coping self-efficacy, pre-competitive anxiety, and subjective performance
TRANSCRIPT
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by: [European College of Sport Science]On: 22 April 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 909201977]Publisher Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal of Sport SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t714592354
Coping self-efficacy, pre-competitive anxiety, and subjective performanceamong athletesAdam R. Nichollsa; Remco Polmanb; Andrew R. Levyc
a Department of Psychology, University of Hull, Hull b Centre for Applied Sport and Exercise Sciences,University of Central Lancashire, Preston c Department of Sport Science, University of Leeds, Leeds,UK
Online publication date: 08 February 2010
To cite this Article Nicholls, Adam R. , Polman, Remco and Levy, Andrew R.(2010) 'Coping self-efficacy, pre-competitiveanxiety, and subjective performance among athletes', European Journal of Sport Science, 10: 2, 97 — 102To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/17461390903271592URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461390903271592
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Coping self-efficacy, pre-competitive anxiety, and subjectiveperformance among athletes
ADAM R. NICHOLLS1, REMCO POLMAN2, & ANDREW R. LEVY3
1Department of Psychology, University of Hull, Hull, 2Centre for Applied Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Central
Lancashire, Preston, and 3Department of Sport Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
AbstractThe aim of this study was to explore the relationships between (a) coping self-efficacy and subjective performance,(b) coping self-efficacy and pre-competitive anxiety, and (c) pre-competitive anxiety and subjective performance.Participants were 307 athletes (252 males, 55 females) aged 16�34 years (mean age 21.3 years, s�2.8) who competed atnational/international (n�18), county (n�54), club/university (n�139), and beginner (n�96) level. All participantscompleted a measure of coping self-efficacy and anxiety before a competitive event and a subjective performance measureafter competing. Our findings revealed that there was a significant and positive relationship between coping self-efficacy andsubjective performance. Negative relationships between coping self-efficacy and both somatic and cognitive anxiety werealso observed. However, somatic and cognitive anxiety did not predict subjective performance. The present findings supportprevious results regarding the influence of self-efficacy and provide applied practitioners with recommendations that mayenhance athletic performance, via improving the coping self-efficacy beliefs of their clients.
Keywords: Coping self-efficacy, anxiety, performance
Introduction
Self-efficacy refers to the belief an individual has in
his or her ability to execute a task and thus obtain the
desired outcome (Bandura, 1997) and is considered
to be an important attribute within sport. In
their review, Moritz and colleagues (Moritz, Feltz,
Fahrbach, & Mack, 2000) found a ‘‘positive’’ and
‘‘moderate’’ relationship between sport-specific skill-
based self-efficacy and performance in a variety of
sports (r�0.38). It has been suggested that indivi-
duals have a number of efficacy-related beliefs, but
that these beliefs can vary greatly in each person
(Feltz, Short, & Sullivan, 2008; Forsyth & Carey,
1998). It is therefore essential that researchers
explore different components of self-efficacy. One
such distinct efficacy belief relates to an athlete’s
ability to cope, which is referred to as ‘‘coping self-
efficacy’’. Coping self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997;
Chesney, Neilands, Chambers, Taylor, & Folkman,
2006) refers to a person’s belief in his or her ability to
deploy strategies that will assist in coping with
diverse threats or stressors and would therefore
play an important role in reactions to stress
(Perraud, Fogg, Kopytko, & Gross, 2006). Bandura
(1997) suggested that coping self-efficacy beliefs
determine, to a large extent, the subjective threat
of environmental events, which is the core relational
theme of anxiety (Lazarus & Averill, 1972).
Park and Folkman (1997) suggested that variables
such as self-efficacy ‘‘clearly’’ exert strong influences
on situational appraisals and the way in which an
individual responds to these appraisals such as
anxiety. Anxiety consists of cognitive (e.g. cognitive
anxiety) and behavioural (e.g. somatic anxiety)
components that form a multi-dimensional con-
struct (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith,
1990). Cognitive anxiety refers to negative expecta-
tions and the concerns a person may have, whereas
somatic anxiety refers to the person’s physiological
arousal (Martens et al., 1990).
The relationship between anxiety and athletic
performance is somewhat equivocal. Many theories
Correspondence: A. R. Nicholls, Department of Psychology, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull HU6 7RX, UK. E-mail:
European Journal of Sport Science, March 2010; 10(2): 97�102
ISSN 1746-1391 print/ISSN 1536-7290 online # 2010 European College of Sport Science
DOI: 10.1080/17461390903271592
Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011
and models have tried to clarify the relationship
between anxiety and sport performance. It has been
suggested that cognitive anxiety might influence all
forms of athletic performance in a negative linear
fashion, whereas somatic anxiety tends to disrupt
fine motor skill in a quadratic way (Lavallee,
Kremer, Moran, & Williams, 2004). More recently,
it has been suggested that the interpretation of
anxiety symptoms is also of importance in the
experience of anxiety. That is, the way an athlete
perceives his or her arousal may result in the
situation being judged as either (a) positive and
challenging or (b) negative and overwhelming
(Mellalieu, Hanton, & Fletcher, 2006). The asser-
tion that the interpretation of anxiety symptoms can
be either facilitative or debilitative has received some
support in the sport literature (Jones & Swain,
1992). However, two recent meta-analyses argued
that the relationships between anxiety and sporting
performance is relatively weak, but in the negative
direction (e.g. Craft, Magyar, Becker, & Feltz, 2003;
Woodman & Hardy, 2003).
In summary, searches on SPORTdiscus, Psych-
LIT, and PsychINFO in June 2009 did not yield any
studies that have examined the relationship between
coping self-efficacy and state anxiety among athletes.
There is, however, some evidence that other forms of
self-efficacy are inversely related to anxiety (e.g.
Cartoni, Minganti, & Zelli, 2005; Haney & Long,
1995). In response to Bandura’s (1997) recommen-
dation that sport psychology scholars focus on
arousal and coping self-efficacy, in this study
we explored the relationships between (a) coping
self-efficacy and subjective performance, (b) coping
self-efficacy and pre-competitive anxiety, and
(c) pre-competitive anxiety and subjective perfor-
mance. Although the literature suggests that there is
a relationship between task self-efficacy regarding
sport-specific activities and performance (e.g.
Moritz et al., 2000), the relationship between coping
self-efficacy and athletic performance has not been
explored and is worthy of exploration given that
coping self-efficacy is quite different to athletes’
efficacy to perform a specific task and the suggestion
that self-efficacy beliefs differ across different skills
(Feltz et al., 2008; Forsyth & Carey, 1998). We
hypothesized that there would be a positive relation-
ship between coping self-efficacy and subjective
sport performance. We also hypothesized that there
would be a negative relationship between coping
self-efficacy and anxiety. That is, athletes with
greater coping self-efficacy would experience less
pre-competitive anxiety. Finally, we predicted that
there would be a negative relationship between
anxiety and subjective athletic performance.
Methods
Participants
Participants were 307 athletes (252 males, 55
females) aged 16�34 years (mean age 21.3 years,
s�2.8) with an average competitive sport experience
of 9.1 years (s�5.2). The sample consisted of team
(n�198) and individual (n�109) sports performers
competing at national/international (n�18), county
(n�54), club/university (n�139), and beginner
(n�96) level. The sample consisted of 297 Cauca-
sian and 10 Black/Asian participants. Participants
completed an informed consent form before the
study began. The study was approved by a
university’s research ethics committee.
Questionnaires
The Coping Self-Efficacy scale (CSES; Chesney
et al., 2006), which was developed together with
Dr Albert Bandura of Stanford University, was used
to assess coping self-efficacy. The CSES is a 26-item
measure, with three higher-order dimensions: use
problem-focused coping, stop unpleasant emotions
and thoughts, and get support from family and
friends. The scale uses an 11-point scale, rating the
extent to which the participants feel that they can
perform a behaviour important to effective coping.
As such, the CSES assessed the athletes’ confidence
with regards to carrying out coping strategies.
Therefore, a higher CSES score would suggest that
a person is more confident in his or her ability to
cope (Chesney et al., 2006). The participants
responded to the stem ‘‘when things aren’t going
well for you, or when you’re having problems, how
confident or certain are you that you can do the
following?’’ Examples of ‘‘use problem-focused cop-
ing self-efficacy’’ included questions relating to the
athletes’ ability to ‘‘sort out what can be changed
and what cannot be changed’’, ‘‘find solutions to
your most difficult problems’’, and ‘‘talk positively to
yourself ’’. Examples of ‘‘stop unpleasant emotions
and thoughts’’ included ‘‘make unpleasant thoughts
go away’’, ‘‘take your mind off unpleasant thoughts’’,
and ‘‘stop yourself being upset by unpleasant
thoughts’’. Finally, ‘‘get support from family and
friends’’ comprised questions relating to the athletes’
perceptions of being able to ‘‘get emotional support
from friends or family’’, ‘‘get a friend to help you
with the things you need’’, and ‘‘do something
positive for yourself when you are feeling discour-
aged’’. The scale is anchored at 0�‘‘cannot do at
all’’, 5�‘‘moderately can do’’, and 10�‘‘certain can
do’’. The scale has adequate reliability, with a
Cronbach alpha of 0.95 (Chesney et al., 2006). In
the present study, the scale had a Cronbach alpha of
0.88.
98 A. R. Nicholls et al.
Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011
The participants completed the revised Competi-
tive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2R; Cox,
Martens, & Russell, 2003). The CSAI-2R is a
multidimensional domain-specific instrument to as-
sess state anxiety in competitive sport contexts. It
consists of 17 questions rated on a 4-point Likert
scale (‘‘not at all’’ to ‘‘very much’’). The response set
‘‘how are you feeling right now?’’ was used. The
CSAI-2R contains three constructs, somatic anxiety
(n�7 questions), cognitive anxiety (n�5 ques-
tions), and self-confidence (n�5 questions). Scores
for each subscale were obtained by adding up all
items for each scale and dividing this by the number
of items and multiplying by 10. Scores ranged
between 10 and 40. Good psychometric properties
(reliability and fit indicators) were reported for the
CSAI-2R in the confirmatory factor analysis study
by Cox et al. (2003). The Cronbach alphas for the
present study were 0.80 for somatic anxiety, 0.73 for
cognitive anxiety, and 0.84 for self-confidence.
Finally, participants subjectively rated their perfor-
mance satisfaction following the competition they
just competed in on a scale from 1�‘‘totally dissa-
tisfied’’ to 10�‘‘totally satisfied’’, as recommend-
ed by Biddle and colleagues (Biddle, Hanrahan, &
Sellars, 2001).
Procedure
Athletes and coaches of sports teams within the
United Kingdom received letters detailing the nature
of the study and participant requirements. If the
coaches granted permission for the data collection,
an information letter and consent form was distrib-
uted. Research assistants, who had received training
in quantitative techniques, administered the ques-
tionnaires in the same order. Participants completed
the CSES (Chesney et al., 2006) and the CSAI-2R
(Cox et al., 2003) within 3 h of a competitive event
starting. The CSES was completed in relation to the
participants’ ability to cope generally and not
specifically to the competition they were due to
compete in. Conversely, the CSAI-2R was com-
pleted in relation to how the participants were feeling
at the time of completing the scale. The subjective
performance scale (Biddle et al., 2001) was com-
pleted within 30 min of the competitive event
finishing.
Data analyses
Data were initially screened for outliers and normal-
ity. Cronbach alphas and descriptive statistics were
calculated on all study variables. Then, correlations
between the variables were calculated. Differences in
both self-efficacy beliefs (Lirgg, 1991) and state
anxiety (Woodman & Hardy, 2003) have been found
between the sexes and differences in anxiety between
athletes competing in either individual or team
sports (Martens et al., 1990) or athletes competing
at different standards of competition (Campbell &
Jones, 1995). We therefore conducted separate
multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) to
determine whether gender, sport type (individual
vs. team), or level of achievement influenced ratings
of coping self-efficacy, anxiety (cognitive, somatic,
and self-confidence), or subjective performance.
Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was con-
ducted in the instance of a significant MANOVA
main effect. Tukey post-hoc comparisons were con-
ducted in the instance of significant effects for level
of achievement.
To idetermine whether coping self-efficacy pre-
dicted subjective performance or anxiety, we con-
ducted hierarchical regression analysis. The
dependent variables were subjective performance,
somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, or self-confi-
dence. At Step 1 we entered gender, sport type,
and highest level of achievement. At Step 2 coping
self-efficacy was entered. Hierarchical regression
analysis was also conducted to ascertain whether
anxiety predicted subjective performance. At Step 1
we controlled for the possible effects of gender, sport
type, and level of achievement. At Step 2 somatic
anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and self-confidence were
entered. Since the main aim of the present study was
to determine whether coping self-efficacy or anxiety
predicted subjective performance, we were inter-
ested in the additional variance (DR2) coping self-
efficacy or anxiety added above and beyond the
possible variance explained by gender, sport type,
and level of achievement.
Results
Table I provides the coping self-efficacy, CSAI-2R,
and subjective performance satisfaction means and
standard deviations for the whole sample, male
athletes, female athletes, team sport athletes, indivi-
dual athletes, and athletes of different levels of
achievement separately. Table II provides an over-
view of the Pearson product�moment correlations.
The MANOVA for gender was significant (Wilks’
l�0.81; PB0.001; h2�0.19). The follow-up AN-
OVAs revealed significant differences for somatic
anxiety (F1,305�27.25; PB0.001; h2�0.08), self-
confidence (F1,305�41.65; PB0.001; h2�0.12),
and performance scores (F1,305�7.14; P�0.01;
h2�0.02), but not for coping self-efficacy (P�0.15) or cognitive anxiety (P�0.12). The females
scored lower in self-confidence but higher on
somatic anxiety and performance than the males.
The MANOVA for sport type was also
significant (Wilks’ l�0.93; P�0.001; h2�0.07).
Coping self-efficacy 99
Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011
The follow-up ANOVAs revealed significant differ-
ences for somatic anxiety (F1,305�7.92; P�0.01;
h2�0.03) and self-confidence (F1,305�17.69; PB
0.001; h2�0.06), but not for coping self-efficacy
(P�0.11), cognitive anxiety (P�0.28), or subjective
performance (P�0.12). The individual athletes
reported lower self-confidence but higher somatic
anxiety.
Finally, the MANOVA for achievement was also
significant (Wilks’ l�0.83; PB0.001; h2�0.06).
Follow-up ANOVAs revealed significant differences
for somatic anxiety (F1,305�3.39; P�0.02; h2�0.03), cognitive anxiety (F1,305�5.05; P�0.002;
h2�0.05), coping self-efficacy (F1,305�8.39;
PB0.001; h2�0.08), and performance scores
(F1,305�2.72; P�0.05; h2�0.03), but not for self-
confidence (P�0.06). Post-hoc comparisons showed
that the international/national athletes scored sig-
nificantly higher for coping self-efficacy and cogni-
tive anxiety than all other groups. Also, the
international/national athletes scored higher than
the beginner athletes on subjective performance
and higher on somatic anxiety than the county
athletes (all PB0.05). Because differences were
found for gender, sport type, and level of achieve-
ment, all three variable were entered first in the
regression models.
The regression analysis for coping self-efficacy and
subjective performance, after controlling for gender,
sport type, and lkevel of achievement, was significant
with coping self-efficacy explaining 4% of the
variance (DR2�0.04; b�0.21, PB0.001). Coping
self-efficacy was negatively associated with somatic
anxiety (DR2�0.03; b��0.16, P�0.003) and
cognitive anxiety (DR2�0.03; b��0.18, P�0.002), but positively associated with self-confidence
(DR2�0.17; b�0.43, PB0.001). Finally, the re-
gression analysis for subjective performance and
anxiety was also significant (DR2�0.03; P�0.02),
but only self-confidence (b�0.16) contributed
significantly to the model.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to explore the relation-
ships between (a) coping self-efficacy and subjective
performance, (b) coping self-efficacy and pre-com-
petitive anxiety, and (c) pre-competitive anxiety and
subjective performance. The results of the study
indicate that there was a significant and positive
relationship between coping self-efficacy and sub-
jective performance. Negative relationships between
coping self-efficacy and both somatic anxiety and
cognitive anxiety were observewd. However, there
was no significant relationship between subjective
performance and either cognitive or somatic anxiety.
As such, two of the three hypotheses were supported.Table
I.C
opin
gse
lf-e
ffica
cy,
an
xie
ty,
an
dsu
bje
ctiv
eper
form
an
cesa
tisf
act
ion
(mea
ns
an
dst
an
dard
dev
iati
on
s)
Gen
der
Sp
ort
typ
eA
chie
vem
ent
Lev
el
Ove
rall
(N�
307)
Male
s
(n�
252)
Fem
ale
s
(n�
55)
Tea
m
(n�
198)
Ind
ivid
ual
(n�
109)
Nati
on
al/
inte
rnati
on
al
(n�
18)
Cou
nty
(n�
54)
Un
iver
sity
/clu
b
(n�
139)
Beg
inn
ers
(n�
96)
Copin
gse
lf-e
ffic
acy
167
(24.3
)168
(23.8
)161
(25.8
)168
(24.2
)163
(24.1
)193
(26.5
)**
168
(24.4
)165
(25.2
)164
(19.2
)
Som
ati
can
xie
ty18.0
(5.8
)17.2
(5.0
)**
21.5
(7.6
)17.3
(5.3
)**
19.2
(6.4
)20.9
(7.2
)*16.6
(4.8
)18.5
(6.6
)17.4
(4.3
)
Cogn
itiv
ean
xie
ty22.3
(6.5
)22.0
(6.4
)23.5
(6.6
)22.0
(6.5
)22.8
(6.5
)27.1
(7.2
)**
21.2
(6.8
)22.7
(6.9
)21.3
(5.0
)
Sel
f-co
nfi
den
ce27.5
(6.8
)28.6
(6.5
)**
22.5
(6.2
)28.7
(6.2
)**
25.4
(7.4
)29.9
(9.5
)28.8
(6.6
)26.5
(6.2
)27.9
(7.1
)
Su
bje
ctiv
ep
erfo
rman
ce
sati
sfact
ion
6.3
(1.8
)6.2
(1.8
)**
6.9
(1.8
)6.4
(2.6
)6.1
(2.1
)7.2
(2.0
)**
6.4
(1.8
)6.3
(1.8
)6.0
(1.7
)
*PB
0.0
5;
**
PB
0.0
1.
100 A. R. Nicholls et al.
Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011
Even though self-efficacy scholars such as Feltz
et al. (2008) and Forsyth and Carey (1998) have
suggested that individuals have a number of self-
efficacy beliefs that can vary greatly, the positive
relationship between coping self-efficacy and sub-
jective performance is in line with Moritz and
colleagues’ (2000) findings. Moritz and colleagues
reported a ‘‘positive’’ and ‘‘moderate’’ relationship
between sport-specific skill-based self-efficacy and
performance. The present findings add to the
literature, because they suggest that in addition to
specific skill-based self-efficacy among athletes, a
person’s belief relating to how effectively they will be
able to deploy strategies that will assist in coping
with threats or stressors (i.e. coping self-efficacy) is
also associated with performance.
The positive association between coping self-
efficacy and athletic performance may have impor-
tant applied connotations, as enhancing an athlete’s
coping self-efficacy may have a positive impact on
performance, but research is required to test this
assertion. Feltz et al. (2008) provided some excellent
ideas on how to increase an athlete’s coping self-
efficacy, including modelling and demonstrating
coping strategies. For instance, athletes could ob-
serve performances of athletes who exhibit confident
behaviours during times of stress. Another technique
to enhance coping self-efficacy, suggested by Feltz et
al., is to encourage athletes low in coping self-
efficacy to talk to other athletes who have improved
their coping self-efficacy and the specific strategies
they adopted to enhance it.
Furthermore, the finding that coping self-efficacy
was negatively associated with somatic state anxiety
and cognitive state anxiety supports previous re-
search from the sport psychology literature, which
has explored the relationship between anxiety and
self-efficacy. Cartoni et al. (2005) and Haney and
Long (1995) both found a negative relationship
between self-efficacy and anxiety. Bandura (1988)
previously suggested that there is a negative relation-
ship between perceived threat (e.g. anxiety) and
coping self-efficacy, because if people do not feel
they can cope with potential threats they will
experience disruptive arousal (i.e. anxiety). As
such, enhancing an athlete’s coping self-efficacy
beliefs through teaching them a variety of coping
strategies has the potential to reduce pre-competitive
state anxiety. Although the threat of playing sport
competitively will remain, athletes that are taught
coping self-efficacy strategies will feel that they are
more equipped to deal with such threats and may
experience less anxiety, due to the assumed relation-
ship between coping self-efficacy and anxiety (e.g.
Bandura, 1988). However, research is required to
test the effects of coping self-efficacy interventions in
relation to pre-competitive state anxiety.
The third hypothesis, that there would be a
negative relationship between state anxiety and
performance satisfaction, was not supported. This
finding partially supports Woodman and Hardy’s
(2003) meta-analysis, which suggested that there is
no relationship between somatic anxiety and perfor-
mance. However, the lack of association between
cognitive anxiety and performance in the present
study was unexpected. It should be noted that we
used a subjective performance rating and future
studies could include both subjective and objective
ratings of performance. This, however, was not
possible in the present study because the sample
consisted of athletes from a diverse range of sports
and it would have been impossible to have a
consistent measure of performance across the
sample.
Overall, the relationships observed in this study
between coping self-efficacy and subjective perfor-
mance and between coping self-efficacy and anxiety
are in line with previous research that has explored
sport-specific skill-based self-efficacy in relation to
performance (e.g. Moritz et al., 2000) and anxiety
(e.g. Haney & Long, 1995). Even though coping
self-efficacy is considered to be a separate construct
from self-efficacy (Chesney et al., 2006), based on
the current findings it could be argued that both
coping self-efficacy and self-efficacy share some of
the same predictive capabilities in relation to state
anxiety and athletic performance.
One limitation of the present research is that we
cannot infer causality from our findings between the
observed variables. Experimental research designs
are required to identify whether coping self-efficacy
influences performance or anxiety, or whether it is
Table II. Pearson product�moment correlations between coping self-efficacy, CSAI-2-R subscales, and subjective performance satisfaction
Global coping self-efficacy Somatic anxiety Cognitive anxiety Self-confidence
Global coping self-efficacy
Somatic anxiety (SA) �0.17**
Cognitive anxiety (CA) �0.15** 0.49**
Self-confidence (SC) 0.45** �0.38** �0.20**
Subjective performance satisfaction 0.22** �0.03 �0.08 0.13*
*PB0.05; **PB0.01.
Coping self-efficacy 101
Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011
anxiety and performance that determines an athlete’s
coping self-efficacy. Furthermore, although there
were a number of positive and negative correlations
in the present study, the amount of shared variance
between some of the constructs was only low to
moderate.
In summary, this study found a significant and
positive relationship between coping self-efficacy
and subjective performance. Additionally, negative
relationships between coping self-efficacy and both
somatic and cognitive state anxiety were observed.
These findings suggest that coping self-efficacy
shares some of the predictive capabilities of self-
efficacy. Furthermore, applied practitioners might
be able to enhance the performance of their clients
and reduce anxiety by improving the coping self-
efficacy beliefs of their clients, but research is
required to test this assertion.
References
Bandura, A. (1988). Self-efficacy conceptualization of anxiety.
Anxiety Research, 1, 77�98.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
W. H. Freeman.
Biddle, S. J. H., Hanrahan, S. J., & Sellars, C. N. (2001).
Attributions: Past, present, and future. In R. N. Singer, H. A.
Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport
psychology (pp. 444�471). Chichester: Wiley.
Campbell, E., & Jones, G. (1995). Pre-competition anxiety and
self-confidence in elite and non-elite wheelchair sport partici-
pants. Journal of Sports Sciences, 13, 416�417.
Cartoni, A. C., Minganti, C., & Zelli, A. (2005). Gender, age, and
professional-level differences in the psychological correlates of
fear of injury in Italian gymnasts. Journal of Sport Behavior, 28,
3�17.
Chesney, M. A., Neilands, T. B., Chambers, D. B., Taylor, J. M.,
& Folkman, S. (2006). A validity and reliability study of the
coping self-efficacy scale. British Journal of Health Psychology,
11, 421�437.
Cox, R. H., Martens, M. P., & Russell, W. D. (2003). Measuring
anxiety in athletics: The revised Competitive State Anxiety
Inventory-2. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25,
519�533.
Craft, L. L., Magyar, M., Becker, B. J., & Feltz, D. L. (2003). The
relationship between the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-
2 and sport performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 25, 44�65.
Feltz, D. L., Short, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (2008). Self-efficacy in
sport: Research and strategies for working with athletes, teams, and
coaches. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Forsyth, A. D., & Carey, M. P. (1998). Measuring self-efficacy in
the context of HIV risk reduction: Research challenges and
recommendations. Health Psychology, 17, 559�568.
Haney, C. J., & Long, B. C. (1995). Coping effectiveness: A path
analysis of self-efficacy, control, coping and performance in
sport competitions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25,
1726�1746.
Jones, G., & Swain, A. B. J. (1992). Intensity and direction
dimensions of competitive anxiety and relationships with
competitiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 467�472.
Lavallee, D., Kremer, J., Moran, A. P., & Williams, M. (2004).
Sport psychology: Contemporary themes. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Lazarus, R. S., & Averill, J. R. (1972). Emotion and cognition:
With special reference to anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.),
Anxiety and behavior (2nd edn., pp. 242�283). New York:
Academic Press.
Lirgg, C. D. (1991). Gender differences in self-confidence in
physical activity: A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8, 294�310.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R. S., Bump, L. A., & Smith,
D. E. (1990). Development and validation of the Competitive
State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). In R. Martens, R. S.
Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive anxiety in sport
(pp. 193�208). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Mellalieu, S. D., Hanton, S., & Fletcher, D. (2006). A competitive
anxiety review: Recent directions in sport psychology research.
In S. Hanton, & S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in
sport psychology (pp. 1�45). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, K. R., & Mack, D. E.
(2000). The relation of self-efficacy measures to sport perfor-
mance: A meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 71, 280�294.
Park, C. L., & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of
stress and coping. Review of General Psychology, 1, 115�144.
Perraud, S., Fogg, L., Kopytko, E., & Gross, D. (2006). Predictive
validity of the Depression Coping Self-efficacy Scale (DCSES).
Research in Nursing and Health, 29, 147�160.
Woodman, T., & Hardy, L. (2003). The relative impact of
cognitive anxiety and self-confidence upon sport performance:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 443�457.
102 A. R. Nicholls et al.
Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011