This article was downloaded by: [East Carolina University]On: 11 September 2013, At: 07:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Anxiety, Stress & Coping: AnInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gasc20

Competitive state anxiety and self-confidence: Intensity and direction asrelative predictors of performance on agolf putting taskSean T. Chamberlain a & Bruce D. Hale ba Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UKb Penn State University — Berks, Reading, Pennsylvania, USAPublished online: 08 May 2007.

To cite this article: Sean T. Chamberlain & Bruce D. Hale (2007) Competitive state anxiety and self-confidence: Intensity and direction as relative predictors of performance on a golf putting task,Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 20:2, 197-207

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615800701288572

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

22 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Competitive state anxiety and self-confidence: Intensityand direction as relative predictors of performance on agolf putting task

SEAN T. CHAMBERLAIN1 & BRUCE D. HALE2

1Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK & 2Penn State University * Berks, Reading,

Pennsylvania, USA

AbstractThis study considered relationships between the intensity and directional aspects of competitive stateanxiety as measured by the modified Competitive Sport Anxiety Inventory-2(D) (Jones &Swain, 1992) in a sample of 12 experienced male golfers. Anxiety and performance scores fromidentical putting tasks performed under three different anxiety-manipulated competitive conditionswere used to assess both the predictions of Multidimensional Anxiety Theory (MAT; Martens et al.,1990) and the relative value of intensity and direction in explaining performance variance. A within-subjects regression analysis of the intra-individual data showed partial support for the three MAThypotheses. Cognitive anxiety intensity demonstrated a negative linear relationship with performance,somatic anxiety intensity showed a curvilinear relationship with performance, and self-confidenceintensity revealed a positive linear relation. Cognitive directional anxiety illustrated a positive linearrelationship with putting performance. Multiple regression analyses indicated that direction (42% ofvariance) was a better predictor of performance than intensity (22%)

Keywords: Directional anxiety, multidimensional anxiety theory, putting performance

An athlete’s response to the cognitive appraisal of a competitive situation, and its

subsequent influence on performance, has proven to be fertile ground for inquiry in the

field of sport psychology. Anxiety about competition has generally been assumed to have a

negative effect on athletic performance (Burton, 1988; Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump &

Smith, 1990). Practitioners consequently have developed and tested strategies intent on

reducing anxiety in order to enhance performance (Greenspan & Feltz, 1989).

The proposition that anxiety is ‘bad’ for performance is reflected in Multidimensional

Anxiety Theory (MAT; Martens et al., 1990). Following from work in general psychology,

MATadopted a multidimensional view of anxiety incorporating a cognitive element (related

to worry) and a somatic element (nervousness or tension). Martens and colleagues

(Martens et al., 1990) devised a self-report measure, the Competitive State Anxiety

Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) to measure these components of anxiety. MAT hypothesized that

in relation to performance: (1) cognitive anxiety will show a negative linear relationship;

(2) somatic anxiety will show an inverted ‘U’ relationship; and (3) self-confidence

Correspondence: Bruce Hale, Dept. of Kinesiology, P.O. Box 7009, Tulpehocken Rd, Penn State*Berks,

Reading, PA 19610, USA. E-mail: bdh1@psu.edu

ISSN 1061-5806 print/ISSN 1477-2205 online # 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/10615800701288572

Anxiety, Stress, and Coping,

June 2007; 20(2): 197�207

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

22 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

(identified as a further component by factor analysis during the development of the

CSAI-2) will show a positive relationship.

The findings however have been equivocal (Jones, 1995b; Kleine, 1990) and have shown

little support for the hypothesized relationships with only one study finding support for all

three hypotheses (Burton, 1988). Gould and colleagues (Gould, Petlichkoff, Simons, &

Vevera, 1987) suggested at least three weaknesses with MAT research: first, some

researchers have relied on a between-subjects design which fails to account for differences

in skill or to detect the longitudinal influence of anxiety on an individual (Sonstroem &

Bernardo, 1982); second, some investigators have used a correlational design, precluding

the possibility of finding curvilinear relationships; and finally, performance measures

have been too global and imprecise. Performances have been compared on a win/loss

basis against different opponents (Gould, Petlichkoff & Weinberg, 1984), while others

have been scored subjectively by independent observers (Maynard, Hemmings & Warwick-

Evans, 1995) or the athletes themselves (Edwards & Hardy, 1996).

Research on other anxiety-performance models such as Catastrophe Theory

(Hardy, 1990), Individualized Zone of Optimal Functioning (IZOF; Hanin, 1995), and

facilitative/debilitative perceptions (‘directional anxiety’; Jones & Swain, 1992), however,

has suggested that anxiety does not always have a negative impact on sport performance.

For example, in Catastrophe Theory, a high intensity of somatic anxiety predicts enhanced

performance if the intensity of cognitive anxiety is simultaneously low to moderate.

Similarly in the IZOF model, an individual may prefer and perform best when his/her

anxiety level is relatively high compared with other individuals’ preferred ‘zone.’ The

consequences for applied practice are significant, since the findings suggest that anxiety

reduction may not be the most appropriate strategy for intervention.

Originally MAT only utilized an ‘intensity’-based measure of anxiety to assess the direct

effects of the competition on the athlete’s physical and mental state. But Jones and

colleagues’ subsequent work on directional anxiety (Jones & Swain, 1992) proposes that the

athlete’s perception of the symptoms will also be significant in explaining behavior. The

‘directional’ process, according to Jones (1995b), reflects a higher level of cognitive

appraisal associated with the athlete’s interpretation of the cognitive and physiological

symptoms. Initial research using an adapted form of the CSAI-2 (athletes interpret their

cognitive and somatic symptom intensity as either positive [‘facilitative’] or negative

[‘debilitative’] toward subsequent performance) has investigated both the effect of

individual differences such as competitiveness (Jones & Swain, 1992) and ability (Jones,

Hanton & Swain, 1994; Jones & Swain, 1995; Perry & Williams, 1998) on anxiety direction

and the effect of directional anxiety appraisal on performance (Edwards & Hardy, 1996;

Jones, Swain & Hardy, 1993; Kais & Raudsepp, 2004; Swain & Jones, 1996).

In these latter research designs examining effects on performance in MAT, directional

anxiety has produced a variety of effects on performance. Despite finding that gymnasts

who performed well interpreted an identical intensity of anxiety as being more facilitative

than gymnasts who performed badly, Jones et al. (1993) reported that self- confidence

intensity was the only significant predictor of performance. Edwards and Hardy (1996)

reported that direction did not add significantly to the percentage of performance variance

in netball performance explained by intensity. Swain and Jones (1996) further tested the

relative value of intensity and direction in predicting the performances of a basketball team

across six matches. Participants completed the CSAI-2D 20 minutes before the game and

results showed that cognitive anxiety direction (23%) and somatic anxiety direction (17%)

were better predictors of performance than cognitive intensity (18%) or somatic intensity

198 S. T. Chamberlain & B. D. Hale

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

22 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

(2%). More recently Kais and Raudsepp (2004) produced evidence for volleyball

performance predictions showing that self-confidence intensity predicted 24.1%, somatic

anxiety direction predicted 9.2%, and cognitive anxiety direction predicted 8.8% of the

variance, respectively.

Design weaknesses similar to those in the earlier MAT research may have contributed to

the lack of agreement between the four studies. Jones et al. (1993) failed to use an intra-

individual design (Sonstroem & Bernardo, 1982), while Edwards and Hardy (1996)

incorporated a self-assessed measure of performance, which may have been influenced by

factors such as an ego-protecting bias. The impact of changing task difficulty (different

opponents) and of possible changes in anxiety levels during the 20 minutes between the

completion of the CSAI-2D and the start of the game may similarly have influenced Swain

and Jones’ (1996) results. Furthermore, several researchers (Hardy, 1996; Jerome &

Williams, 2000) have suggested that researchers who wish to clearly test the anxiety-

performance relationship should design studies that include individual sports such as

bowling and golf, not team sports, that allow for valid, equivalent scoring.

But two recent studies using bowling and golf have also reported non-supportive findings

for MAT predictions. Jerome and Williams (2000) found a non-hypothesized inverted-U

relationship between cognitive anxiety intensity and bowling performance that accounted

for 4.1% of the variance, and a predicted positive linear relationship between somatic

anxiety direction subscale and performance that explained 3.0% of the variance. Even with

the removal of bowlers who had a repressive coping style to enhance accuracy of the anxiety

scores, the ratings did not support MAT and only offered partial support for the use of

directional subscales. Unfortunately, this study only compared one competitive bowling

game score with a prior bowling average as its performance measure, thereby falling under

the performance measurement weakness listed previously by Gould et al. (1987).

Hardy (1996) attempted to reduce the time of CSAI-2 test administration by teaching

golfers to give one estimate of the three intensity subscales immediately before each putt in

an actual 18-hole competition. He also attempted to make the collegiate match competition

more anxiety-provoking by offering a monetary reward to the winner. All three intensity

subscales accounted for only 7% of the variance with self-confidence accounting for a

unique proportion of the criterion variance. Although the design offered a quicker

assessment of competitive anxiety in a realistic setting, it failed to examine the effects of

directional anxiety on performance.

The equivocal nature of these findings necessitated further replication research into the

relative value of both intensity and direction in predicting performance under MAT. These

findings have raised significant questions about the ability of current measures to accurately

assess the ‘anxiety’ response. The purpose of this study therefore was to further examine the

relative value of intensity and direction of state anxiety in predicting performance based on

the hypotheses of MAT. The design also incorporated design recommendations made by

Gould et al. (1987) and Jones (1995b), including intra-individual analysis of performance,

three separate anxiety interventions to test performance effects under varied conditions,

and a more objective measure of task performance in a golf putting competition. The

hypotheses for testing intensity followed the above stated MAT predictions, while

‘directional’ hypotheses reflected those proposed by Swain and Jones (1996), who

suggested that directional cognitive and somatic anxiety and directional self-confidence

would all have a positive linear relationship with performance. It was also predicted, based

on the findings of Swain and Jones (1996), that directional anxiety will account for more of

the variance in performance than anxiety intensity.

Predictors of performance on a golf putting task 199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

22 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Method

Participants

Twelve experienced undergraduate male golfers from an English university in the Midlands,

ranging in age from 20 to 22 years volunteered to participate in the study (age M�20.9

years, SD�0.76; handicap M�11.75, SD�1.48; years of competitive experience M�8

years, SD�2.8).

Apparatus

The study used the CSAI-2D self-report inventory adapted by Jones and Swain (1992)

from Martens et al.’s (1990) original CSAI-2. The CSAI-2D self-report questionnaire was

used to measure state anxiety intensity and direction across three nine-item sub-scales:

cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence. The responses for intensity were

recorded on a four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (‘not at all’) to 4 (‘very much so’) and

possible scores for each sub-scale ranged from 9 to 36. Directional scores were recorded on

a seven-point scale, each component ranging from �3 (negatively) to �3 (positively) with

possible scores ranging from �27 to �27 for each sub-scale.

The authors of the original CSAI-2 reported reliability coefficient scores between 0.79

and 0.90 (Martens et al., 1990), suggesting that the inventory has a high degree of internal

consistency. The directional aspect has not yet received comprehensive validation, though

Swain and Jones (1996) report internal reliability coefficients of 0.83 (cognitive anxiety),

0.72 (somatic anxiety), and .90 (self confidence), suggesting sufficient internal consistency.

Research by Maynard, Hemmings, and Warwick-Evans (1995) provides evidence that the

CSAI-2D has predictive validity in subsequent soccer performance results.

A green synthetic putting mat (12 meters by 2 meters) was used to test putting skill. Two

crosses, 5 meters apart, were marked on the mat, one to indicate the spot where the golf ball

was to be placed prior to putting and one to indicate the target. Although each golfer was

permitted to use his own putter, all putts were performed using new golf balls of the same

brand and model.

Performance

The study required the participant to putt a golf ball along a smooth, flat, grass-like surface

toward a target 5 meters away. In order to control for test-retest threats to internal validity,

the participant performed this task 15 times (five practice, ten recorded) on each of the

three separate occasions. Performance error scores were obtained by measuring the distance

(in centimeters) between the final resting place of the golf ball after the putt and the target.

The scores from the 10 recorded putts were averaged to establish a final mean score.

Procedures

Participants were required to complete an informed consent form before participating in

the study. Once accepted into the study, the participants completed the CSAI-2D

immediately before putting on each of the three separate occasions. Participants were

informed that the study investigated the influence of team position and emotion on

performance.

In order to produce the three statistically different anxiety responses necessary to test for

curvilinear relationships (c.f., Sonstroem & Bernardo, 1982), the conditions under which

200 S. T. Chamberlain & B. D. Hale

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

22 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

the golfers performed were altered. On the first occasion participants were asked to perform

the first putting task alone in the testing area with the experimenter. The participants were

informed that the performance scores would not be revealed to the other participants and

would only be used to place individuals in team positions for the second session. It was

predicted that this condition would induce a low level of anxiety, since the individual should

not experience the concern associated with social comparison or the consequences of poor

performance (Martens et al., 1990; Wang, Marchant, & Morris, 2004). The CSAI-2D was

administered immediately following the instructions and then the participant began the

task.

The second session took place the following day. The 12 participants were required to

perform two further putting tasks. For the first task the golfers were randomly separated

into three teams of four individuals and the basis of team competition was explained. The

participants completed the CSAI-2D for the second time, before competing head to head

(first member of team A versus first member of team B versus first member of team C) for a

cash prize (US$30) awarded for the best team performance. It was predicted that under this

condition the participant would experience a moderate level of anxiety (valued outcome,

but with team scores, not individual scores being announced).

For the second task of this day, it was explained that each participant was required to

compete individually against all the others for a cash prize (US$50). The golfers completed

the CSAI-2D for the final (third) time, after which they were randomly asked to perform

the putting task in front of the other competitors. It was predicted that the individual ‘head-

to-head’ nature of the competition, the presence of spectators and the cash prize

(Hardy, 1996) would induce a higher level of anxiety than the previous conditions. Across

the three tasks all participants started the putting within five minutes of completing the

CSAI-2D questionnaire, with most taking the first putt immediately after its completion.

Results

Statistical analysis

Each set of CSAI-2D sub-scale responses was ordered into lowest, median, and highest

scores in six repeated measures in order to test for linear or quadratic relationships between

CSAI-2D subscale scores and putting performance (Burton, 1988; Gould et al., 1987;

Sonstroem & Bernardo, 1982; Swain & Jones, 1996). Sonstroem and Bernardo (1982)

justified this manipulation by arguing that it does not matter which putting task creates the

most or least competitive anxiety or self-confidence; it is only necessary to demonstrate that

the task manipulations caused three distinct levels of anxiety and self confidence. Repeated

measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with orthogonal post hoc tests (Swain &

Jones, 1996) were used to check for significant differences between the means.

All CSAI-2D and performance scores were then standardized to remove inter-subject

response variation (c.f., Sonstroem & Bernardo, 1982). The standardized performance

scores were then reversed for each test since lower scores, in terms of distance from the

target, equated with better performance. Separate curve estimation regression analyses was

used to test the MAT (Martens et al., 1990) and directional anxiety hypotheses (Swain &

Jones, 1996) by calculating whether a linear or curvilinear relationship best described the

association between performance and the six CSAI-2D sub-scale scores. The repeated

observations were treated as independent so the degrees of freedom equaled 36. To

determine the relative contribution of the direction scale in predicting performance, the

standardized intensity scale was entered before the standardized direction scale in a

Predictors of performance on a golf putting task 201

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

22 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

hierarchical regression analysis for somatic and cognitive anxiety and self-confidence

following the example of Swain and Jones (1996).

Anxiety manipulation check

Initial repeated measures ANOVA of the raw data with orthogonal post hoc comparisons

supported the effectiveness of the stress manipulations between task conditions for each of

the six CSAI-2D sub-scales (see Table I). These significant results permitted further

analysis of the six sub-scales for both linear and curvilinear relationships with the

performance variable.

CSAI-2D subscale scores and performance relationships

Cognitive anxiety and performance. The relationship between cognitive intensity and

performance was best described by a linear equation, (F(1,34)�9.79, p B.01), and

accounted for 22.4% of the variance. The quadratic function explained 4.5% of the

variance, (F(2,33)�6.09, p B.01). The relationship between cognitive direction

and performance was best described by a linear equation, (F(1,34)�23.7, p B.01),

and accounted for 18.9% of the variance. When cognitive direction (linear) was entered

into the equation after cognitive intensity (linear), 41.2% of the variance was explained

by the intensity subscale, Fchange (1,34)�9.79, R2change�.22, b��.47, t��3.13, p B.01,

and by the direction subscale, Fchange (1,33)�10.61, R2change�.189, b�.61, t�3.26,

pB.01.

Somatic anxiety and performance. Somatic anxiety intensity’s relationship with performance

was best accounted for by a U-shaped curvilinear equation (F(2,33)�5.06, p B.05) with

23.5% of variance explained. No interpretable trend was forthcoming for somatic anxiety

direction’s relationship with performance either as a linear equation (F(1,34)�2.13;

p�.05), or as a quadratic function (F(2,33)�1.06; p �.05). When somatic direction was

entered into the equation after somatic intensity (curvilinear), 13.5% of the variance was

explained by only the significant intensity scale, Fchange (1,34)�5.21, R2change�.133,

b��.36, t��2.28, p B.05.

Table I. Repeated measures ANOVAs.

Score Lowest Median Highest

CSAI-2D subscale M SD M SD M SD F df p value

Intensity

Cognitive 12.17 (3.24) 14.67 (3.20) 19.33 (5.53) 25.29 (2,10) B.01

Somatic 10.50 (2.20) 13.08 (3.70) 17.33 (5.26) 14.56 (2,10) B.01

Self-confidence 26.33 (4.27) 28.75 (3.55) 31.41 (4.08) 13.57 (2,10) B.01

Direction

Cognitive 4.42 (9.33) 8.67 (9.45) 15.71 (10.03) 22.18 (2,10) B.01

Somatic 6.92 (11.44) 12.58 (9.14) 17.33 (9.03) 7.25 (2,10) B.05

Self-confidence 10.75 (11.09) 18.83 (8.12) 21.42 (6.45) 5.22 (2,10) B.01

Putting

performance .096 (1.01) �.028 (.98) �.09 (.96)

202 S. T. Chamberlain & B. D. Hale

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

22 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Self-confidence and performance. Self-confidence intensity was best described by a linear

equation (F(1,34)�6.9, p B.05) with performance, with 16.8% of the variance accounted

for. The quadratic function further explained 15.6% of the variance, (F(2,33)�7.91,

p B.01. Self-confidence direction scores show a linear relationship (F(1,34)�14.59,

p B.01) with performance with 30% of the variance accounted for. The quadratic function

further explained 9.5% of the variance, (F (2, 33)�10.76, p B.01. When self-confidence

direction (linear) was entered into the equation after self-confidence intensity (linear),

32.5% of the variance was accounted for by the intensity scale, Fchange (1,34)�6.88,

R2change�.168, b�.41, t�2.62, p B.05, and the direction scale, Fchange (1,33)�7.65,

R2change�.156, b�.84, t�2.77, p B.01.

Intensity and direction. In order to ensure that the variables satisfied the statistical

requirements for testing the regression hypothesis, a correlational table was constructed

(see Table II). A basic assumption of a multiple regression model is that all independent

variables are truly independent, otherwise multicollinearity occurs (Bohrnstedt &

Knoke, 1994). Multicollinearity exists when a high degree of one independent variable’s

variance is explained by the other variables, thus making the variable redundant as a

predictor of the criterion variable (Bohrnstedt & Knoke, 1994). The high correlations

between the intensity and direction sub-scales of cognitive (r��.696, p B.01) and somatic

anxiety (r��.572, p B.01) and self-confidence (r�.883, p B0.01) suggested that a single

regression model would engender the problem of multicollinearity.

Therefore two regression models (one with the intensity variables and one with

directional variables) were used to test the hypothesis. Furthermore, the use of two

separate multiple regression models would follow the assumption that intensity and

direction may separately predict performance, though some significant relationships within

these models would preclude the possibility of validly stating which particular subscale

(cognitive, somatic or self-confidence) would best explain the variance.

The two multiple regression models showed that direction (F(3,35)�9.58, p B.001)

accounted for 42.4% (adjusted R2) of performance variance in comparison with 22.9%

(adjusted R2) explained by intensity (F(3,35)�4.46, p B.01).

Discussion

The results show that the relationship between cognitive intensity and performance was

best described by a significant negative linear equation. This finding agrees with the original

MAT hypothesis initially proposed by Burton (1988) and Martens et al. (1990). Martens

Table II. Pearson product moment correlations between CSAI-2D sub-scales.

Cog Dir Som Int Som Dit S-C Int S-C Dir

Cog Int �.696** .603** �.292 .353* .394*

Cog Dir �.418* .304 .435** .524**

Som Int �.572** �.327 �.374*

Som Dir .492** .352*

S-C Int .883**

Note: Cog Int�Cognitive Anxiety Intensity; Cog Dir�Cognitive Anxiety Direction; Som Int�Somatic Anxiety

Intensity; Som Dir�Somatic Anxiety Direction; S-C Int�Self-Confidence Intensity; S-C Dir�Self-Confidence

Direction.*p B.05; **p B.01.

Predictors of performance on a golf putting task 203

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

22 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

et al. (1990) suggest that this relationship reflects the focus of the performer’s attention

away from task-relevant cues towards task-irrelevant ones. Eysenck (1984) extended this

view by stating that highly anxious performers are more susceptible to hyper-distractibility

and appear more likely to process stimuli that are perceived as threatening, rather than

neutral; as such, the effectiveness of the performance will depend on the congruence

between the perception of the individual and the relevant demands of the task.

The current findings do not agree with Swain and Jones’ (1996), Jerome and

Williams’ (2000), or Perreault and Marisi’s (1997) results, which found that cognitive

intensity followed a curvilinear relationship across basketball and bowling performance

measures. Elements in the nature of the task may help explain these differences. Hardy,

Jones, and Gould (1996) state that increased cognitive anxiety (intensity) ‘‘may lead the

performer to use higher level cognitive mechanisms in an attempt to consciously control

lower level automatic operations’’ (p. 186). This ‘‘paralysis by analysis’’ may particularly

occur in highly automated tasks, when the performer usually executes the technique with

relatively little attention directed towards the performance itself.

The current results show a U-shaped curvilinear relationship with increasing levels of

somatic anxiety intensity associated with poorer performance up to a point. Some sub-

components of performance, such as fine control and manual dexterity, may be impaired by

increased physiological arousal (Parfitt & Hardy, 1987). Since the CSAI-2D questionnaire

measures somatic anxiety in relation to the athlete’s physiological state (e.g., ‘My body feels

tense’; ‘My hands are clammy’), the putting stroke could be significantly affected by

changes in the physiological state and its subsequent effect on these relevant sub-

components. It seems probable therefore that, within the range of the somatic intensity

scores reported by the subjects, lower scores equated with lack of tension and ultimately

with better performance up to a point on the golf putting task. The finding that past this

point elevated levels of somatic anxiety are associated with improved performance is

surprising. Since all participants performed the three conditions in the same order, their

self-confidence could have improved over the conditions, and self-confidence may have

impacted performance more than anxiety in the final condition.

Unlike earlier results (Edwards & Hardy, 1996; Jerome & Williams, 2000), the current

results suggest that self-confidence in itself is a significant predictor of performance. The

positive linear relationship found by this study supports the findings of Burton (1988) and

Jones and Cale (1989). Because self-confidence was only measured prior to performance,

this relationship cannot fully explain causation. Self-confidence may be bi-directional with

both good performance enhancing self-confidence during actual putting and high self-

confidence enhancing performance. Jones (1995b) states that in relation to perception it

should play a role as an individual difference.

The results show that cognitive direction has a positive linear relationship (similar to

Swain & Jones, 1996) with performance, and indicate that an improvement in the

participants’ perception of their cognitive anxiety symptoms may be associated with an

improvement in putting. Both Edwards and Hardy (1996) and Jerome and Williams (2000)

did not find this linear relationship, possibly because of deficiencies in measuring athletic

performance accurately. Jones’ (1995a) model suggests that a facilitative score on the CSAI-

2D arises from an athlete’s positive perception about coping with the demands of the task

and of achieving the goal. Such an interpretation of the symptoms may not therefore be

associated with anxiety at all. Instead, the symptoms reflect a motivated state where the

athlete does not regard the stimuli as threatening. The loss of appropriate attentional focus

therefore does not occur. Jones continues by stating that high intensity symptoms will be

204 S. T. Chamberlain & B. D. Hale

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

22 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

perceived as debilitative for more finely controlled skills; the present finding for golf putting

supports this statement.

The finding that somatic direction had a non-significant relationship with performance

lends support to previous research that also found a non-significant relationship (Edwards

& Hardy, 1996; Jones et al., 1993). In contrast, Jerome and Williams (2000) found a

significant positive linear relation with performance, but this isolated finding may be due to

their use of a single bowling game score as the performance measure. Furthermore, their

finding that only 3% of variance was explained by somatic direction suggests that the

relationship in itself is not particularly meaningful. To date, only Swain and Jones’s (1996)

finding of positive linear relationship accounting for 17% of the variance supports the MAT

and suggests that a longitudinal design must be used to concisely assess game performance.

A significant positive linear relationship was apparent between self-confidence direction

and performance. But the high correlation between self-confidence intensity and direction

(r�0.88, p B.05) adds some weight to Jones and colleagues’ view (Jones et al., 1993, 1994)

that the separation of self-confidence into intensity and direction sub-scales may be

unnecessary. Both variables illustrated a positive linear relationship with performance,

though direction, as a linear relationship (30%), explained more performance variance than

intensity (17%), suggesting that the participant’s perception of self-confidence is more

important. Perhaps as Lane, Sewell, Terry, Bartram, and Nesti (1999) have suggested, self-

confidence should not be part of the MAT theory.

The results indicated that the direction sub-scale (42% of variance) of the CSAI-2D is a

better predictor of performance than the intensity sub-scale (23%). Although the issue of

multicollinearity prevents any specific results being drawn in relation to which particular

sub-component of anxiety best predicts performance, conservative conclusions can be

drawn about the efficacy of the original CSAI-2 inventory as a measure of the anxiety

construct. The finding of this study lends support to the conclusions of Swain and Jones

(1996), who also reported that direction was a better predictor of performance than

intensity. The finding does not agree with Edwards and Hardy (1996) and Jerome and

Williams (2000), who found that direction did not significantly predict more performance

variance than intensity, or with Jones et al. (1993) who found that direction was not

significantly related to performance at all.

Only the present study and Swain and Jones (1996), however, used a design

incorporating a within-subjects’ analysis of an objective, repetitive performance measure.

Jones (1995b) states that failure to incorporate these two elements into a research design

may seriously weaken the validity of the subsequent findings. The current findings therefore

add to the converging evidence which suggests ‘‘that factors other than the overall intensity

of anxiety responses are likely to influence the effect of anxiety upon the behavioral

processes that underlie performance’’ (Hardy & Hagtvet, 1996, p. 6).

The moderate to high correlations between intensity and direction also lend partial

support to the view that an increased level of cognitive ‘anxiety’ is not always interpreted

negatively. This finding, in association with the positive linear relationship between

direction and performance, refutes the MAT assumption that an increase in cognitive

anxiety is always ‘bad’ (Burton, 1988; Martens et al., 1990) and supports findings by Jokela

& Hanin (1999); Individual Zone of Optimal Functioning hypothesis), Hardy (1990);

Catastrophe Theory) & Jones and Cale (1989), who found that increases in the cognitive

anxiety did not necessarily lead to impaired performance.

The results do not, however, support Jones and colleagues’ conclusions (Jones

et al., 1993; Jones & Hanton, 1996) that intensity and direction may be separate scales.

Predictors of performance on a golf putting task 205

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

22 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

In addition to this study, interventions in applied sport psychology (Hale & Whitehouse,

1998; Maynard et al., 1995) found the two scales to be interrelated.

The CSAI-2D, as a self-report inventory, possesses inherent problems in administration

to athletes. Since the CSAI-2D is a pre-performance state measure, the responses provide

an indication of an individual’s symptoms prior to the pre-shot routine so commonly

adopted by golfers. All of the participants were observed engaging in a pre-shot routine,

with most participants using club ‘waggling’ and deep breathing techniques. Although the

influence of these routines on performance will depend on the individual’s mental skill

ability, the difference between pre-performance state and during-performance state may

account for some of the performance variance not explained by the CSAI-2D sub-scales. A

study on the effects of self-confidence on putting performance, for example, reported that

self-confidence during putting had a stronger relationship with performance than self-

confidence before putting (Pickens, Rotella & Gansneder, 1996). Furthermore, the CSAI-

2D consists of 27 items with 54 responses in total. This makes the questionnaire relatively

lengthy and arduous to complete (about 10 minutes). Changes in anxiety symptoms may

occur not only across the time it takes the participant to respond, but also as a consequence

of completing the inventory itself. An athlete may therefore be less likely to agree to such an

intrusion if the inventory either detracts from pre-competition warm-up or actually results

in a worsening of the mood state. More recently, the Immediate Anxiety Measurement

Scale (Thomas, Hanton, & Jones, 2002) has been developed to incorporate more brevity

and still measure directional aspects of anxiety. Furthermore, the results of confirmatory

factor analysis by Lane et al. (1999) have not supported the three-factor structure of the

original CSAI-2 and have criticized the inclusion of self-confidence in the scale. Until

greater validation of both the CSAI-2D and IAMS is forthcoming, researchers must adopt a

slightly skeptical stance to the results produced by studies that use both anxiety measures.

In conclusion, authors such as Jones et al. (1994) suggest that the term ‘anxiety’ itself

may account for some of the conceptual problems and conflicting findings. Sport

psychology researchers and practitioners need to develop better valid measures of sport

emotion (e.g., Jokela & Hanin, 1999), that quickly and accurately measure both facilitative

and debilitative perceptions of affect, so that performance may be more concisely predicted

and effective interventions more easily undertaken. Without valid measures, there can be no

substantive theory testing or application in sport.

References

Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Knoke, D. (1994). Statistics for social data analysis . Itasca, IL: T. E. Peacock.

Burton, D. (1988). Do anxious swimmers swim slower? Re-examining the elusive anxiety�performance

relationship. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10 , 45�61.

Edwards, T., & Hardy, L. (1996). The interactive effects of intensity and direction of cognitive and somatic anxiety

and self confidence upon performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18 , 296�312.

Eysenck, M. W. (1984). A handbook of cognitive psychology. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gould, D., Petlichkoff, L., & Weinberg, R. S. (1984). Antecedents of, temporal changes in, and relationships

between CSAI-2 subcomponents. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6 , 289�304.

Gould, D., Petlichkoff, L., Simons, H., & Vevera, M. (1987). The relationship between Competitive State Anxiety

Inventory-2 subscale scores and pistol shooting performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 9 , 33�42.

Greenspan, M. J., & Feltz, D. L. (1989). Psychological interventions with athletes in competitive situations: A

review. Sport Psychologist , 3 , 219�236.

Hale, B. D., & Whitehouse, A. (1998). The effects of imagery manipulated appraisal on intensity and direction of

competitive anxiety. Sport Psychologist. , 12 , 40�51.

Hanin, Y. (1995). Emotions and athletic performance: Individual zones of optimal functioning. European Journal of

Sport Psychology, 1 , 29�72.

206 S. T. Chamberlain & B. D. Hale

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

22 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Hardy, L. (1990). A catastrophe model of performance in sport. In G. Jones, & L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and

performance in sport (pp. 81�106). Chichester, Sussex: Wiley.

Hardy, L. (1996). A test of the catastrophe models of anxiety and sports performance against Multidimensional

Anxiety Theory models using the method of dynamic differences. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping , 9 , 69�86.

Hardy, L., & Hagtvet, K. A. (1996). Anxiety and performance: Measurement and modeling issues. Anxiety, Stress,

& Coping , 9 , 5�8.

Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding Psychological Preparation for Sport: Theory and Practice of

Elite Performers . Chichester, Sussex: Wiley.

Jerome, G. J., & Williams, J. M. (2000). Intensity and interpretation of competitive state anxiety: Relationship to

performance and repressive coping. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 12 , 236�250.

Jokela, M., & Hanin, Y. (1999). Does the individual zones of optimal functioning model discriminate between

successful and unsuccessful athletes? A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport Sciences , 17 (11), 73�88.

Jones, G. (1995a). Competitive anxiety in sport. In S. J. H. Biddle (Ed.), European perspectives on exercise and sport

psychology (pp. 128�133). Leeds, Yorks: Human Kinetics.

Jones, G. (1995b). More than just a game: Research developments and issues in competitive anxiety in sport.

British Journal of Psychology, 86 , 449�478.

Jones, G., & Cale, A. (1989). Relationships between multidimensional competitive anxiety and cognitive and

motor subcomponents of performance. Journal of Sport Sciences , 7 , 229�240.

Jones, G., & Hanton, S. (1996). Interpretation of competitive anxiety symptoms and goal attainment expectancies.

Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18 , 144�157.

Jones, G., & Swain, A. B. J. (1992). Intensity and direction as dimensions of competitive state anxiety and

relationships with competitiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills , 74 , 467�472.

Jones, G., & Swain, A. B. J. (1995). Predisposition to experience debilitative and facilitative anxiety in elite and

non-elite performers. Sport Psychologist , 9 , 201�211.

Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Swain, A. B. J. (1994). Intensity and interpretation of anxiety symptoms in elite and non-

elite sports performers. Personality and Individual Differences , 17 , 657�663.

Jones, G., Swain, A. B. J., & Hardy, L. (1993). Intensity and direction dimensions of competitive state anxiety and

relationships with performance. Journal of Sport Sciences , 11 , 525�532.

Kais, K., & Raudsepp, L. (2004). Cognitive and somatic anxiety and self-confidence in athletic performance of

beach volleyball. Perceptual & Motor Skills , 98 , 439�449.

Kleine, D. (1990). Anxiety and sport performance: A meta-analysis. Anxiety Research , 2 , 113�131.

Lane, A. M., Sewell, D. F., Terry, P. C., Bartram, D., & Nesti, M. S. (1999). Confirmatory factor analysis of the

Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. Journal of Sport Sciences , 17 , 505�512.

Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R., Bump, L., & Smith, D. (1990). The development of the Competitive State

Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). In R. Martens, R. S. Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive anxiety in sport (pp.

117�190). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Maynard, I. W., Hemmings, B., & Warwick-Evans, L. (1995). The effects of a somatic intervention strategy on

competitive state anxiety and performance in semiprofessional soccer players. Sport Psychologist , 9 , 51�64.

Parfitt, G., & Hardy, L. (1987). Further evidence for the differential effects of competitive state anxiety upon a

number of cognitive and motor subsystems. Journal of Sports Sciences , 5 , 62�63.

Perreault, S., & Marisi, D. Q. (1997). A test of Multidimensional Anxiety Theory with male wheelchair basketball

players. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 14 , 108�118.

Perry, J. D., & Williams, J. M. (1998). Relationship between intensity and direction of competitive anxiety to skill

level in tennis. Sport Psychologist , 12 , 169�179.

Pickens, M. M., Rotella, R. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (1996). The effects of putting*confidence on putting

performance. Journal of Sport Behavior , 19 , 148�162.

Sonstroem, R. J., & Bernardo, P. (1982). Intra-individual pregame state anxiety and basketball performance: A re-

examination of the inverted-U curve. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4 , 235�245.

Swain, A. B. J., & Jones, G. (1996). Explaining performance variance: The relative contribution of intensity and

direction dimensions of competitive state anxiety. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping , 9 , 1�18.

Thomas, O., Hanton, S. M., & Jones, G. (2002). An alternative approach to short-term self-report assessment of

competitive anxiety: A research note. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 33 , 325�336.

Wang, J., Marchant, D., & Morris, T. (2004). Coping style and susceptibility to choking. Journal of Sport

Behavior’’ , 27 (1), 75�93.

Predictors of performance on a golf putting task 207

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Eas

t Car

olin

a U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

22 1

1 Se

ptem

ber

2013