Wegner, (1989) postulated that mental control is accomplished by the by the interaction of two processes, an intentional operating process and an ironic monitoring process. Operating process is, conscious, effortful, and interruptible; where as monitoring process is unconscious, less effortful, and uninterruptible. In 1997 Wegner suggested that the operating process and the monitoring process function together as a feedback unit to produce mental control. The example that he gave of this would be in tennis, when a player is on the approach to produce a second serve. Their operating system would look for signs so that the player can successfully execute the shot. This would be picking a target spot on the court, or remembering what went wrong with the last unsuccessful serve and thinking of counteracting methods. The monitoring process might look for sign that would result in a double fault. This could be thinking too much about the opponents powerful returns, or focusing on the bad aspects of the first serve.
Under normal conditions it is apparent that the operating processes out way the monitoring processes. When the player however is under different types of pressure their mental load will increase and thus meaning that the monitoring process will begin to outweigh the operating process. This will increase the mental pressure placed upon the player, resulting in unsuccessful thoughts. Williams, (1999) research supports the ironic monitoring theory. The study found that when participants were more anxious, they were more inclined to focus on and process irrelevant internal and external information.
Rodrigo, (1990) studied the relationship of the CSAI-2 and the performance of 51 soccer players from four professional teams. This would be a possible method of evaluating performance in relation to anxiety that might be used when conducting a qualitative method of study; the study that has been chosen is a quantitative method of study that consists questionnaires to find out the results. Rodrigo, (1990) style of research would not be appropriate because when the results data is put into a table a person with no knowledge of this subject cannot see clear relations, and this is what I want to do by simplifying the results.
Recent studies by Jones & Uphill, 2003; Lane et al, 1999) have however expressed that the results from the CSAI-2 should be interpreted with caution. Some criticisms of the study include: the potential difficulty in distinguishing between anxious and excited scenarios and the phrasing of the cognitive anxiety items included in the scale. However despite these small negative views, the CSAI-2 is still the most commonly used and accepted instrument for assessing competitive state anxiety (Hanton et al, 2003; Jones and Swain, 1992; Wiggins, 1998).
The literature surrounding the study of the relationship between sports performance and anxiety has relied primarily upon precompetitive measures of anxiety as opposed to actual measures of anxiety taken during competition. Recent exceptions to this observation include studies by Krane, Joyce, and Rafeld (1994) in which measurements of anxiety were assessed immediately prior to softball batting performance, and Schedlowski and Tewes (1992) in which perceived anxiety prior to and during parachute jumping were assessed retroactively and through monitoring of heart rate.
Historically, Spielberger's (1983) State Anxiety Inventory (SAI) was utilized by many researchers to obtain an estimate of precompetitive state anxiety in athletes. In an effort to shorten the time necessary to administer the SAI, Martens (1977) developed the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI), which is a shortened version of the SAI. Richard H. Cox , William D. Russell , Marshall Robb
4. Proposed methods
The study will use quantitative methods to generate the data. These methods will be in the form of questionnaires. A modified version (Jones & Swain, 1992) of the Competitive Sate Anxiety Inventory 2 (CSAI-2) by (Martens et al, 1990) will be used to measure intensity and direction of Competitive State Anxiety. This CSAI-2 has 27 items, with 9 items for each of the three subscales of somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety and self-confidence. The subjects of the study will be required to respond to the each item question on a scale system, ranging from 1 (“Not at all”) to 4 (“Very much so”), expressing the intensity of which each symptom is experienced. Possible scores for each of the subscales therefore range from 9 to 36. A second part of the scale, modified by Jones & Swain (1992), measures the ‘direction’ of anxiety across the three subscales. In this the subject rates the extent to which the experience intensity of each symptom is felt to be facilitative or debilitative to the upcoming performance. This is rated on a scale from –3 (“Very debilitative”) to +3 (“Very facilitative”), so possible direction scores for each of the three subscales range from –27 to +27.Prior to all of the questionnaires given out the participants of the study will be given an information sheet stressing the purpose of the study and the clear guidelines of what is going to be asked of them. Through the information sheet the players will be advised that any of the information that is collected will be treated with the strictest of confidence. A consent form will also be distributed to the players, so that they can provide their age and brief contact details.
The participants of the study will be University and Professional league players. The university players will be participants from the fourth team. The Professional team that will be used to conduct the study is Torquay United. One limitation that would have to be considered when going through with the research is whether the players will have enough time to complete the CSAI-2 effectively. Contact will have to be made to speak to the professional club and arrange times of when the study can be conducted. Once all of the analysis is collected in the data would be separated into the university and professional. The comprised data will be put into a table and arranged in the way of marks. Once the correlated data is finalised, it can then put it in a form of a table and graphs to make it more visually pleasing and easier to understand for the viewers.
Each of subject players will be asked to fill out one of the CSAI-2 questionnaires on just 1 occasion leading up to the match. This occasion will be 1 hour prior to the match. Each questionnaire will be dated and have the time when completed on, to ensure that the guidelines and objectives have been met. Instructions to help the participants complete the CSAI-2 effectively will be verbally explained briefly once consent forms are collected in, and this will also be provided at the top of the questionnaires.
5. Results
The subjects that volunteered to take part in the study and complete the CSAI-2 questionnaire (see appendix 1 for completed questionnaires), were 22 males aged between 18 and 35 years. The questionnaire was given to them on 1 hour prior to the competitive match. For both groups of subjects, University (n = 11) and Professional (n = 11), information about age was collected using the date of birth from the consent forms (see appendix 2 for completed consent forms) that are given out previous to the questionnaire.
Table 1.1. Collected data from CSAI-2 Questionnaires for University and Professional Players
Once all of the results from the CSAI-2 questionnaires for University and Professional players were collected, they were then placed into a spreadsheet. When handing out the consent forms it clearly stated that the researchers would not use the participant’s names in the study. During the results summary the University players have been called group 1 and the Professional players have been called group 2. The figures were used throughout were the totals of each independent variable (intensity and direction scores for each of the 3 subscales). Graphs were created from the findings of the CSAI-2 questionnaire to clearly find effects between the different subjects. The mean and the standard deviations were calculated for each of the independent variables of the Professional and University players.
Table 1.2. Results from Intensity Variables of Professional and University players.
The spreadsheet results for intensity of group 1 and 2 with relation to cognitive, somatic and self-confidence show a higher standard deviation figure of 8.440747 for group 1, compared to the figure for group 2, which is 5.291145. Though more of the group 1 figures settle around the mean than of group 2’s, the mean number for group 2 is higher suggesting that Professional players have higher levels of cognitive, somatic and self-confidence values than University players.
Table 1.3. Results from Direction Variables of Professional and University players.
The spreadsheet results for Direction of group 1 and 2 with relation to cognitive, somatic and self-confidence show a higher standard deviation figure of 17.0211 for group 1, compared to the figure for group 2, which is 12.30692. The mean of group 1 (-1.97) is significantly higher than the mean of group 2 (-0.91), which could mean the University players might tend to perceive the views of themselves and the task in hand as more threatening than the Professional players.
Graph 1.1.
The relation that is clear to see from the findings of Intensity totals for cognitive, somatic and self-confidence of University footballers, is the steady decline in most of the participants CSAI-2 totals.
Graph 1.2
The relation that is clear to see from the findings of Intensity totals for cognitive, somatic and self-confidence of Professional footballers, is the constant level of the 3 variable CSAI-2 totals.
Graph 1.3
It is clear to see from the Directional totals for cognitive, somatic and self-confidence of University footballers, that player’s views before the game are significantly more debilative.
Graph 1.4
It is clear to see from the Directional totals for cognitive, somatic and self-confidence of Professional footballers, that player’s views before the game are more neutral than University players.
6. Discussion
The information for the results was collected using the CSAI-2 questionnaire. The results were then processed by the researcher using the “Modified version of the competitive state anxiety inventory-2 (CSAI-2) scoring system chart” (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump & Smith, 1990; Jones and Swain, 1992), (Appendix 3). The chart consists of 3 variables of anxiety; Cognitive; somatic, and self-confidence. The subjects of the study were required to respond to the each item question on a scale system, ranging from 1 (“Not at all”) to 4 (“Very much so”), expressing the intensity of which each symptom is experienced. The questionnaire was split into two groups of results (Intensity and Direction) to determine anxiety levels and personal views/ feelings of each one of the 27 CSAI-2 questions. The main purpose of the scoring sheets is to give totals of the questionnaires for the researcher to justify their findings and to find relationships between the CSAI-2 questionnaires. The categories that assess the findings and each participant is put into are Intensity anxiety levels and Direction personal views on each of the 27 questions. The total scores are broken down for Intensity by: High anxiety is 27-36; low anxiety is 9-18, and neutral is 19-26. For Direction the score are broken down by: Facititive is 18-27; debilative is -18 - -27, and neutral is -17 – 17 (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump & Smith, 1990; Jones and Swain, 1992).
From the findings in graph 1.1 it is clear to see that the levels of cognitive and somatic anxiety for University players are high in the intensity stage of the CSAI-2 questionnaire. Burton, (1998) states that high levels of cognitive anxiety can lead to negative thoughts, worry, poor concentration, disrupted attention and feelings of loss of control. Somatic anxiety is seen as “physical symptoms of anxiety such as nervousness, tension and even excitement. High levels of somatic anxiety are often associated with symptoms such as ‘butterflies’ in the stomach, sweaty palms and a racing heart rate”. The self-confidence levels of the University players are high and are very similar to levels of cognitive anxiety. Wiggins, (1998) suggests that self-confidence is linked directly to cognitive anxiety. This indicates that an athlete low in self-confidence is more likely to be experiencing high levels of cognitive anxiety. The findings from the research contradict this statement, due to the participants experiencing high levels of cognitive anxiety and self-confidence.
The findings from Professional players intensity levels for the same 3 variables in Graph 1.2 show similar results to that in Graph 1.1. The levels of self-confidence coincide with the high levels of cognitive anxiety.
Graph 1.3 shows findings where it is clear to see from the directional totals for cognitive, somatic and self-confidence of University footballers, that player’s views before the game are significantly more debilative than the results found in Graph 1.4 for Professional players. The results for Professional players show a more neutral outcome to the findings. The main variable that is debilative is cognitive anxiety, where as for the University players all 3 variables are significantly debilative.
7. Conclusion
This study has provided additional insight into stress and anxiety, and how it affects performance, during a competitive football match. It has also demonstrated that Professional and University football players might differ in intensity and direction of cognitive anxiety.
The main aims of the study were to see how stress and anxiety affects a performance during a competitive football match; the study then went onto look specifically at University and Professional players to see how their anxiety levels differ. Factors that can influence the results and feelings of the participants are the differences between the experiences and situations that the two groups are put in. Professional players are paid money to play the game, they might not have the excitement for the game that University players have, due to them doing it for the ‘love of the game’ and their own enjoyment. Where as the Professional players are under contract by these clubs to play. Money might influence their performance not the situation that they are put into. Another factor could be that University players tend to play in more casual playing fields and pitches that are set out without any stands and hardly any supporters. At professional stadiums, normally thousands of people watch the game from the stands. This could cause the Professional players to worry more about the crowd watching their performance and scrutinising them to play well. Resulting in high levels of cognitive anxiety.
The findings from the research show little significant difference in intensity of cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self-confidence from Professional players to levels in University players. Direction level finds for cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self-confidence have shown a difference between these different players. The professional players feeling more neutral about there views of the 27 questions, instead of the deilative level of anxiety from the University findings. This could be due to the experience levels of the professional players and the coaching that they receive on a day-to-day basis.
Future recommendations for the study will now be explained; this is to tell the reader ways in which the study could be improved or changed for it to be more effective. Firstly, only one test was carried out, this is due to the time duration that was available to conduct the study. It would have been interesting to see the difference in views of the players when having to do the CSAI-2 questionnaire on two more occasions before the up coming match. This could also be used to gain more detailed findings of anxiety. An example of this would be to give the participants the questionnaire 3 days before the match, then 1 day before, then finally 1 hour before. Due to the questionnaire only being given out once in the current study the players might not of taken it seriously and answers might not be true. Finally, it would be recommended that more research and study go into the reliability of the CSAI-2 questionnaire. Although it is widely accepted as a variable means of finding competitive state anxiety levels (Martens et al, 1990; Wiggins, 1998), a few recent studies have indicated that the results should be used with caution.
References
-
Burton, D (1998) Measuring Competitive State Anxiety. In: Duda, J.L. (eds) Advances in Sport and Exercise Psychology Measurement. USA: Fitness information Technology, pp 129-148.
-
Cox, R.H. (1998). Sport psychology: Concepts and applications (4th edition). Iowa: Wm.C.Brown.
-
Eysenck, H.J. ( July – Sept 1990). International Journal of Sport Psychology. Vol. 21. N.3.
-
Gould, D., Greenleaf, C. and Krane, V. (2002) Arousal-Anxiety and Sport Behaviour. In: Horn, T. (eds) Advances in Sport Psychology (2nd ed). USA: Human Kinetics, pp 207-241.
-
Hanton, S. and Connaughton, D. (2002) Perceived Control of Anxiety and its Relationship to self-Confidence and Performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, Vol 73. 1 ,pp 87-97.
-
Martens, R. (1982). Sport Competition Anxiety Test. Illinois: Human Kinetics.
-
Zuckerman, M. (1960). The development of an affect adjective checklist for the measure of anxiety. Journal of Consulting Psychology. Vol. 24. 457- 462.
-
Rodrigo, G. ( April – June 1990). International Journal of Sports Psychology. Vol. 21. N.2.
-
Fazey, J.(1982). The Inverted U-Hypothesis: a catastrophe for sport psychology?
