This article was downloaded by: [European College of Sport Science] On: 22 April 2011 Access details: Access Details: [subscription

number 909201977] Publisher Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Sport Science

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t714592354

Coping self-efficacy, pre-competitive anxiety, and subjective performance among athletes

Adam 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-competitive

anxiety, and subjective performance among athletes', European Journal of Sport Science, 10: 2, 97 — 102 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/17461390903271592 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461390903271592

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
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 or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should 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 directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

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. Moritz and colleagues (Moritz. somatic and cognitive anxiety did not predict subjective performance. It is therefore essential that researchers explore different components of self-efficacy. via improving the coping self-efficacy beliefs of their clients. LEVY3 Department of Psychology. Our findings revealed that there was a significant and positive relationship between coping self-efficacy and subjective performance. (b) coping self-efficacy and pre-competitive anxiety. Many theories Correspondence: A. 1972). Leeds. REMCO POLMAN2.ac. Kopytko. & Smith. anxiety. Coping self-efficacy (Bandura. which is the core relational theme of anxiety (Lazarus & Averill. UK 1 Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011 Abstract The aim of this study was to explore the relationships between (a) coping self-efficacy and subjective performance. UK. & ANDREW R. Anxiety consists of cognitive (e. 2Centre for Applied Sport and Exercise Sciences. Participants were 307 athletes (252 males.uk ISSN 1746-1391 print/ISSN 1536-7290 online # 2010 European College of Sport Science DOI: 10. March 2010.g.g. Vealey. Hull HU6 7RX. 2000) found a ‘‘positive’’ and ‘‘moderate’’ relationship between sport-specific skillbased self-efficacy and performance in a variety of sports (r 00. Chambers. the subjective threat of environmental events. University of Central Lancashire. Fahrbach. & Folkman. 10(2): 97Á102 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Coping self-efficacy. and 3Department of Sport Science. University of Leeds. 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. pre-competitive anxiety. somatic anxiety) components that form a multi-dimensional construct (Martens. 1990). Forsyth & Carey. & Mack. & Gross. The present findings support previous results regarding the influence of self-efficacy and provide applied practitioners with recommendations that may enhance athletic performance. & Sullivan. which is referred to as ‘‘coping selfefficacy’’.. Fogg. It has been suggested that individuals have a number of efficacy-related beliefs.1080/17461390903271592 . 55 females) aged 16Á34 years (mean age 21. University of Hull. Preston. Cognitive anxiety refers to negative expectations and the concerns a person may have. club/university (n 0139).38). 1997. whereas somatic anxiety refers to the person’s physiological arousal (Martens et al. Cottingham Road. cognitive anxiety) and behavioural (e. All participants completed a measure of coping self-efficacy and anxiety before a competitive event and a subjective performance measure after competing. E-mail: a. Short. and subjective performance among athletes ADAM R. Feltz. One such distinct efficacy belief relates to an athlete’s ability to cope. Nicholls. but that these beliefs can vary greatly in each person (Feltz. to a large extent. 1990). University of Hull.8) who competed at national/international (n 018). However. Chesney. Bump. Taylor. Burton. NICHOLLS1. Department of Psychology. 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. Bandura (1997) suggested that coping self-efficacy beliefs determine. In their review. and beginner (n 096) level. Negative relationships between coping self-efficacy and both somatic and cognitive anxiety were also observed. Neilands.3 years. Keywords: Coping self-efficacy.nicholls@hull. 2006). 2008. 1998). county (n 054). 1997) and is considered to be an important attribute within sport. R. and (c) pre-competitive anxiety and subjective performance. Hull. s 02.European Journal of Sport Science. The relationship between anxiety and athletic performance is somewhat equivocal.

5 0‘‘moderately can do’’.8) with an average competitive sport experience of 9. 2005. (b) coping self-efficacy and pre-competitive anxiety. The study was approved by a university’s research ethics committee. ‘‘find solutions to your most difficult problems’’. PsychLIT. However. 1995). Participants completed an informed consent form before the study began.88. and ‘‘talk positively to yourself’’.g. s02. 2003. how confident or certain are you that you can do the following?’’ Examples of ‘‘use problem-focused coping self-efficacy’’ included questions relating to the athletes’ ability to ‘‘sort out what can be changed and what cannot be changed’’.95 (Chesney et al. 2008. Therefore. 2000). Minganti. or when you’re having problems. The scale uses an 11-point scale. athletes with greater coping self-efficacy would experience less pre-competitive anxiety. Haney & Long. There is.2). The CSES is a 26-item measure. Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011 . Questionnaires The Coping Self-Efficacy scale (CSES. 2006). 55 females) aged 16Á34 years (mean age 21.. Although the literature suggests that there is a relationship between task self-efficacy regarding sport-specific activities and performance (e. and (c) pre-competitive anxiety and subjective performance. It has been suggested that cognitive anxiety might influence all forms of athletic performance in a negative linear fashion. Forsyth & Carey. Chesney et al. In the present study. a higher CSES score would suggest that a person is more confident in his or her ability to cope (Chesney et al. ‘‘take your mind off unpleasant thoughts’’. with three higher-order dimensions: use problem-focused coping. and PsychINFO in June 2009 did not yield any studies that have examined the relationship between coping self-efficacy and state anxiety among athletes. As such.. rating the extent to which the participants feel that they can perform a behaviour important to effective coping. county (n 054). in this study we explored the relationships between (a) coping self-efficacy and subjective performance. & Zelli. & Feltz. 2003). club/university (n 0139)...98 A. searches on SPORTdiscus. We also hypothesized that there would be a negative relationship between coping self-efficacy and anxiety. Craft. 2006). the scale had a Cronbach alpha of 0. That is. R. In response to Bandura’s (1997) recommendation that sport psychology scholars focus on arousal and coping self-efficacy. Finally. and ‘‘do something positive for yourself when you are feeling discouraged’’.. Moritz et al. 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. stop unpleasant emotions and thoughts. The assertion that the interpretation of anxiety symptoms can be either facilitative or debilitative has received some support in the sport literature (Jones & Swain. In summary. and get support from family and friends. which was developed together with Dr Albert Bandura of Stanford University. 2006). whereas somatic anxiety tends to disrupt fine motor skill in a quadratic way (Lavallee. The participants responded to the stem ‘‘when things aren’t going well for you. Becker.g. Magyar. & Fletcher. was used to assess coping self-efficacy. with a Cronbach alpha of 0. and ‘‘stop yourself being upset by unpleasant thoughts’’. and 10 0‘‘certain can do’’. and models have tried to clarify the relationship between anxiety and sport performance. it has been suggested that the interpretation of anxiety symptoms is also of importance in the experience of anxiety. Examples of ‘‘stop unpleasant emotions and thoughts’’ included ‘‘make unpleasant thoughts go away’’. The sample consisted of team (n 0198) and individual (n 0109) sports performers competing at national/international (n 018). but in the negative direction (e. 2006). The scale is anchored at 0 0‘‘cannot do at all’’. 1992). We hypothesized that there would be a positive relationship between coping self-efficacy and subjective sport performance. 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.g.1 years (s05. Moran. some evidence that other forms of self-efficacy are inversely related to anxiety (e. Hanton. ‘‘get support from family and friends’’ comprised questions relating to the athletes’ perceptions of being able to ‘‘get emotional support from friends or family’’. the CSES assessed the athletes’ confidence with regards to carrying out coping strategies. More recently. The sample consisted of 297 Caucasian and 10 Black/Asian participants. however. Nicholls et al. The scale has adequate reliability.3 years. two recent meta-analyses argued that the relationships between anxiety and sporting performance is relatively weak. 2004). 1998). & Williams. Cartoni. Methods Participants Participants were 307 athletes (252 males. Finally. and beginner (n 096) level. Woodman & Hardy. Kremer. ‘‘get a friend to help you with the things you need’’. we predicted that there would be a negative relationship between anxiety and subjective athletic performance.

.Coping self-efficacy The participants completed the revised Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2R. CSAI-2R. The dependent variables were subjective performance. 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. 1991) and state anxiety (Woodman & Hardy. Data analyses Data were initially screened for outliers and normality. The follow-up ANOVAs revealed significant differences for somatic anxiety (F1. At Step 2 somatic anxiety. h2 00. an information letter and consent form was distributed. 2003) have been found 99 Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011 between the sexes and differences in anxiety between athletes competing in either individual or team sports (Martens et al. At Step 1 we entered gender. Differences in both self-efficacy beliefs (Lirgg. Table II provides an overview of the Pearson productÁmoment correlations. and level of achievement. Results Table I provides the coping self-efficacy.. 2001). and 0. We therefore conducted separate multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) to determine whether gender.84 for self-confidence.001. P 00. somatic anxiety (n 07 questions). who had received training in quantitative techniques.93.19). 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. The Cronbach alphas for the present study were 0. and athletes of different levels of achievement separately. Hierarchical regression analysis was also conducted to ascertain whether anxiety predicted subjective performance. The females scored lower in self-confidence but higher on somatic anxiety and performance than the males. (2003). 1995). somatic. Tukey post-hoc comparisons were conducted in the instance of significant effects for level of achievement. 0. P B0. If the coaches granted permission for the data collection.73 for cognitive anxiety.81. The subjective performance scale (Biddle et al. 2006) and the CSAI-2R (Cox et al. team sport athletes. To idetermine whether coping self-efficacy predicted subjective performance or anxiety.001. h2 00. Since the main aim of the present study was to determine whether coping self-efficacy or anxiety predicted subjective performance. or subjective performance.01. correlations between the variables were calculated. selfconfidence (F1. h2 00. Conversely.14.. male athletes. The CSAI-2R is a multidimensional domain-specific instrument to assess state anxiety in competitive sport contexts.08). we were interested in the additional variance (DR2) coping selfefficacy or anxiety added above and beyond the possible variance explained by gender.12). Hanrahan. The response set ‘‘how are you feeling right now?’’ was used. participants subjectively rated their performance satisfaction following the competition they just competed in on a scale from 10‘‘totally dissatisfied’’ to 10 0‘‘totally satisfied’’. or self-confidence. Cronbach alphas and descriptive statistics were calculated on all study variables. Finally. team).. individual athletes. and self-confidence were entered. cognitive anxiety (n 05 questions). Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted in the instance of a significant MANOVA main effect. and highest level of achievement. or level of achievement influenced ratings of coping self-efficacy.305 027. we conducted hierarchical regression analysis. P 00. & Russell.65. cognitive anxiety. 2003).001.12).. Scores ranged between 10 and 40. Then.02). P B0.001. 2001) was completed within 30 min of the competitive event finishing. female athletes. PB0. At Step 1 we controlled for the possible effects of gender. and self-confidence (n 05 questions).80 for somatic anxiety. 2003) within 3 h of a competitive event starting. as recommended by Biddle and colleagues (Biddle. It consists of 17 questions rated on a 4-point Likert scale (‘‘not at all’’ to ‘‘very much’’). and self-confidence). sport type (individual vs. sport type. The MANOVA for sport type was also significant (Wilks’ l00. but not for coping self-efficacy (P 0 0. anxiety (cognitive. & Sellars. administered the questionnaires in the same order. and level of achievement. and subjective performance satisfaction means and standard deviations for the whole sample.305 041. somatic anxiety. sport type. sport type. Research assistants. The CSAI-2R contains three constructs. the CSAI-2R was completed in relation to how the participants were feeling at the time of completing the scale. The MANOVA for gender was significant (Wilks’ l00. At Step 2 coping self-efficacy was entered. cognitive anxiety. h2 00.305 07.07). h2 00. Good psychometric properties (reliability and fit indicators) were reported for the CSAI-2R in the confirmatory factor analysis study by Cox et al. and performance scores (F1. Procedure Athletes and coaches of sports teams within the United Kingdom received letters detailing the nature of the study and participant requirements. Participants completed the CSES (Chesney et al.15) or cognitive anxiety (P 00.25. 1990) or athletes competing at different standards of competition (Campbell & Jones. Martens. Cox.

001.1) (6.8) 168 17.04. cognitive anxiety (P 00.39. R.5 22. .5) (6. The follow-up ANOVAs revealed significant differences for somatic anxiety (F1. sport type.3 27. h2 00.001). The results of the study indicate that there was a significant and positive relationship between coping self-efficacy and subjective performance.05.06).18. b 0(0. P B 0. coping self-efficacy (F1. Coping self-efficacy was negatively associated with somatic anxiety (DR2 00. P 00.2 (23.5) (7. was significant with coping self-efficacy explaining 4% of the variance (DR2 00.2)** (2.8) 168 17.6) (6.5 23.0) (7.16. there was no significant relationship between subjective performance and either cognitive or somatic anxiety.8) (6.6 6.7) Coping self-efficacy Somatic anxiety Cognitive anxiety Self-confidence Subjective performance satisfaction 167 18. Nicholls et al. but not for coping self-efficacy (P 00.7 6.1 29.4) (4.03).4) (6.1 (24. b 00.9 (25.16) contributed significantly to the model. h2 00.92.2 22. the MANOVA for achievement was also significant (Wilks’ l00.8) (6. Post-hoc comparisons showed that the international/national athletes scored significantly higher for coping self-efficacy and cognitive anxiety than all other groups.001. the regression analysis for subjective performance and anxiety was also significant (DR2 00.1) 193 20.4 21.9 27. but only self-confidence (b 00. h2 00. Because differences were found for gender.05).5 6.2) (5.305 05. Finally.3) (5. P B0.8 25.4) (6.39.9) (6. P B0. or subjective performance (P 00. P B0.001.12).8) 165 18.001).5 22. and level of achievement. P 0 0. Coping self-efficacy.8) 164 17.2 28.2) (1.02. Follow-up ANOVAs revealed significant differences for somatic anxiety (F1.6 21.43. b 0(0.8) (5.305 07.3 22. h2 00.02).100 A.03.83.05.17.2)* (7.3 27.03. two of the three hypotheses were supported.5)** (7.002).0 28. h2 00.08). P 00.8) (7.2) (4. (b) coping self-efficacy and pre-competitive anxiety.03) and self-confidence (F1. h2 00.2)** (9.2) (6.03.1) (1.3) (5. P00. and subjective performance satisfaction (means and standard deviations) Sport type Gender Overall (N0307) Males (n 0252) Females (n055) Team (n0198) Individual (n0109) National/ international (n 018) County (n 054) University/club (n 0139) Beginners (n096) *PB0.0)** (6. b 00.8)** 161 21.0 22.4) (2. However.01. cognitive anxiety (F1. after controlling for gender.6) (6. but positively associated with self-confidence (DR2 00.06). and (c) pre-competitive anxiety and subjective performance. The individual athletes reported lower self-confidence but higher somatic anxiety.9 7.7 26. Also.28).8 6.05.2 22.03).06).11). (19.8) (1.002.3 (25. and performance scores (F1.4 (24.003) and cognitive anxiety (DR2 00.6) 163 19.9 6. P B0.3)** (6. P 00.4 (24.05).5) (2.305 02.5 6.6) (1.305 017. As such.305 03.01.4 6. and lkevel of achievement.5) (6.305 08. P 00.5)** (1.21. P 00. sport type. Negative relationships between coping self-efficacy and both somatic anxiety and cognitive anxiety were observewd.0 Achievement Level Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011 Table I. anxiety. all three variable were entered first in the regression models. the international/national athletes scored higher than the beginner athletes on subjective performance and higher on somatic anxiety than the county athletes (all PB0.2 (26.3 (24.0)** 168 16. The regression analysis for coping self-efficacy and subjective performance.6) (6.72. Discussion The aim of this study was to explore the relationships between (a) coping self-efficacy and subjective performance.0 28.69.5 6.2) (1.8) (6. but not for selfconfidence (P 00. h2 0 0. ** PB0. Finally.

08 0.05. anxiety). **PB0. the lack of association between cognitive anxiety and performance in the present study was unexpected. was not supported. Haney & Long. One limitation of the present research is that we cannot infer causality from our findings between the observed variables.Coping self-efficacy 101 Table II. 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.38** (0. CSAI-2-R subscales. athletes could observe performances of athletes who exhibit confident behaviours during times of stress.49** (0. The third hypothesis. as enhancing an athlete’s coping self-efficacy may have a positive impact on performance.20** (0. Furthermore. that there would be a negative relationship between state anxiety and performance satisfaction. 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. the finding that coping self-efficacy was negatively associated with somatic state anxiety and cognitive state anxiety supports previous research from the sport psychology literature. 2000) and anxiety (e. coping self-efficacy) is also associated with performance. As such. Bandura. which has explored the relationship between anxiety and self-efficacy. because they suggest that in addition to specific skill-based self-efficacy among athletes. Another technique to enhance coping self-efficacy.. However.13* Even though self-efficacy scholars such as Feltz et al.45** 0.g.e.. Overall. 1995). (2005) and Haney and Long (1995) both found a negative relationship between self-efficacy and anxiety. This. Moritz and colleagues reported a ‘‘positive’’ and ‘‘moderate’’ relationship between sport-specific skill-based self-efficacy and performance. For instance. Experimental research designs are required to identify whether coping self-efficacy influences performance or anxiety.01. 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. (2008) and Forsyth and Carey (1998) have suggested that individuals have a number of selfefficacy beliefs that can vary greatly. research is required to test the effects of coping self-efficacy interventions in relation to pre-competitive state anxiety. Cartoni et al. Moritz et al. because if people do not feel they can cope with potential threats they will experience disruptive arousal (i.22** 0. the positive relationship between coping self-efficacy and subjective performance is in line with Moritz and colleagues’ (2000) findings. 2006). Feltz et al. 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. Even though coping self-efficacy is considered to be a separate construct from self-efficacy (Chesney et al. and subjective performance satisfaction Global coping self-efficacy Global coping self-efficacy Somatic anxiety (SA) Cognitive anxiety (CA) Self-confidence (SC) Subjective performance satisfaction *PB0. The positive association between coping selfefficacy and athletic performance may have important applied connotations. It should be noted that we used a subjective performance rating and future studies could include both subjective and objective ratings of performance.g. or whether it is Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011 . suggested by Feltz et al. (2008) provided some excellent ideas on how to increase an athlete’s coping selfefficacy. Although the threat of playing sport competitively will remain. due to the assumed relationship between coping self-efficacy and anxiety (e. which suggested that there is no relationship between somatic anxiety and performance. Bandura (1988) previously suggested that there is a negative relationship between perceived threat (e.03 (0. The present findings add to the literature.. However. Pearson productÁmoment correlations between coping self-efficacy. 1988).e. but research is required to test this assertion. 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. Somatic anxiety Cognitive anxiety Self-confidence (0. the relationships observed in this study between coping self-efficacy and subjective performance 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. This finding partially supports Woodman and Hardy’s (2003) meta-analysis. anxiety) and coping self-efficacy. is to encourage athletes low in coping selfefficacy to talk to other athletes who have improved their coping self-efficacy and the specific strategies they adopted to enhance it. however.g.15** 0.17** (0. including modelling and demonstrating coping strategies.g.

The relationship between the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory2 and sport performance: A meta-analysis. present. L. Cox. S. & Hardy. Hausenblas. Bandura. Self-efficacy in sport: Research and strategies for working with athletes. Champaign. & S. Martens. Cartoni. (2001). K. M. (1988). G. (2006). Fogg. (2003). Moritz. C. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. D. D. Singer. Measuring anxiety in athletics: The revised Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. Craft. 3Á17. C. C. A. Intensity and direction dimensions of competitive anxiety and relationships with competitiveness. Short. 11.). 519Á533. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Vealey. Hanton. D. E. 294Á310.. (2005). E. J. 1.. (1990). L. D. IL: Human Kinetics. Pre-competition anxiety and self-confidence in elite and non-elite wheelchair sport participants. Furthermore. M.. A. 280Á294. pp. Measuring self-efficacy in the context of HIV risk reduction: Research challenges and recommendations. Magyar. D. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Furthermore. Park. D. Anxiety and behavior (2nd edn. Kopytko. E. In summary. S. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. M.. Taylor. (2004).. Research in Nursing and Health. and coaches. 8. R. T. D. Chichester: Wiley. S. B. D. Attributions: Past. J. 13. 193Á208). R. & Jones. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. A. A. applied practitioners might be able to enhance the performance of their clients and reduce anxiety by improving the coping selfefficacy beliefs of their clients.. age. Lirgg. & Swain.. Hanrahan. the amount of shared variance between some of the constructs was only low to moderate. J. Anxiety Research. IL: Human Kinetics. R.. (1997). C. Feltz. C. D. Coping effectiveness: A path analysis of self-efficacy. (1972). (2000). 77Á98. R.. L. & Feltz. S.. Handbook of sport psychology (pp. New York: W. 74. A. Forsyth. B. S. 242Á283).. References Bandura. 44Á65. Fahrbach. 443Á457.. S. M. H. A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. P. & Averill. & Sellars.. L.. D. (1991).).. (1992). Kremer. Janelle (Eds.. R. S. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. G. Bump. A.. New York: Academic Press. P. D. & Long. 28. British Journal of Health Psychology. Mellalieu. (2003).. 29. R.. Self-efficacy conceptualization of anxiety. T. The relation of self-efficacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Lazarus. Competitive anxiety in sport (pp. Health Psychology. (1995). Journal of Sports Sciences. J. Champaign.. R. NY: Nova Science. 559Á568. Perceptual and Motor Skills. Literature reviews in sport psychology (pp.. Nicholls et al. Martens. 25. D. N. L. (2003). & Smith. Predictive validity of the Depression Coping Self-efficacy Scale (DCSES). B. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Review of General Psychology. and future.. L. Journal of Sport Behavior. (1998). & C. Moran. L. & D. Becker. Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011 anxiety and performance that determines an athlete’s coping self-efficacy. & Williams. & Gross. B. S. Biddle. (2006). In R. A. 17. Minganti. D. A competitive anxiety review: Recent directions in sport psychology research. 1.. Burton.102 A.. 25. B. Gender. E. Meaning in the context of stress and coping.. (1995). These findings suggest that coping self-efficacy shares some of the predictive capabilities of selfefficacy. 467Á472. this study found a significant and positive relationship between coping self-efficacy and subjective performance.. S. W. S. A. Gender differences in self-confidence in physical activity: A meta-analysis of recent studies. Development and validation of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2).. Campbell. (1997). Martens.. and professional-level differences in the psychological correlates of fear of injury in Italian gymnasts. & Mack. J. J. M.. Jones. Chambers.. Burton (Eds. C. Additionally.. L. A. Lavallee. H. E. & Folkman. Emotion and cognition: With special reference to anxiety. In S.). (2006). D. & Zelli. A. M. coping and performance in sport competitions. & Folkman. 21. M. & Carey. H. Freeman. In C. J. D. Sport psychology: Contemporary themes. although there were a number of positive and negative correlations in the present study. L. P. S. Woodman.).. but research is required to test this assertion. R. Journal of Sports Sciences. Spielberger (Ed. J. 416Á417. 421Á437. Feltz. Hanton. N. P. negative relationships between coping self-efficacy and both somatic and cognitive state anxiety were observed. 115Á144. S. The relative impact of cognitive anxiety and self-confidence upon sport performance: A meta-analysis.. J. & Russell. teams. 25. 1Á45). . Chesney. Hauppauge.. H. Mellalieu (Eds. & Sullivan.. 1726Á1746. 444Á471).. (2008). control. In R. D. & Fletcher. Vealey.. Perraud. Neilands. Haney. C. E. 147Á160.. 71.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful