In their research, Kelly, Smith & Holmes (in press) focused on Eysenck's four factor theory of anxiety and the role cognitive biases play in the experience of anxiety of sports performers, in particular repressors. Using golf, Kelly et al aimed to establish whether a characteristic of repressors in sport is that they tend to interpret anxiety symptoms as facilitating, and also whether hi-anxious, low-anxious and repressors differed in their expectations of future performances. What they found was that repressors did not interpret anxiety as more facilitative than hi or low anxious individuals; however they tend did to be overly optimistic regarding future performance. Hi-anxious individuals were predicted to be pessimistic about their performance but their performance expectations were found to be consistent with their actual performances. Kelly et al recommended that additional research is essential to further explain the role of cognitive biases in sport.
In general, research does support the concept of the four-factor theory (Eysenck 1997) however, there are inconsistencies between studies and the application of the four-factor theory within sport has largely been ignored as Kelly et al point out. They indicate how research on anxiety in sport has failed to examine performance using the four personality types suggested by Weinberger. In conclusion, Eysenck’s four-factor theory of anxiety has not been sufficiently studied outside and within the context of sport and thus further research on the four-factor theory is required.
However a theory within which several studies in the context of sport have been completed is the processing efficiency theory. Eysenck and Calvo (1992) developed the processing efficiency theory in an attempt to explain the effects that state anxiety has on performance. The main prediction of the processing efficiency theory is that anxiety generally impairs processing efficiency more than it does performance effectiveness (Eysenck, 1992). Eysenck and Calvo suggested this is because anxiety causes worry, which affects our ability to process information as it occupies space in the working memory, therefore reducing its capacity and impairing processing efficiency. A study by Brand, Hanson & Godaert (2000) found that subjects with high stress levels performed slower on a memory task compared to individuals with low stress levels. This supports the processing efficiency theory as a greater part of the high-anxiety subjects working memory capacity was occupied with worry compared to the capacities of the low-anxiety subjects and this subsequently affected their performance.
Eysenck and Calvo (1992) suggested that worry also has a second effect; an increase in motivation. As a consequence of the reduction in working memory capacity, hi-anxious individuals become motivated to maintain their performance by investing additional effort into their performance. However, this increased effort, whilst maintaining performance effectiveness, results in a further decrease in processing efficiency. Research consistent with this concept was provided in a study by Murray & Janelle, (2003) which measured eye movement and performance in a driving task under hi and low-anxiety conditions. Under hi-anxiety conditions processing efficiency was found to be reduced. However performance remained the same under both hi and low-anxiety conditions, therefore supporting the prediction of the processing efficiency theory that motivation and a subsequent increase in effort can compensate for the negative affects of anxiety on processing efficiency.
Research has also suggested that high levels of anxiety can even improve performance. This is supported in research by Williams & Elliot (2003) who measured the effects of anxiety on visual search in karate. They found that whilst subjects employed more inefficient visual search strategies under hi-anxiety conditions, they performed better than under the low-anxiety conditions. However improvements are not always observed. Eysenck (1992) suggested this was due to task difficult, concluding that anxiety has a greater detrimental effect on difficult tasks compared to simple tasks. This was demonstrated in a study by Williams, Vickers & Rodrigues (2002) in which they measured participants’ accuracy at hitting a target in a table tennis task under two conditions; one which placed a high demand on working memory and one which placed a low demand on working memory. They found that anxiety had a negative effect on performance in both conditions however, processing efficiency was found to be more impaired in the high demand condition than in the low demand condition. Explained in terms of the processing efficiency theory, there was insufficient space left in the working memory due to the increase in effort required in high anxious individuals/situations. Through the processing efficiency theory Eysenck has enhanced our knowledge and understanding of the anxiety-performance relationship, and he has also demonstrated how anxiety can both facilitate and impede an individual’s performance in sport.
Various theories and models i.e. the inverted-U hypothesis, drive theory, multidimensional theory and the catastrophe model have been developed in an attempt to try and explain the anxiety-performance relationship in sport. Although there is varied support for these theories, they are generally considered to be descriptive and generally ‘unable to specify the mechanisms underlying the facilitative or debilitative effects of anxiety on performance’. (Williams et al, 2002). In contrast, the processing efficiency theory expands on these theories; because in addition to describing the relationship between anxiety and performance, it also explains the relationship between anxiety and performance. However although several studies provide support for the processing efficiency theory, issues are apparent. Through their research, Mullen & Hardy (2000) suggested the behaviour of anxious performers under stress is not fully explained by the processing efficiency theory as it does not specify the circumstances under which performers are motivated to apply extra effort. Graydon (2002) also suggests that effort with regard to the processing efficiency theory requires further clarification, as it is considered that the processing efficiency theory succeeds up to a point until the performer perceives that the resources i.e. processing efficiency needed are too great and subsequently gives up.
Nevertheless, the processing efficiency theory is generally supported by research outside and within the context of sport. Smith, Bellamy, Collins, & Newell (2001) suggest that the processing efficiency theory has potential as a theoretical framework within which to examine the relationship between anxiety and performance in sport. However, there are issues that require further research in order to gain a better understanding, and Williams et al (2002) believe that further research is required to establish the complex interactions between anxiety, effort and performance using ecologically valid sport tasks.
Various strategies have been used by sports performers in an attempt to reduce the effects of anxiety, although many of these strategies have proven to be unsuccessful in reducing anxiety. Several of these strategies deal with the somatic (physiological) effects of anxiety. However somatic strategies do not deal with the causes of the anxiety, rather they merely mask the symptoms of anxiety. Implications of Eysenck’s cognitive approach to anxiety have resulted in strategies such as positive thinking and imagery being designed to help deal with the cognitive effects of anxiety. However, as has been observed from the processing efficiency theory, an increase in anxiety/arousal can facilitate performance. Therefore this suggests that stress management strategies should be used sparingly as a reduction in anxiety/arousal is not always necessary.
In conclusion, both H.J. Eysenck and M. Eysenck have made hugely significant contributions in the physiological and cognitive approaches to anxiety. However, they did not focus specifically on anxiety in sport, and overall excluding the processing efficiency theory in which a small number of studies have been conducted, insufficient research has been carried out within the area of anxiety in sport with regards to Eysenck’s theories, and therefore further research is required.
1,638 words.
REFERENCES
Brand, N., Hanson, E., & Godaert, G. (2000). Chronis stress affects
blood pressure and speed of short-term memory. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 91, 291-298.
Eysenck, M. W. (1992). Anxiety: The cognitive perspective. Hove:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eysenck, M.W. & Calvo, M.G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The
Processing Efficiency Theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6,
409-434.
Eysenck, M. W. (1997). Anxiety and cognition: A unified theory. Hove,
UK: Psychology Press.
Graydon, J. (2002). Stress and anxiety in sport. The Psychologist, 15,
8, 408-410.
Jones, K., Smith, N., & Holmes, P. (in press). Anxiety symptom
interpretation and performance predictions in high-anxious,
low-anxious and repressor sports performers. Anxiety, Stress
and Coping.
Mullen, R., & Hardy, L. (2000). State anxiety and motor performance:
Testing the conscious processing hypothesis. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 18, 785–799.
Murray, N. P., & Janelle, C. M. (2003). Anxiety and performance: A
visual search examination of the processing efficiency
theory. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 171-
187.
Smith, N. C., Bellamy, M., Collins, D. J., & Newell, D. (2001). A test of
processing efficiency theory in a team sport context. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 2001, 19, 321-332.
Williams, A. M., & Elliot, D. (1999). Anxiety expertise and visual search
in karate. Journal of sports and exercise psychology, 21,
362-375.
Williams, A. M., Vickers, J., & Rodrigues, S. (2002). The effects of
anxiety on visual search, movement kinematics and
performance in table tennis: A test of Eysenck and Calvo’s
processing efficiency theory. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 24, 438-455.