbal abuser may reduce feelings of frustration and anger, both commonly associated with stress, the use of this coping strategy may prove maladaptive if the reaction solicits a penalty from the referee, or poorer performance due to reduced concentration and distraction from the task at hand (Hardy et al., 1996). Other examples of maladaptive coping includes wishful thinking and detachment when it is more prudent for the participant to actively deal with the source of stress. Thus, the process of coping does not infer success or effectiveness in that the strategy may not alter the source of stress nor reduce its intensity and unpleasant feelings associated with the stressful event (Hock, 1993). As Folkman (1992) contends, "the quality of a coping process is evaluated according to its effect on an outcome of importance" (p. 37).

The identification of different coping styles for different stressful situations among basketball referees (or any other sport participant) has implications for applying psychological interventions. One primary role of consultants and psychologists is to help all sports participants, including referees, to manage their stress and to improve their coping skills. Acknowledging the person's coping style, particularly in response to specific types of stressful events, will indicate the types of coping strategies with which the individual is most comfortable, or prefers. It is more likely that individuals will cope more effectively when using a coping strategy that fits within their style of coping rather than to learn and apply unfamiliar coping techniques (Aldwin & Revenson, 1987; Folkman, 1992). If coping style can be accurately identified, then sport psychology consultants can teach the referee (or coach, or athlete) more effective coping strategies that are compatible with the individual's disposition and with situational demands.

As the results of this study revealed, different coping styles are more compatible with some situational demands than others. For example, it is almost always more effective to use an avoidance coping style in response to verbal abuse from spectators (Lehman & Reifman, 1988). However, the ability to ignore an abusive crowd is more likely with referees with an avoidance than an approach coping style. Approach and more effective copers will predictably feel more stress and more likely become distracted from the task at hand unless they are taught avoidance coping. Commensurate with Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) appraisal model, more effective appraisals and reappraisals might be less threatening and harmful ('I can't allow the person to criticize me'), and instead, more challenging ('Just ignore the person and get on with the job'), or irrelevant and benign ('who cares what they are saying'), as suggested in the referee literature (e.g., Cebulski, 1987; Strom, 1990; Tapp, 1987).

Identifying a sports official's coping style following specific types of stressful events can help change, perhaps improve, his or her appraisal of the stressful event, thereby reducing the stressor's intensity (Hardy et al., 1996; Krohne, 1993; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). For instance, as reviewed earlier, Krohne and Hindel (1988) found that elite table tennis players with an approach coping orientation were more anxious following physical errors than players with an avoidance orientation. One possible explanation for this reaction, according to Hock (1993), is that individuals with a 'vigilant' (approach) coping style are more likely to attend to rather than ignore or discount stressful events, and to become more anxious as a result. This reaction is characterized by 'an intensified intake and process of threatening information' (p. 140). Thus, approachers are more likely than avoiders to make threat appraisals and become upset as a result following intense acute stress. Sometimes it is best to remain focused on task and remain externally focused, while ignoring emotional reactions to stressful events (Bramson, 1981). Since referees are one source of stress for athletes (Anshel, 1990), a less-stressed official may also reduce player stress.

Another implication for psychological interventions is to determine the relevance of a person's coping style in teaching coping strategies. Rather than attempting to change a person's disposition from approach to avoidance, a very difficult and long tenn, if not impossible, process (Krohne, 1996), teaching more adaptive coping strategies that fall within the person's style appears to be more possible and productive. Thus, for a referee whose tendency following verbal abuse is approach (e.g., giving a penalty, dismissing the person from the contest), it may be less stressful to players, coaches, and to contest officials themselves, to ignore the remark and walk away, an avoidance coping style (Strom, 1990; Zoller, 1985). This would be especially appropriate if the coache's or athlete's remark was communicated in a non-confrontational manner, not in physical proximity to the official, and perceived by the official as an emotional outlet rather than intended to abuse or embarrass the official (Mano, 1980; Quain & Purdy, 1988). Ostensibly, avoidance coping in low-control situations should attenuate the frequency and intensity of stressful events, and the officials would maintain attentional and emotional control (Anshel et al., 1996; Anshel & Kaissidis, 1997).

One issue that has yet to be studied in sport psychology is whether it is more prudent or even possible - to alter a person's coping style to enhance adaptive coping following stressful events. For instance, should sport psychology consultants teach coping strategies to athletes that are compatible with their coping style? Conversely, would it be more effective to improve the athlete's coping effectiveness as a function of situational demands irrespective of the person's coping style? As indicated earlier, Krohne (1996) is among several authors (e.g., Aldwin, 1994; Aldwin & Revenson, 1987; Carver et al., 1989; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) who contend that changing a person's coping style, similar to any psychological disposition, is very difficult - perhaps impossible. Thus, in response to an angry coach who questions the call, approachers might want to replace aggressive confrontation - often a maladaptive coping strategy, since this reaction actually increases the referee's stress level with an adaptive approach coping strategy that is less emotional (e.g., gathering or giving information, explaining the call) and might reduce stress intensity. Approachers can be taught to adopt an avoidance coping style such as ignoring or discounting unpleasant verbal comments. Leventhal, Suls, and Leventhal (1993) contend that individuals are very adaptable in choosing coping strategies that supercede their coping style. Compatible with the transactional coping model, the authors assert that "the specific response selected for coping with a particular situation at a specific time reflects the individual's assessment . . . of the response that is compatible with his or her overall strategy and satisfies his or her operating intention . . . these assessments will be shaped . . . by the perceived attributes of the stressor and by the representation of the (person's coping skills and coping options) in the situation" (p. 88). Thus, while it is generally believed that personality strongly influences an individual's selection of coping strategies following stressful events, inherent in the trait model of coping (Krohne, 1996), situational demands, as well as the antecedents and consequences of coping (e.g., appraisals and reappraisals) also predict the person's coping style (Anshel & Kaissidis, 1997). The efficacy of these intervention techniques in the sport psychology literature awaits further investigation.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Ken Russell, Department of Applied Statistics, the University of Wollongong, for his assistance in the data analyses.

References

Aldwin, C. M. (1994). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective. New York: Guilford.

Aldwin, C. M., & Revenson, T. A. (1987). Does coping help? A reexamination of the relationship between coping and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 337-348.

Anshel, M. H. (1990). Toward validation of a model for coping with acute stress in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, 58-83.

Anshel, M. H. (1996). Examining evidence of coping style among adolescent competitive athletes. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 311-324.

Anshel, M. H., Brown, J. M., & Brown, D. F. (1993). Effectiveness of a program for coping with acute stress on motor performance, affect, and muscular tension. Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 25, 7-16.

Anshel, M. H., Williams, L. R. T., & Hodge, K. (1997). Cross-cultural and gender differences on coping style in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 141156.

Anshel, M. H., & Kaissidis, A. N. (1997). Coping style and situational appraisals as predictors of coping strategies following stressful events in sport as a function of gender and skill level. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 263-276.

Anshel, M. H., & Weinberg, R. S. (1995). Sources of acute stress in American and Australian basketball referees. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7, 46-56.

Anshel, M. H., & Weinberg, R. S. (1996). Coping with acute stress among American and Australian basketball referees. Journal of Sport Behavior, 19, 180-203.

Anshel, M. H., Williams, L. R. T., & Hodge, K. (1997). Cross-cultural and gender differences on coping style in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 141-156.

Bramson, R. M. (1981). Coping with difficult people. New York: Doubleday.

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. E, & Weintraub, J.K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.

Cebulski, M. (January, 1987). A panel of experts offers guidance on how to keep your head when those about you are losing theirs. Referee, 12, 29-31.

Compas, B. E. (1987). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 393-403.

Crocker, P. (1992). Managing stress by competitive athletes: Ways of coping. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 161-175.

Dale, J., & Weinberg, R. S. (1990). Burnout in sport: A review and critique. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 67-83.

Duda, J. L., & Allison, J. T. (1990). Cross-cultural analysis in exercise and sport psychology: A void in the field. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 114-131.

Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 844-854.

Folkman, S. (1992). Making the case for coping. In B. N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory, research, and application (pp. 31-46). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Gould, D., Eklund, R. C., & Jackson, S. A. (1993a). Coping strategies used by U.S. Olympic wrestlers. Research Quarterly For Exercise and Sport, 64, 83-93.

Gould, D., Finch, L. M., & Jackson, S. A. (1993b). Coping strategies used by national champion figure skaters. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 453-468.

Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hock, M. (1993). Coping dispositions, attentional direction, and anxiety states. In H. W. Krohne (Ed.), Attention and avoidance (pp. 139-169). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

Jones, J. G., & Hardy, L. (1989). Stress and cognitive functioning in sport. Journal of Sport Science, 7, 41-60.

Kaissidis, A., & Anshel, M. H. (1993). Sources of and responses to acute stress between adult and adolescent Australian basketball referees. Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 26, 22-32.

Kaissidis-Rodafinos, A., Anshel, M. H., & Porter, A. (1997). Personal and situational factors that predict coping strategies for acute stress among basketball referees. Journal of Sport Sciences, 15, 427-436.

Kohn, P. M. (1996). On coping adaptively with daily hassles. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 181-201). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Krohne, H. W. (1996). Individual differences in coping. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 381-409). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Krohne, H. W. (1993). Vigilance and cognitive avoidance as concepts in coping research. In H. W. Krohne (Ed.), Attention and avoidance (pp. 19-50). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

Krohne, H. W. (1989). The concept of coping modes: Relating cognitive person variables to actual coping behavior. Special Issue: The role of individual differences in stress and stress management. Advances in Behavior Research and Therapy, 11, 235-248.

Krohne, H. W., & Hindel, C. (1988). Trait anxiety, state anxiety, and coping behavior as predictors of athletic performance. Anxiety Research, 1, 225-234.

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

Lehman, D. R., & Reifman, A. (1988). Spectator influence on basketball officiating. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 673-675.

Leventhal, E. A., Suls, J., & Leventhal, H. (1993). Hierarchical analysis of coping: Evidence from life-span studies. In H. W. Krohne, Attention and avoidance (pp. 71-100). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.

Madden, C. C., Kirkby, R. J., & McDonald, D. (1989). Coping styles of competitive middle distance runners. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 287-296.

Mano, B. (October, 1980). The art of being an official. Referee, 5, 14-15.

Miller, S. M. (1992). Individual differences in the coping process: What to know and when to know it. In B. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory, research, and application (pp.77-91). New York: Praeger.

Monat, & Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Stress and coping - Some current issues and controversies. In A. Monat & R. S. Lazarus (Eds.), Stress and coping: An anthology (pp. 1-15). New York: Columbia University Press.

Quain, R. J., & Purdy, D. A. (1988). Sport officials: Who are these people? Journal of Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics, 3, 60-74.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Rainey, D. (1995). Sources of stress among baseball and softball umpires. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7, 1-10.

Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41, 813-819.

Smith, C. W. (1982). Performance and negotiations: A case study of a wrestling referee. Qualitative Sociology, 5, 33-46.

Smith, R. E. (1986). Toward a cognitive-affective model of athletic burnout. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 36-50.

Strom, E. (November 1990). How to call 'em like a pro. Sports Illustrated, 7, 125-126; 129-132; 135.

Suls J., & Fletcher, B. (1985). The relative efficacy of avoidant and nonavoidant coping strategies: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 4, 249-288.

Tapp, J. (1987). The only thing you have to fear is fear itself: Common fears and what officials have done to cope with them. Referee, 12, 28; 30-32; 34.

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.

Weinberg, R. S., & Richardson, P. (1990). Psychology of officiating. Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.

Zoller, S. (1985, May). Learning how to live with stress. Referee, 10, 48-49, 51.