JOURNAL OF SPORT & EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY, 1993,15,261-274

O 1993 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

Coping Skills, Competitive Trait Anxiety,

and Playing Status: Moderating Effects
on the Life Stress-Injury Relationship

Trent A. Petrie
University of North Texas

This study prospectively investigated the effects of life stress, psychological

coping skills, competitive trait anxiety, and playing status (starter vs. non-
starter) on injury in 158 NCAA Division I-A collegiate football players.
Playing status moderated the influence of the psychosocial variables as pre-
dictors of athletic injury. For starters positive life stress, coping skills, and
competitive trait anxiety accounted for 60%of the injury variance. In addition,
competitive trait anxiety moderated the effects of positive life stress such
that increases in these variables were associated with increases in the number
of days missed due to injury. No relationship between any of the psychosocial
variables and injury emerged for nonstarters. Implications for future research
are discussed with respect to the Andersen and Williams (1 988) theoretical
model.

Key words: athletic injury

Research investigating the relationship of psychosocial adjustments to phys-

ical health and functioning was strongly influenced by the early work of Holmes
and Rahe and their colleagues (Holmes & Rahe, 1967; Rahe & Holmes, 1965;
Rahe, Meyer, Smith, Kjaer, & Holmes, 1964). Since this initial research, the
relationship of psychosocial variables to psychological and physical health (e.g.,
depression, illness, injury) has been extensively studied in a variety of populations
(e.g., Brown & Siegel, 1988; Monroe, Bromet, Connell, & Steiner, 1986; Sarason,
Sarason, Potter, & Antoni, 1985; Smith, Smoll, & Ptacek, 1990; Wohlgemuth &
Betz, 1991).
Initial investigations in the sport domain examined the effects of life events
stress on injury in high school and collegiate football populations (Bramwell,
Masuda, Wagner, & Holmes, 1975; Coddington & Troxell, 1980; Cryan &
Alles, 1983; Passer & Seese, 1983). For example, using the Social and Athletic
Readjustment Rating Scale as the measure of life events stress, both Brarnwell
et al. (1975) and Cryan and Alles (1983) found that injured college football

Trent A. Petrie is with the Department of Psychology at the University of North

Texas, P.O. Box 13587, Denton, TX 76203-3587.
262 1 Petrie

players reported higher levels of life stress than their uninjured counterparts. In
addition, Bramwell et al. reported that 72% of the athletes in their "high-risk''
group (life stress scores >-800 for 1 year) suffered major time-loss injuries.
Evidence demonstrating the negative effects of life stress in football populations
accumulated, and researchers began to examine life stress-injury relationships
in other athletic populations, such as adult runners (Schafer & McKenna, 1985),
elite gymnasts (Kerr & Minden, 1988), physical education students (Lysens,
Auweele, & Ostyn, 1986), and college track athletes (Hardy & Riehl, 1988).
Although these studies indicated that life stress increases an athlete's vulnerability
to injury, other investigations failed to find life stress-injury relationships for
certain college sports, including volleyball (Williams, Tonymon, & Wadsworth,
1986), tennis, baseball, and softball (Hardy & Riehl, 1988).
Although these earlier investigations generally established a negative rela-
tionship between life stress and injury, the results often were viewed with caution
due to methodological or theoretical limitations. For example, Kerr and Minden
(1988) employed a retrospective design and self-report measure of athletic injury,
and Hardy and Riehl (1988) examined life stress-injury relationships but failed
to consider the potential effects of other psychosocial variables, such as social
support and coping resources. To address these and other limitations and to
provide direction for future research, Andersen and Williams (1988) presented
a dynamic, multidimensional stress-injury model that suggested that the simple,
linear relationships defining earlier stress-injury methodologies were insufficient
in explaining the differences in (a) athletes' responses to stress and (b) injury
rates.
Thus, one research direction suggested by this model would be to consider
other psychosocial variables that might moderate the effects of life stress. That
is, future research would need to determine which variables affect the direction
andlor strength of life stress-injury relationships (cf., Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Andersen and Williams (1988) specifically addressed the necessity of examining
moderator variables in life stress-injury- research, suggesting that
factors (e.g., competitive trait anxiety, hardiness, locus of control) and coping
resource variables (e.g., social support, psychological coping skills) be considered.
In addition, they emphasized the importance of (a) examining these potential
moderator variables in prospective, as opposed to retrospective, research designs,
and (b) incorporating objective, behavioral measures of athletic injury so that
biases associated with self-report data would be minimized.
Central to the Andersen and Williams (1988) model is the stress response,
a bidirectional relationship between athletes' cognitive appraisals of demands,
consequences, and resources and physiological and attentional changes. They
suggested that the stress response mediated the relationship between the psycho-
social variables and athletic injury. That is, the psychosocial variables would
have a direct effect on the stress response, and only the stress response would
directly influence injury susceptibility. Depending on the levels of the psycho-
social variables, an athlete's stress response may be attenuated or exacerbated.
For example, during a stressful athletic situation (e.g., competition, practice),
athletes who had preexisting high levels of life stress and low levels of social
support may appraise that situation as threatening or overwhelming and not
believe that they have the ability to cope. Such appraisals would likely correspond
to physiological (e.g., increases in muscle and autonomic activity) or attentional
 Life Stress-Injury Relationship / 263

(e.g., peripheral narrowing) changes that would increase the athletes' susceptibil-
ity to injury.
Although it is important to investigate athletes' stress responses directly,
as Williams and her colleagues have done (Williams, Tonymon, & Andersen,
1990, 1991), it is also useful to continue longitudinal investigations concerning
the effects of psychosocial variables on athletic injury. First, such investigations
will help us determine the psychosocial variables involved in the etiology of
injury, that is, those having direct and moderating effects on the stress response.
Second, they may provide information useful in planning interventions to reduce
athletes' risk of injury. For example, if low satisfaction with social support
networks is related consistently to increases in injury susceptibility,sport psychol-
ogists may be able to assist athletes by helping them obtain more satisfying levels
of social support. Such an intervention could be conducted without having to
address the possible physiological or attentional changes during stress.
With respect to the moderators suggested by Andersen and Williams (1988),
coping resource variables have been identified as important because athletes'
coping abilities appear to have direct bearing on their secondary cognitive apprais-
als of sporting situations. During acutely stressful situations, individuals initially
make primary appraisals concerning the demands and consequences of the situa-
tion, labeling them as irrelevant, benign-positive, or stressful (Folkman, 1984).
Subsequently, secondary appraisals evaluate the level of coping resources avail-
able to deal with the situation. These secondary appraisals are particularly relevant
when the individual appraises a situation as stressful (Folkman, 1984).
In response to the centrality of coping resources in the cognitive appraisal
process (and thus the stress response), researchers have examined this variable
within life stress-injury relationships (Blackwell & McCullagh, 1990; Hanson,
McCullagh, & Tonymon, 1992; Smith, Smoll, & Ptacek, 1990; Smith, Ptacek, &
Smoll, 1992; Williams et al., 1986). In their study of male and female high
school athletes, Smith, Smoll, and Ptacek (1990) reported no direct relationship
between psychological coping skills and athletic injury, but found that athletes
evidenced the strongest stress-injury relationship under conditions of low coping
skills and low social support with life stress accounting for 22% of the injury
variance. Williams et al. (1986), however, found only a direct relationship between
coping resources and injury, whereas Hanson et al. (1992) reported that athletes
with higher levels of coping resources were less likely to suffer injury than those
reporting lower levels. Although these studies have provided initial information
concerning the relationship of coping resources to the life stress-injury relation-
ship, additional research appears warranted to broaden our understanding of this
important psychosocial variable.
Defined as a tendency to perceive competitive situations as threatening and
to respond with A-state (Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990), competitive trait
anxiety is one of the personality variables suggested by Andersen and Williams
(1988) that has been examined within the context of life stress-injury relationships
(Blackwell & McCullagh, 1990; Hanson et al., 1992; Passer & Seese, 1983). For
football players, Passer and Seese found that neither general nor competitive trait
anxiety moderated the stress-injury relationships, with one exception. For the
Division I1 players, negative life stress was related to injury for low-competitive
trait anxious players. Blackwell and McCullagh, however, reported that competi-
tive trait anxiety level differentiated those Division I-A football players who
264 / Petrie

were severely injured, with high trait anxious players experiencing more injuries.
In a more recent investigation, Hanson et al. reported that competitive trait anxiety
weakly discriminated between level of injury severity, but was not related to
injury frequency. Although direct effects were found in these two more recent
studies, neither group of investigators examined whether competitive trait anxiety
moderated the effects of life stress. Thus, the question-what is the moderating
potential of competitive trait anxiety?-has been addressed only in the Passer
and Seese study. Given the equivocal results concerning the direct effects of
competitive trait anxiety and given that its moderating effects were the subject
of only one study, it appears that future research is warranted to further refine
our understanding of how competitive trait anxiety may influence stress-injury
relationships.
As life stress-injury relationships appear to be sport and situation specific,
and not immediately generalizableto all athletic environments,the need to investi-
gate specific sports (e.g., football, track) individually to determine the direct
and/or moderating effects of psychosocial variables on athletic injury appears
warranted. Following the theoretical framework and suggestions proposed by
Andersen and Williams (1988), the first purpose of this study was to determine
the relationship of psychosocial variables to injury in collegiate football players,
specifically, the direct and moderating effects of life stress, psychological coping
skills, and competitive trait anxiety.
Attempts have been made to strengthen generally weak (e.g., Bramwell et
al., 1975) or, in some cases, nonexistent (e.g., Williams et al., 1986) stress-injury
relationships. For example, researchers have divided their samples based on injury
status (i.e., injured vs. uninjured; e.g., Blackwell & McCullagh, 1990), gender
and sport (e.g., Hardy & Riehl, 1988), and predictor variable scores (e.g., Smith,
Smoll, & Ptacek, 1990) with varying degrees of success in increasing the pre-
dictive validity of psychosocial variables. Recently, Petrie (1993) divided his
sample on the basis of playing status (starting vs. nonstarting football players),
and found a minimum 130% increase in the amount of injury variance explained
by life stress and social support, even though no differences existed between
starters and nonstarters in terms of number of injuries suffered or levels of the
psychosocial variables. In other words, these psychosocial variables were more
predictive of injury for the starters than for nonstarters, even though the athletes
suffered similar numbers of injury and experienced similar levels of life stress
and social support. Consistent with Andersen and Williams's (1988) theoretical
model, Petrie (1993) suggested that the role of "starter" (with pressure to perform
one's best during every competition) acted as a situational athletic stressor,
and in combination with psychosocial variables, negatively affected the stress
response, which subsequently increased the athlete's susceptibility to injury.
Although this represented an important initial finding, the generalizability of the
results were limited due to the size of the sample (N = 98; starters, n = 44).
Thus, the second purpose of this study was to determine whether the results of
Petrie's (1993) initial investigation could be replicated using a second, larger
sample. That is, to what degree does playing status moderate the predictive utility
of life stress, psychological coping skills, and competitive trait anxiety for athletic
injury?
 Life Stress-Injury Relationship / 265

Method
Subjects
The subjects represented two intact NCAA Division I-A football teams
from large, midwestem public universities that had similar admissions standards
for student athletes. Athletes who attended the first team meetings of the fall
football season voluntarily participated in the study. Although an initial 100%
participation rate was achieved, 19 athletes were later dropped from the final
sample due to incomplete questionnaires. The mean age of the 158 subjects was
19.6 years (SD = 1.4); 96 (60.7%) identified themselves as Caucasian, 58 (36.7%)
as African Americans, and 4 (2.6%) as Hispanic. In terms of academic rank, 55
(34.8%), 36 (22.8%), 35 (22.2%), 18 (11.4%), and 14 (8.8%) of the players were
in their first, second, third, fourth, and fifth year of school, respectively. Ninety-
nine (62.7%) reported attending school on an athletic scholarship.
Instrumentation
Life Stress. The Life Events Survey for Collegiate Athletes (LESCA;
Petrie, 1992), a 69-item life events survey, measures life events experienced
during the preceding 12 months. Athletes indicate the event's impact at time
occurrence on an 8-point Likert Scale (-4= extremely negative to +4 = extremely
positive). Example items include: "pressure to gainhose weight--due to sport
participation," "major change in playing status on team," and "major change
in the amount of academic activity." Two life stress scores, negative (NEG) and
positive (POS), are obtained by summing across those life events rated by the
athlete as either negative or positive.
Petrie (1992) found test-retest reliabilities ranging from .76 to .84. He also
provided evidence for the construct and criterion-related validity of the LESCA,
reporting (a) correlations of .55 0, c .001) and .22 ( p < .05) between the NEG
and POS life-stress scores and the Social and Athletic Readjustment Rating Scale
(SARRS; Bramwell et al., 1975), respectively, and (b) significant correlations
between the NEG life-stress score and the criterion measure, injury, ranging from
.25 to .33. These relatively low but significant correlations between the LESCA
and SARRS suggest that, although the general construct of athlete life stress is
being measured, the LESCA is tapping two specific aspects of that stress, negative
and positive, which are not delineated by the SARRS.
Trait Anxiety. The Sport Competition Anxiety Test-Adult (SCAT-A) is
a 15-item questionnaire of which only 10 items are used to measure competitive
trait anxiety in adults (Martens, 1977; Martens et al., 1990); 5 are spurious items
included to reduce response bias. Individuals indicate on a 3-point scale, ranging
from often to hardly ever, how they generally feel about competitive sport
situations. Sample items include, "before I compete I am calm"; "before I
compete I worry about not performing well"; and "before I compete I get a
queasy feeling in my stomach." A total score is obtained by summing across
the 10 scored items, and can range from 10 (low competitive trait anxiety) to
30 (high competitive trait anxiety). See Martens et al. (1990) for a comprehensive
review of its psychometric properties.
266 / Petrie

Psychological Coping Skills. The 42-item Athletic Coping Skills Inven-

tory (ACSI) was used as the measure of psychological coping skills (Smith,
Smoll, & Ptacek, 1990; Smith, Smoll, & Schutz, 1988). It provides information
on athletes' perceived abilities to use three types of coping strategies (emotional,
cognitive, and behavioral) within the sporting environment. Sample items include,
"I remain positive and enthusiastic during competition, no matter how badly
things are going"; "I take time before a game to mentally prepare myself"; and
"when I feel myself getting too tense, I can quickly relax my body and calm
myself." For this inventory, each item is scored on a 4-point Likert type scale,
ranging from 0 (almost never) to 3 (almost always). The total score is obtained
by summing across all items, and thus can range from 0 to 126.
Smith, Smoll, and Ptacek (1990) reported a test-retest reliability of 3 8 ,
and an internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach's alpha) of .90. Factor analysis
indicated the presence of eight independent subscales (Preparation, Freedom
From Worry, Positive Orientation, Resourcefulness, Coachability,Concentration,
Stress Management, and Peaking Under Pressure) with Cronbach's alpha ranging
from .64 to .81 (Smith et al., 1992). Following Smith, Smoll, and Ptacek's (1990)
finding that the ACSI's full scale score moderated the stress-injury relationship,
it was used to represent the athletes' levels of psychological coping skills.
Demographic Data. The demographic data sheet consisted of questions con-
cerning the athlete's age, year in school, racelethnic group, and scholarship status.
Procedure
Permission for football players to participate initially came from each
university's athletic administration and later from the football coaching staffs.
At each school's mandatory first team meeting of the fall season, the players
voluntarily completed the LESCA, ACSI, SCAT-A, and demographic data sheet.
Only athletes who were (a) academically and athletically eligible according to
the NCAA's and the university's standards, (b) free from any time-loss injury
or illness, and (c) medically cleared for practice participated in the study. Based
on these criteria, no athlete was eliminated from the study. These criteria helped
assure a noninjured initial sample and thus significantly reduced the possibility
of confounding between initial measures of the psychosocial variables and subse-
quent injury outcome.
At the completion of the season, the training staffs (who were blind to
players' responses to the questionnaires) provided injury data on each player,
including the number of days during which the athlete was unable to participate
fully in practice due to each injury and the number of games in which the athlete
was unable to compete due to each injury. For this investigation, injury was
defined as a physicallmedical problem resulting from sport participation that
required missing at least one day of practice or competition (cf. Smith, Smoll, &
Ptacek, 1990). Consistent with previous research (Hardy & Riehl, 1988; Passer &
Seese, 1983), time loss was the injury outcome measure, defined as the total
number of days the athlete was unable to participate in practice or competition
due to injury.
Design a n d Analysis
Multiple hierarchical regression determined the independent and combined
effects of the psychosocial variables-life stress, psychological coping skills, and
 Life Stress-Injury Relationship / 267

competitive trait anxiety--on athletic injury. Specifically,the partial increments in

R2 associated with the inclusion of each variable into the regression models was
used to identify the direct and moderating effects of the psychosocial variables
(Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Consistent with previous research (Blackwell & McCul-
lagh, 1990; Smith, Smoll, & Ptacek, 1990), the effects of negative and positive
life stress on athletic injury were examined independently. The order of variable
entry into each regression model followed the general guidelines set forth by
Wheeler and Frank (1988): (a) stress measure, (b) moderator(s), (c) Stress x
Moderator interaction(s). Thus, the two independent regression models used to
examine the injury outcome were as follows:
Model 1: NEG life stress, coping skills, competitive trait anxiety, Stress
x Coping, Stress x Anxiety, Stress x Coping x Anxiety
Model 2: POS life stress, coping skills, competitive trait anxiety, Stress x
Coping, Stress x Anxiety, Stress x Coping x Anxiety
Although the Andersen and Williams (1988) model does not distinguish between
coping resources and personality variables in terms of their relative levels of
importance or effects on life stress, Hanson et al.'s (1992) results suggest that
coping resources may be the stronger predictor of athletic injury. Thus, the coping
skills variable was the first of the two moderators to be entered into each model.'
Also, with any multiple regression analysis, the issue of multicollinearity needs
consideration (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). In this study, the correlations among
the variables in the regression models were all small, and the majority were
nonsignificant (only 4 of 10 correlations were significant, and these were -21,
-.21, -26, and -.35). Thus, multicollinearity was not an issue in the analyses.
To address the second purpose of this investigation-determining whether
athletes' playing status moderated the utility of the psychosocial variables as pre-
dictors of athletic injury-the sample was divided into two groups, starters (n = 58)
and nonstarters (n = loo), and the regression models described above were tested
independently with each group. Coaching staffs determined the athletes' playing
status while unaware of their predictor variable scores. The coaches used position
on depth charts (i.e., first or second team) and amount of time played in competition
to determine playing status. Starters were athletes from the first or second level of
the depth chart who played approximately 50% of the time across the entire season
(see also Petrie, 1993). Although several variables comprise each model, power
analysis suggested that even with only 58 subjects in the starter group, the power
level would exceed at least .75 (see Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

Results
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and ranges for the predictor
and criterion measures. For life stress, athletes experienced higher levels of
negative rather than positive during the preceding year, t(157) = 4.09, p < .0001.
In comparison to normative data provided by Martens et al. (1990), this sample
reported an average level of competitive trait anxiety. In terms of injury, the
average player missed 5 days of practice/competition.
To address the first question of the study, the entire sample was used to test
the two regression models (see Table 2). For Model 1, no significant relationships
emerged. In other words, the psychosocial variables did not predict the injury
268 / Petrie

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of the Predictor
and Criterion Variables for Full Team (N= 158),
Starters (n = 58), and Nonstarters (n = 100)

Variables M SD Range

Age
Full team
Starters
Nonstarters
Negative life stess
Full team
Starters
Nonstarters
Positive life stress
Full team
Starters
Nonstarters
Psychological coping skills
Full team
Starters
Nonstarters
Competitive trait anxiety
Full team
Starters
Nonstarters
Time loss
Full team
Starters
Nonstarters

Note. Comparisons were between starters and nonstarters.

* p < .05. **p < .01.

outcome measure, explaining only 3%, F(6, 151) = .79, n.s., of the time-loss
variance. For Model 2, however, the full model reached significance, accounting
for 8%, F(6, 151) = 2.19, p < .05, of the time-loss variance. In addition, the
Anxiety x Stress interaction term reached significance for time loss, F ( l , 152) =
9.1, p < .01. This finding suggests that competitive trait anxiety moderated the
effects of positive life stress, such that higher levels of anxiety and stress were
associated with more days missed due to injury.
To investigate the study's second purpose, the sample was divided into
starters (n = 58) and nonstarters (n = 100) based on coaching staff groupings.
Prior to calculating the regression equations, however, the two groups were
compared to determine whether any differences existed on the predictor and
criterion variables. A multivariate ANOVA demonstrated that differences existed
 Life Stress-Injury Relationship / 269

Table 2
Hierarchical Multiple Regression of the Psychosocial Predictors
on Time toss for the Full Team (N = 158)

Criterion measure1 Full model

variables entered Re F P beta KQa Fb

Model 1
NEG
COPE
SCAT
NEG x COPE
NEG x SCAT
NEG x COPE x SCAT
Model 2
POS
COPE
SCAT
POS x COPE
POS x SCAT
POS x COPE x SCAT

aPartiat increment in associated with each predictor. bFvalue for the partial increment in
# associated with the inclusion of each predictor variable into the model.
' p < .01.

between starters and nonstarters, Wilks's lambda = .86, F(6, 151) = 4.02, p <
.001. Subsequent univariate ANOVAs and Tukey analyses revealed that the
starters were older, experienced more positive life stress during the preceding
year, and reported higher levels of psychological coping skills than did the
nonstarters (see Table 1).
To determine whether playing status moderated the utility of the psycho-
social variables as predictors of time loss, the regression models used with the
full sample were tested independently for starting and nonstarting groups. For
the nonstarters, no significant relationships emerged for either model. For the
starters, the results of the regression analyses paralleled those found with the full
team. Model 1 was not significant, accounting for 18%, F(6, 51) = 1.91, n.s., of
the time loss variance. Model 2, however, reached significance, explaining 60%
(adjusted R2 = .55) of the variance. In addition, the partial increment in R2
associated with the Model 2 Stress x Anxiety interaction term reached signifi-
cance. This finding indicates that competitive trait anxiety moderated the effects
of positive life stress such that higher levels of positive life stress and competitive
trait anxiety were associated with increases in the number of days missed due
to injury (see Table 3 for starters' regression analyses with Model 2).

Discussion
The results of this investigation are consistent with past research that has
shown life stress and other psychosocial variables to be predictive of athletic
270 / Petrie

Table 3
Model 2 Hierarchical Multiple Regression of the Psychosocial Predictors
on Time Loss for Starters (n = 58)

Criterion measure1 Full model

variables entered # F P beta FP" Fb

POS .28 21.98 .0001 -3.41

COPE .29 11.36 .0001 .05 .01 .76
SCAT .33 8.72 .0001 - .50* .04 3.22
POS x COPE .34 6.91 .0001 1.36 .01 .80
POS x SCAT .59 15.14 .0001 4.79 .25 31.71'
POS x COPE x SCAT .60 12.59 .0001 -1.98 .01 1.28

aPartial increment in # associated with each predictor. b ~ v a l u for

e the partial increment in
# associated with the inclusion of each predictor variable into the model.
*p < .005.

injury (Blackwell & McCullagh, 1990; Hanson et al., 1992; Petrie, 1992; Smith,
Smoll, & Ptacek, 1990). Somewhat surprising, however, were the relative effects
of negative and positive life stress. In this study, the set of psychosocial variables
that included negative life stress (Model 1) was not related to time loss. The set
including positive life stress (Model 2), however, was related to time loss, account-
ing for 8% of the injury variance for the full team, and 60% for the starters.
Although most stress-injury research has focused on both positive and negative
life stress, it generally has been found that the negatively appraised life events
are what place athletes at risk for injury (e.g., Hardy & Riehl, 1988; Passer &
Seese, 1983; Smith et al., 1992; Smith, Smoll, & Ptacek, 1990). Recent research
by McCullagh and her colleagues (Blackwell & McCullagh, 1990; Hanson et
a]., 1992), however, has demonstrated that positive life stress also can be related
to athletic injury. Life events such as "major change in level of responsibility
on team" or "receiving an athletic scholarship" that initially are rated as positive
by athletes, may, in the future, produce considerable stress (e.g., the athlete who
receives an athletic scholarship may feel high levels of pressure to perform
well, or feel overly responsible for the team's performances; cf. Blackwell &
McCullagh, 1990). These changes are likely to influence negatively the athletes'
cognitive appraisals of athletic situations, and thus increase their risk of injury.
The findings from this study support the notion that positive life stress can have
a deleterious effect on athletic injury outcome.
For the full team, positive life stress, coping skills, and competitive trait
anxiety accounted for only 8% of the injury variance. Although statistically
significant, the practical value is questionable. When playing status is considered,
however, these psychosocial variables accounted for 60% of the injury variance
for the starters. Although these results corroborate and extend Petrie's (1993)
initial findings, the moderating effects of playing status in this study require
cautious interpretation, given that initial differences did exist between the starters
and nonstarters on positive life stress and coping skills. It may be that the stronger
 Life Stress-Injury Relationship / 271

stress-injury relationship found with the starters was simply due to their having
experienced more positive life stress than nonstarters. Although this explanation
may be true for the effects of positive life stress, it would not appear to hold for
coping skills (i.e., starters reported higher levels of coping skills, although neither
group evidenced any relationship between coping skills and injury) or competitive
trait anxiety (i.e., the two groups did not differ on their reported levels of
competitive trait anxiety, although this variable moderated the effects of positive
life stress for the starters). In addition, the differential effects of the psychosocial
variables occurred despite the starters and nonstarters' not differing on number
of days missed due to injury. Even though playing status seems to be a significant
contributor to injury outcome, additional research needs to test these effects with
female athletes and with male s ~ o rteamst other than football.
With respect to the coping resource variable under investigation, psycholog-
ical coping skills did not moderate any stress-injury relationship, nor were they
directly related to the injury outcome. These findings are inconsistent with past
research that reported both direct and moderating effects for coping resources
(Hanson et al., 1992; Smith, Smoll, & Ptacek, 1990; Williams et al., 1986).
There are. however. two maior differences between these studies and the current
investigation. First, both studies employed the same measure of coping skills,
but Smith, Smoll, and Ptacek (1990) examined injury within a sample of high
school athletes from a variety of sports, whereas only collegiate football players
participated in the current investigation. As past research suggests that the effects
of life stress differ from sport to sport (e.g., Hardy & Riehl, 1988; Williams et
al., 1986), it is not surprising to find such differences across age groups (high
school vs. college) or sport teams (mixed sports vs. football) for this psychosocial
variable too.
Second, although Hanson et al. (1992) and Williams et al. (1986) both
examined collegiate athletes, they used a different measure of coping. In terms
of Folkman's (1984) distinction concerning types of coping resources, the studies
by Hanson et al. and Williams et al. seemed to focus on physical and social
resources, whereas the current investigation primarily measured individuals' psy-
chological resources. It may be that physical and social resources are more
relevant to collegiate athletes than psychological resources in coping and, thus,
have a stronger influence in the etiology of injury. These differences make direct
comparisons between past research and the current study difficult. What can be
stated, however, is that to clarify the role of coping resources in predicting injury,
research will need to simultaneously examine different measures of coping in a
variety of athletic populations (e.g., high school vs. collegiate athletes, male vs.
female athletes, football players vs. gymnasts).
For the personality variable under investigation, moderating effects were
uncovered. With the starters and full team, competitive trait anxiety moderated
the effects of positive life stress such that increases in these variables were
associated with increases in the number of days missed due to injury. These
findings, in conjunction with past research (e.g., Blackwell & McCullagh, 1990;
Hanson et al., 1992), support the contention that precompetition trait anxiety is
an important variable to consider for understanding life stress-injury relationships.
Although the SCAT provides a unitary measure of competitive trait anxiety
(focusing primarily on somatic arousal), contemporary researchers have suggested
that competitive trait anxiety really is a multidimensional construct (see Weinberg,
272 / Petrie

1990, for a detailed review), and have distinguished between cognitive and
somatic subtypes. In addition, Smith, Smoll, and Schutz (1990), noted that cogni-
tive and somatic anxiety appear to affect performance differently, depending on
the type of task. Thus, one direction for future research that would extend current
stress-injury studies, would be to use multidimensional measures of competitive
trait anxiety (e.g., Sport Anxiety Scale; Smith, Smoll, & Schutz, 1990). Such an
approach would allow researchers to determine how the various types of anxiety
affect athletes' risk of injury. That is, are athletes' initial levels of trait anxiety
predictive of the type of physiological or attentional disturbances that they might
experience? Would athletes who report high levels of cognitive and low levels
of somatic trait anxiety be more likely to experience attentional disruptions than
athletes who are low cognitive and high somatic? Understanding the relationship
of initial levels of trait anxiety to subsequent physiological and attentional re-
sponses will allow sport psychologists to target interventions more effectively
and thus reduce athletes' vulnerability to injury.
How is it that psychosocial variables place some athletes at greater risk to
injury than others? As mentioned previously, Andersen and Williams (1988)
indicated that the psychosocial variables affected the athlete's stress response,
and it was this response that was directly related to injury. In addition, they
indicated that situational athletic stressors influence the stress response. In the
current study, the potentially stressful situation of being a starter, in combination
with higher levels of positive life stress and competitive trait anxiety, may have
negatively influenced these athletes' appraisals such that they either viewed
practices and competitions as threatening/uncontrollable or believed they did not
have the resources to cope. Such appraisals may have corresponded with atten-
tional and physiological disruptions that would have increased the starters' vulner-
ability to injury. Even though starters and nonstarters did not differ in the number
of days missed due to injury, it appears that being a starter, in conjunction with
high levels of the psychosocial variables which may negatively affect the appraisal
process, places them at greater risk for injury.
Although this study supported the importance of considering multiple
psychosocial variables, as suggested by Andersen and Williams (1988), additional
research is needed to delineate which variables are related to injury and in which
athletic populations these relationships exist. Specifically, it will be useful (a) to
examine as many of the psychosocial variables proposed by Andersen and Wil-
liams (1988) as possible and obtain multiple measures of these variables across
an entire athletic season, and (b) to directly investigate athletes' stress response
relationships to existing levels of psychosocial variables. Pursuing these directions
will likely increase our understanding of the risk factors associated with athletic
injury and, thus, assist us in determining the most effective interventions for
minimizing an athlete's vulnerability to injury.

References
Andersen, M.B., & Williams, J.M. (1988). A model of stress and athletic injury: Prediction
and prevention. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 294-306.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediatorvariable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
 Life Stress-Injury Relationship / 273

Blackwell, B., & McCullagh, P. (1990). The relationship of athletic injury to life stress,
competitive anxiety, and coping resources. Athletic Training, 25, 23-27.
Bramwell, S.T., Masuda, M., Wagner, N.N., & Holmes, T.H. (1975). Psychosocial factors
in athletic injuries: Development and application of the Social and Athletic
Readjustment Rating Scale (SARRS). Journal of Human Stress, 1, 6-20.
Brown, J.D., & Siegel, J.M. (1988). Attributions for negative life events and depression:
The role of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
3 16-322.
Coddington, R.D., & Troxell, J.R. (1980). The effect of emotional factors on football
injury rates-A pilot study. Journal of Human Stress, 6, 3-5.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regressionlcorrelation analysis for the
behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cryan, P.D., & Alles, W.F. (1983). The relationship between stress and college football
injuries. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 23, 52-58.
Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A theoretical
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 839-852.
Hanson, S.J., McCullagh, P., & Tonymon, P. (1992). The relationship of personality
characteristics, life stress, and coping resources to athletic injury. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 14, 262-272.
Hardy, C.J., & Riehl, R.E. (1988). An examination of the life stress-injury relationship
among noncontact sport participants. Behavioral Medicine, 14, 113-118.
Holmes, T.H., & Rahe, R.H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-2 18.
Kerr, G., & Minden, H. (1988). Psychological factors related to the occurrence of athletic
injuries. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 167-173.
Lysens, R., Auweele, Y.V., & Ostyn, M. (1986). The relationship between psychosocial
factors and sports injuries. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 26,
77-84.
Martens, R. (1977). Sport Competition Anxiety Test. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Martens, R., Vealey, R.S., & Burton, D. (1990). Competitive anxiety in sport. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Monroe, S.M., Bromet, E.J., Connell, M.M., & Steiner, S.C. (1986). Social support, life
events, and depressive symptoms: A 1-year prospective study.Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 54, 424-431.
Passer, M.W., & Seese, M.D. (1983). Life stress and athletic injury: Examination of
positive versus negative events and three moderator variables. Journal of Human
Stress, 9, 11-16.
Petrie, T.A. (1992). Psychosocial antecedents of athletic injury: The effects of life stress and
social support on women collegiate gymnasts. Behavioral Medicine, 18, 127-138.
Petrie, T.A. (1993). The moderating effects of social support and playing status on the
life stress-injury relationship. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 5, 1-16.
Rahe, R.H., & Holmes, T.H. (1965). Socia1,psychological and psychophysiological aspects
of inguinal hernia. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 8, 487.
Rahe, R.H., Meyer, M., Smith, M., Kjaer, G., & Holmes, T.H. (1964). Social stress and
illness onset. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 8, 35.
Sarason, I.G., Sarason, B.R., Potter, E.H., & Antoni, M.A. (1985). Life events, social
support, and illness. Psychosomatic Medicine, 47, 156-163.
Schafer, W.E., & McKenna, J.F. (1985). Life changes, stress, injury and illness in adult
runners. Stress Medicine, 1, 237-244.
274 / Petrie

Smith, R.E., Ptacek, J.T., & Smoll, F.L. (1992). Sensation seeking, stress, and adolescent
injuries: A test of stress-buffering, risk-taking, and coping skills hypotheses. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1016-1024.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Ptacek, J.T. (1990). Conjunctive moderator variables in
vulnerability and resiliency research: Life stress, social support, and coping skills
and adolescent sport injuries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,
360-369.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Schutz, R. (1988). The Athletic Coping Skills Inventory:
Psychometric properties, correlates and confirmatory factor analysis. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Washington.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Schutz, R. (1990). Measurement and correlates of sport-specific
cognitive and somatic trait anxiety: The sport anxiety scale. Anxiety Research, 2,
263-280.
Weinberg, R.S. (1990). Anxiety and motor performance: Where to from here? Anxiety
Research, 2, 227-242.
Williams, J.M., Tonymon, P., & Andersen, M.B. (1990). Effects of life-event stress on
anxiety and peripheral narrowing. Behavioral Medicine, 16, 174-181.
Williams, J.M., Tonymon, P., & Andersen, M.B. (1991). The effects of stressors and
coping resources on anxiety and peripheral narrowing. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 3, 126-141.
Williams, J.M., Tonymon, P., & Wadsworth, W.A. (1986). Relationship of life stress to
injury in intercollegiate volleyball. Journal of Human Stress, 12, 38-43.
Wohlgemuth, E., & Betz, N.E. (1991). Gender as a moderator of the relationship of stress
and social support to physical health in college students. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 38, 367-374.

Note
'Although there appeared to be some empirical basis for the order in which the
moderators were entered into each regression model, additional regression analyses
switched the order of the moderators and their respective interactions. This switch in
order produced no change in the RZ associated with the entry of each variable or in the
total R2 associated with each model regardless of the group (i.e., full team vs. starters vs.
nonstarters).

Acknowledgments
This research project was funded by grants from the National Collegiate Athletic
Association and the University of North Texas. I would like to thank Tonya,Foster and
Richard Finn for their assistance in the coordination and collection of data,'I would also
like to thank Britt Brewer, Penny McCullagh, Mark Andersen, and two anonymous
reviewers for their astute comments concerning this paper.

Manuscript submitted: November 19, 1992

Revision received: April 2, 1993