Chapter 12
Emotion and Sport
Performance: Stress, Anxiety,
Arousal, and Choking
Mark C. Frame and Sydney Reichin
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
According to Tom Hanks’s character in the 1992
film A League of Their Own, “There’s no crying in
baseball!” (Abbott, Greenhut, & Marshall, 1992).
However, everyone who has ever taken part in
sports as a child, played as an amateur athlete, or
participated professionally in sports knows that
there are many emotions involved in sports compe-
tition. Much has been written about emotions
such as stress, arousal, anxiety, and choking in
the realm of sports and sport psychology, but our
level of understanding of these phenomena is
far from complete. This chapter presents current
perspectives, theories, and models relating to the
role of emotion in sports performance. Models
and theories relating to the role of stress, arousal,
and anxiety in athletic performance are reviewed.
Of particular emphasis is the phenomenon of
choking, as well as the inverse phenomenon of
clutch performance. We conclude the chapter by
highlighting practical considerations and the appli-
cation of these topics by discussing future research
directions.
A consistent challenge in the study of emotion
in athletic performance is that related concepts
such as stress, arousal, and anxiety have often
been used interchangeably, which is incorrect. The
concepts are not synonymous and do not accurately
reflect how they are measured or conceptualized
in theoretical models. Thus, it is necessary to first
define these concepts.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000123-012
APA Handbook of Sport and Exercise Psychology: Vol. 1. Sport Psychology, M. H. Anshel (Editor-in-Chief)
Copyright © 2019 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
APA Handbook of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Volume 1: Sport Psychology,
edited by M. H. Anshel, T. A. Petrie, and J. A. Steinfeldt
Copyright © 2019 American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
DEFINING CONCEPTS
Most athletes understand what it means to experi-
ence an emotion, whether the feeling is the joy
resulting from a successful performance, supporting
a teammate, or disappointment about letting others
down. However, although most people understand
what an emotional experience is, researchers and
scholars have yet to agree on an accepted defini-
tion of emotion (Derouesné, 2011), especially as it
relates to sport psychology (Hanin, 2007; Vallerand
& Blanchard, 2000). Rather than define emotion,
many researchers seem to accept that no definition
of emotion will be agreed upon and have focused
instead on the facets, categories, and subcomponents
of emotion (Hanin, 2007; Vallerand & Blanchard,
2000). Providing a universally accepted definition
of emotion is challenging, but doing so is critical to
understanding the impact that emotions play in sport
and all forms of performance; it provides a foundation
for understanding the various dimensions, categories,
facets, and aspects of emotion about which sport
psychologists have theorized and researched.
Emotion
Emotions, much like personality, memory, language,
intelligence, and other higher order mental func-
tions, are dynamic and complex. Human emotions,
in particular, are abstract hypothetical constructs
that influence behavior and are adaptive, temporary,
and psychophysiological reactions to interactions
219
 Frame and Reichin
with the environment. Emotions are mediated by the
personal significance one associates with the situation
(Derouesné, 2011; Lazarus, 1991, 2000). Emotions
involve cognitive and biological processes and
multiple functional regions of the brain, which result
in conscious sensations and feelings (Derouesné,
2011). Emotions are not unidimensional phenomena;
they may be experienced in response to a real or
imagined environmental stimulus or event (see also
Chapter 13, this volume). Although there is consid-
erable communality in emotions, two athletes may
experience similar emotions in different situations
and for different reasons. Similarly, the same game,
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
sporting event, or situation may result in different
emotional experiences in different athletes. Human
emotions such as happiness, sadness, anger, and
fear can be characterized as beginning rapidly, being
short or limited in duration, experienced as specific
feelings, and behaviorally manifested in a common
manner (e.g., facial expressions; Uphill, McCarthy, &
Jones 2009).
Mood
Moods are related to emotions and may exhibit
similar feelings and sensations. Moods are enduring
and general hypothetical constructs that are not
associated with particular objects or events. Moods
are the result of psychological and physiological
processes and states that may ultimately influence
an athlete’s cognitive processes (Beedie, Terry, Lane,
& Devonport, 2011). A clear distinction between
emotion and mood is fundamental in understanding
both the research and the applied implications of
research on sports performance, emotion, and mood.
A mood is a diffuse and enduring feeling that may
influence an athlete’s cognitive process but is not
focused on or caused by a specific event or object.
Emotions and moods may be experienced simulta-
neously, but an athlete may be unable to pinpoint
the reason for a given mood. For this reason, mood
detection is a necessary component of strategies and
interventions to improve athletic performance by
regulating emotions and changing mood states.
For example, because emotions influence behaviors
(e.g., sport skills) and have specific antecedents, one
approach to assist an athlete challenged by anxious
emotions would be to consciously regulate selected
emotions and to reappraise both the situation and
220
the cause of the anxiety (Ekman, 1999). In this situ-
ation, regulating or reducing the emotion of anxiety
could lead to improved physical performance, but
if an athlete is experiencing a substantially anxious
mood, there likely is no antecedent that is discernible
to the athlete. In addition to the emotional interven-
tion, an effective strategy for regulating or improving
the athlete’s mood might include having the athlete
engage in physical exercise, listen to music, or some
other cognitive or behavioral strategy (Thayer, 1996).
Although the concepts of mood and emotion are
distinct, the two may in fact influence each other.
For instance, an athlete who feels a negative mood
is more likely to recall previous failures and other
negative or disappointing experiences. The cogni-
tive availability of negative recollections could result
in the athlete experiencing negative emotions when
faced with performance demands. In some cases, the
focus on negative experiences and failures can become
continual and repetitive—a process called rumination.
Rumination is a maladaptive cognitive process
in which a person constantly and persistently thinks
about her or his failures and the causes and conse-
quences of those failures (Valderrama, Miranda, &
Jeglic, 2016). Rumination that involves ascertaining
the reason for the negative mood in an effort to solve
problems and improve one’s mood is termed reflection;
it is considered less maladaptive than brooding, which
is rumination that dwells on feelings of distress, nega-
tive mood, and negative thoughts, and is not focused
on helpful problem-solving (Valderrama, Miranda,
& Jeglic, 2016). Athletes’ moods play an important
role in the emotional experiences they have prior to,
during, and after competition. A positive mood can
enhance feelings of exhilaration and mitigate feelings
of disappointment, whereas a negative mood can tamp
down feelings of excitement and can compound and
exacerbate feelings of failure.
Stress
Athletes encounter different types of stress before
and during sports competition. Stress is a psycho­
logical and physiological response to an environmental
demand often referred to as a stressor (Thomas,
Mellalieu, & Hanton, 2009). Stressors can be inter-
preted by an athlete as positive or negative, and
as such, a stress response can also be experienced

as positive or negative. The stress experienced in
response to a given stressor depends upon the dura-
tion and intensity of the environmental demand. In
some cases, an athlete reacts to these stressful events
in the short term, while other—chronic—stressors
can last for weeks, months, or years. A short-term
stressor, also known as an acute stressor, is an
unexpected, different, and short-duration event
or stimuli that interrupts or stymies behavior and
necessitates an immediate response (Salas, Driskell,
& Hughes, 1996). Acute stressors, regardless of the
magnitude, are events or situations that occur for a
short duration and may occur unexpectedly. Acute
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
stress abounds in sport. Basketball players receiving
criticisms from a coach experience acute stress
(Doron & Bourbousson, 2017) as do runners who
lose their footing during a race or cyclists who get
bumped or knocked down during competition.
A chronic stressor occurs over a relatively long
period of time. Chronic stress may be caused by a
single stressor that requires an individual to respond
over a long duration, or it may result from repeated
exposure to several short-term stressors in series
(Furrer, Moen, & Firing, 2015). Months of excessive
training and insufficient recovery time can result in
chronic stress, as can performance demands from
coaches, persistent interpersonal conflicts with team
members, and long-term injuries. In the literature,
these have also been referred to as work overload,
social overload, social tensions, pressure to perform, and
chronic worrying (Sallen, Hirschmann, & Herrmann,
2018). Thus, acute stress experienced with high
frequency or successively over time may lead to the
development of chronic stress if the athlete is not able
to return to a resting state between acute stressors
(Dhabhar, 2012). Ignoring or failing to cope effec-
tively with acute stressors may also lead to chronic
stress (American Psychological Association, 2010).
Although acute stress may positively affect people
in some situations, chronic stress generally does
not have the same positive affect. Chronic stress
has become a significant issue that results in a
myriad of negative health, social, and economic
outcomes (C. Smith, Hancock, Blake-Mortimer, &
Eckert, 2007). Some health problems associated with
chronic stress are impairment in brain functioning,
psychological depression, immunosuppression,
Emotion and Sport Performance
cardiovascular disease, increased blood pressure,
anxiety, muscle pain, and even cancer (American
Psychological Association, 2010; Dhabhar, 2012).
The health concerns related to stress are significant
and can affect the behaviors of individuals who are
engaged in athletic pursuits.
Researchers have long recognized that stress
can result in negative health outcomes. Physical
ailments such as cardiovascular disease (e.g., Dyck
& Roithmayr, 2002) and diabetes (Quick, Quick,
Nelson, & Hurrell, 1997) have been linked to chronic
stress. Although the negative effects of stress are more
familiar to most people, stress may also yield positive
outcomes, particularly in competitive sport. When
an athlete is cognitively and emotionally involved in
the demands of the task at hand, that athlete is more
likely to focus on performing that task than an athlete
who is not as involved in the current activity. Elevated
amounts of stress demand that an individual’s atten-
tion be focused on the present task (Tetrick & Quick,
2003). While some researchers (e.g., Lazarus, 2000)
have argued that stress and emotion should be inves-
tigated as one complex issue, much of the research
on stress and emotions has examined the topics sepa-
rately; thus, they will be considered as two separate
topics in this chapter.
Anxiety
Sport anxiety is a learned negative emotional reaction
to a perceived demand or threat that has not actually
occurred. In the context of competitive sport, anxiety
is an athlete’s reaction to a situation that may or may
not happen in the future. Anxiety can be categorized
as trait anxiety and state anxiety (Spielberger, 1966,
1972). Trait anxiety is an individual’s relatively stable
tendency to perceive a wide range of circumstances
and situations as demanding or threatening. State
anxiety, on the other hand, is a temporary response
to a specific pending situation that is perceived as
threatening (Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo,
2007). A kicker would likely feel state anxiety when
preparing for a field goal that could win the game. A
batter would feel state anxiety going up to bat against
a pitcher who has a history of striking the batter out.
In sport psychology research, state anxiety is often
a variable of interest, whereas trait anxiety is often
examined as a measure of an athlete’s inclination
221
 Frame and Reichin
to experience state anxiety in competition. Many
athletes experience some level of anxiety before a
competition, but for most, the anxious feelings start
just prior to the competition, may continue during
the competition, and diminish after the competi-
tion is over. This would be an example an athlete
experiencing state anxiety, but trait anxiety impacts
how strong the feeling of anxiety is in different
athletes when they are anticipating a competition.
One athlete might feel slightly nervous leading up to
a tournament, whereas another might feel overcome
with anxiety and get nauseous or faint. An athlete
with a high degree of trait anxiety is more likely to
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
have anxious feelings in more situations then an
athlete with lower levels of trait anxiety (Wolf, Eys,
& Kleinert, 2015).
Anxiety is multifaceted, but some also contend
that it is multidimensional, arguing that anxiety
manifests in somatic and cognitive response (Cox,
Martens, & Russell, 2003; Edwards, Hardy, Kingston,
& Gould, 2002). Somatic anxiety is physiological
response (e.g., sweating, upset stomach, increased
heart rate) to an athletic event, tournament, compe-
tition, or other situation that is perceived as threat-
ening. Cognitive anxiety, on the other hand, is a
mental response to a perceived threat that mani-
fests as negative concerns, unpleasant thoughts,
and worries and concerns regarding performance
(Janelle, 2002). Cognitive anxiety can manifest as a
loss of confidence in skills, an inability to concen-
trate on the tasks at hand, difficulty making deci-
sions during the game, or detrimental thoughts or
concerns about one’s athletic ability or performance
(Martiny et al., 2015).
Arousal
Arousal is a multidimensional, nondirectional mix of
psychological and physiological activation (Landers,
Arent, & Lutz, 2001) that can vary in intensity along
a continuum ranging from unconsciousness or sleep
to excitement and extreme exhilaration. Arousal is
responsible for harnessing the body’s resources for
activity (Arent & Landers, 2003). The physiological
aspects of arousal have been measured using elec-
trophysiological, biochemical, and cardiovascular/
respiratory methods. Blood pressure, resting heart
rate, rate of respiration, galvanic skin response,
222
muscle activity, and results from electroencepha-
lograph are often reported as physiological indica-
tions of arousal, as are analyses of chemicals such
as cortisol, epinephrine, and norepinephrine. The
cognitive aspects of arousal have been assessed using
self-report methods such as the Modified Somatic
Perception Questionnaire and the Activation–
Deactivation Adjective Check List (Gould, Greenleaf,
& Krane, 2002; Hackfort & Schwenkmezger, 1993).
Researchers have examined both forms of arousal
in terms of its intensity and have suggested that an
athlete may have an optimal level of arousal, as well
as nonoptimal levels.
An athlete experiencing a low level of arousal
is typically motivated to engage in behaviors that
are oriented toward a goal or competition that will
likely increase the athlete’s arousal. Optimal arousal
occurs when an athlete is aroused at a level that
enhances performance by stimulating the athlete
to perform well by focusing energy and effort on
the required tasks (Ribble, 2010; Schmidt, Mussel,
& Hewig, 2013). Too much arousal can be detri-
mental to the athlete’s performance, as can too little
arousal (Berlyne, 1960; Ribble, 2010). An athlete’s
optimal arousal level is unique to the individual
athlete and is a function of the level of arousal the
athlete experiences at rest and the situation and
circumstances the athlete experiences when not
at rest (Ribble, 2010; Schmidt, Mussel, & Hewig,
2013; Van der Lei, Tenenbaum, & Land, 2016). For
example, a well-practiced and typically calm golfer
may engage in preshot routines before a critical shot
in an effort to increase her level of arousal prior to
making the shot. When making the shot, the golfer
has ideally reached an optimal degree of arousal and
is focused on the shot she is making. If however, she
is gets into a verbal altercation with a member of the
gallery, the golfer may experience too much arousal
and her ability to make the shot could be impaired.
Choking
Choking, in the context of sports performance, relates
to situations in which events appraised as stressful
produce heightened anxiety that results in signifi-
cantly impaired motor performance (Marquardt,
2009). For example, during a final field goal attempt
during a 2006 playoff game for the National Football

League, Tony Romo—serving as holder—bobbled the
ball, which resulted in the kicker (Martín Gramática)
being unable to make a relatively routine 19-yard
field goal (Corbett, 2007). Choking, however, is more
than an instance of poor performance; it is perfor-
mance at a level significantly poorer than expecta-
tions. Choking can be attributed to the importance
or criticality of a situation rather than random fluc-
tuations in skill or performance (Beilock & Gray,
2007). Choking represents an acute, momentous,
and dramatic performance decline that is directly
and clearly a response to some perceived pressure
(Hill, Hanton, Matthews, & Fleming, 2010). While
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
an athlete may choke under pressure on more than
one occasion, the unexpected nature of choking
distinguishes it from longer term performance
declines such as yips and slumps. Whereas choking
is unexpected poor performance under pressure,
yips are longer term movement or motor-skill prob-
lems that repeatedly and systematically interfere with
the execution of controlled behaviors and perfor-
mance (McDaniel, Cummings, & Shain, 1989; Weiss
& Reber, 2012). Similarly, a slump is a prolonged time
in which an athlete continuously performs below the
level that one might expect but the decrease in perfor-
mance is unexplainable and occurs across many, if not
all, situations and cannot be attributed to high-stakes
situations (Ball, 2013; Gray, 2004).
RESEARCH METHODS RELATED TO
EMOTION AND SPORT PERFORMANCE
Stress, anxiety, arousal, and choking are both
psychological and biological phenomena. As
such, the research examining these concepts as
they relate to sport performance utilizes a variety
of methodologies. Research into these related
constructs is often conducted as primary research
in which original data has been collected and
analyzed. However, researchers may use data from
archival sources such as an athletic organization’s
annual reports, governmental databases or publi-
cations, or previously published research articles.
When research is conducted using existing data
sources, it is said to be secondary research and it
typically involves reanalyzing data or analyzing
data in a way that is different from the way the data
Emotion and Sport Performance
were originally presented. Stress, anxiety, arousal,
and choking in the context of sport performance
have been examined with both qualitative and
quantitative research. As with other applied fields
of psychology, research examining the relationship
between these emotional factors and performance
can have an experimental design, quasi-experimental
design, cross-sectional or survey design, time-series
design, longitudinal design, or case study design.
An experimental design is used to determine if
an independent variable has an effect upon a chosen
dependent variable. In an experimental design, the
researcher may opt to manipulate the level of stress,
anxiety, or arousal experienced (independent vari-
ables) by an athlete and determine the effect that the
change in stress, anxiety, or arousal has on athletic
performance (the dependent variable). However, a
researcher could ask athletes to participate in an
intervention or training (the independent variable)
and seek to determine the effect of the intervention
on the dependent variables of the athletes’ stress,
anxiety, or arousal. Many of these experimental
studies occur in controlled laboratory settings.
Researchers may employ a quasi-experimental
design when working in a natural environment in
which the conditions required (random selection
and random assignment) for an experiment cannot
be met. A cross-sectional or survey design is very
common and involves collecting data from interviews
or questionnaires. A time-series design measures the
dependent variable across a specified time period to
ascertain the effect of the independent variable on
the dependent variable. Time-series designs should
not, however, be confused with longitudinal studies
in which data are collected from a person or group
over an extended period of time. Case study research
is when the researchers examine multiple aspects of
a specific situation or scenario (case) to determine
the environment and context in which a particular
phenomenon occurred. Although case studies are
useful in gaining an understanding of some issues and
relationships, they are anecdotal and often are used to
develop testable theories and future empirical inves-
tigations. As noted earlier, in regards to the assess-
ment of both the subjective and objective measures of
athletic performance, the use of multiple methods for
collecting data to better understand a phenomenon
223
 Frame and Reichin
will allow for more conclusive and robust findings.
Triangulation refers to the practice of using multiple
methods and sources to collect data in an attempt to
examine a variable of interest. Triangulation increases
the validity of a study by providing corroborating
findings between qualitative and quantitative data.
Much as the emotion of athletes can be assessed,
both using objective assessments (i.e., physiol­
ogical, biochemical, and cardiovascular/respiratory
measures) and subjective measures (i.e., self-report
measures of anxiety, stress, and arousal, the Trier
Inventory for Chronic Stress; Sallen, Hirschmann,
& Herrmann, 2018), the outcome of athletic perfor-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
mance can be measured using both objective and
subjective methods. Athletic performance is often a
key variable of interest in research relating to stress,
anxiety, and arousal in sport psychology. Similarly, the
degree to which an athlete does or does not perform
well is critical when discussing choking. Thus, it
is important to explain the manner in which sport
performance can be operationally defined in research
examining stress, anxiety, arousal, and choking.
Objective Measures of Sport Performance
Athletic performance by its very nature lends
itself to objective measures of success. The athlete
either hits the ball or does not, sinks the basket
or misses, blocks the shot or does not. Counting
the occurrences of discrete behaviors is often used
in research to assess the performance of an indi-
vidual or group (i.e., team). Researchers have used
a myriad of objective performance data, from the
ability of participants to hit a virtual golf ball, from
a virtual tee, into a virtual hole (Witt, Linkenauger,
& Proffitt, 2012); the batting averages of baseball
players (R. E. Smith & Christensen, 1995); the
U.S. football kicker’s field goal percentages (i.e., the
number of successful field goals made divided by
the number of field goals attempted for a season by
a kicker); the number of field goal attempts made
by basketball players and the number of assists,
foul drawings, and free-throw attempts of basket-
ball players, as well as the free-throw percentage
(i.e., the number of free throws made divided by
the number of free throws attempted for a season);
and the number of turnovers, steals, rebounds,
and points scored by basketball players (Haney &
224
Long, 1995; Solomonov, Avugos, & Bar-Eli, 2015).
Objective measures of performance can also be
tallied for more complex tasks, groups of tasks, or for
competition contest outcomes in which a series of
tasks and behaviors are required. Examples include
the number of bouts won by fencers (Doron &
Gaudreau, 2014), golfing scores (Gaudreau, Nicholls,
& Levy, 2010), performance on indoor rowing
tasks (Hatzigeorgiadis, 2006), and bowling scores
(Woodman, Albinson, & Hardy, 1997). All of these
measures have been used in research to operationalize
performance. Although objective performance data
are typically reliable and relatively straightforward to
collect and interpret, they do not provide insight into
the subjective aspects of athletic performance, which
are often critical to investigations of stress, anxiety,
arousal, and choking in sport performance.
Subjective Measures of Sport Performance
Athletic performance is subjectively measured by
having individuals rate or report on their percep-
tions or feelings about the quality of their athletic
performance, their ability to achieve their goals, or
their satisfaction with their athletic performance
(Laborde, Dosseville, & Kinrade, 2014; Nicholls,
Polman, & Levy, 2010, 2012). Essentially, the idea
behind these ratings is that athletes’ satisfaction
with their effort and goal attainment can be used as
subjective measures of performance. This is because
athletes generally have some reference point for
their performance satisfaction, and they typically
have some criteria by which they gauge their actions
(Gaudreau & Blondin, 2004).
When measuring athletes’ levels of fulfilment
or gratification with their sport or their sport
performance, many researchers use scales with
known reliability and validity, such as the Sport
Satisfaction Instrument (Duda & Nicholls, 1992;
Granero-Gallegos, Baena-Extremera, Gómez-
López, & Abraldes, 2014) or the Satisfaction with
Sport Scale (Baudin, Blanch, Rolland, Martí-Guiu, &
Aluja, 2014; Diener & Emmons, 1984). Researchers
may also use nonsport psychological measures
adapted for sport to assess athlete satisfaction
(Gaudreau & Braaten, 2016; Gaudreau, Gunnell,
Hoar, Thompson, & Lelièvre, 2015). Similarly, when
assessing athletes’ perceptions relating to achieving

their performance goals, there are scales such as the
Sport Achievement Goal Scale (Amiot, Gaudreau, &
Blanchard, 2004; Gaudreau & Antl, 2008; Nicolas,
Martinent, & Campo, 2014). These scales gener-
ally provide a sound psychometric foundation for
measuring sports satisfaction and satisfaction with
their sport performance. In contrast, researchers who
have examined subjective ratings of performance
have used single item measures on a 10- or 100-point
Likert rating scale (Laborde et al., 2014; Nicholls
et al., 2010; Nicholls, Polman, & Levy, 2012).
As one might expect, some researchers operation-
ally define athletic performance using both objec-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
tive and subjective methods. Performance–goal
discrepancy is one such method that assesses both
objective and subjective performance indicators. This
method involves asking athletes to set attainable goals
for a given athletic performance or event and then
creating a difference score by subtracting the goal from
their actual performance (Gaudreau & Blondin, 2004;
Gaudreau, Blondin, & Lapierre, 2002). The mecha-
nism of combining objective and subjective sport
performance is not as important as the methodological
improvements and theoretical advancements that
could be gained by continued attempts to combine
these measures of performance outcomes.
THEORIES AND MODELS
OF EMOTION AND SPORT
After we establish a frame of reference for emotion,
mood, and the specific emotions to be discussed in
this chapter, we will review selected theories regarding
emotions and how they may impact performance.
Although not all of these theories and models were
developed to explain the role of stress, anxiety,
and arousal as they relate to sport, they each will
be examined and discussed within the context of
emotion and athletic performance. (See also
Chapter 13, this volume.)
Circumplex Model of Affect
Russell and Barrett (1999) attempted to break emotion
down into various facets. Two of these facets include
prototypical emotional episodes and core affect. The
following section describes these two components of
the circumplex model of affect and how the model
relates to emotion and sport. The circumplex model
Emotion and Sport Performance
of affect is a circular model of emotion first proposed
by James A. Russell (1980). Specifically, he proposed
“affective states falling in a circular order in a two-
dimensional bipolar space, the axes of which are
interpretable as pleasure-displeasure and degree of
arousal” (p. 1171).
Prototypical emotional episodes.   Russell and Barett
(1999) described a prototypical emotional episode as
some overt behavior in relation to a person, condition,
event or thing (e.g., striking someone out of anger).
They also noted the subevents of these episodes as
including an antecedent, an appraisal, an attribu-
tion, core affect, cognitive processes, behaviors, and
physiological processes. Russell and Barett suggested
that these episodes can be structured in dimensions
(i.e., variations in amount, gradation of pleasure and
amount of activation) and hierarchies (i.e., higher
order emotions with various facets). These proto-
typical emotional episodes may result from a sudden
change in core affect. An intense prototypical emo-
tional episode might be winning first place in a race,
scoring the winning goal for one’s team, successfully
making a defensive play that decides the game in one’s
favor, or missing a kick that would have won the game
for one’s team. Less intense prototypical emotional
episodes might involve coaching a teammate to help
him perform better or avoiding a teammate because
he is a rival for one’s position on the team.
Core affect.   Russell and Barrett (1999) noted that
these emotional episodes can result from a change in
core affect, or any consciously accessible feeling, not
necessarily directed at any person, condition, event,
or thing. This is much like the situation with mood.
This component of a prototypical emotional episode
is activated, which results in the subsequent episode.
For example, the core affect of displeasure would
first be activated, which in turn would lead a person
to avoid her teammate. Russell and Barett noted that
core affect can be described in terms of the degree
or amount of pleasantness and activation. The next
theory of emotion explores how and through what
mechanisms emotion can affect performance.
Relational Meaning
Lazarus (2000) offered a theory, called relational
meaning, detailing what specific emotions are
225
 Frame and Reichin
aroused in competition, as well as why and how
these emotions may affect performance. The crux
of the theory revolves around the relational meaning
that individuals place on various situations, stem-
ming from the perception of a particular situation
as harmful, threatening, challenging, or beneficial.
Further, Lazarus (2000) noted that there are various
psychological functions influencing performance.
These include motivation, attention and concentra-
tion. The emotions presented include anger, anxiety,
guilt/shame, hope, relief, happiness, and pride. Below
are brief descriptions of how Lazarus (2000) believed
these emotions are provoked, how to cope with these
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
emotions, and the result of these coping efforts.
Anger.   Lazarus (2000) suggested that a precursor to
anger is being demeaned or slighted. This makes com-
petitors feel as if they need to counterattack for revenge
or repair any harm to their self-esteem. He noted that
anger can be a result of various sources, including
spectators, competitors, coaches, and even oneself.
Anger can impact performance through motivation
by decreasing the motivation to perform. However,
Lazarus (2000) noted that anger can also motivate
individuals to perform better and concentrate harder
on competition in an “I’ll show them” type of way.
Anxiety.   Lazarus (2000) suggested that anxiety
results from having important values and goals threat-
ened and, particularly, being involved in a situation
with an ambiguous outcome. Anxiety can actually
intensify during performance. This may happen after
a failed effort or a series of failed efforts because an
athlete may start to worry about performing poorly or
losing. Lazarus (2000) noted that, like anger, anxiety
can also sometimes facilitate performance.
The notion that anxiety can hinder athletic perfor-
mance in some situations and assist sport perfor-
mance in other situations was given credence by
research conducted by G. Jones and associates in the
1990s. G. Jones and colleagues proposed the notion
of directional interpretations of competitive anxiety
(G. Jones, 1995; G. Jones & Swain, 1992, 1995;
G. Jones, Swain, & Harwood, 1996). Directional
interpretations of competitive anxiety were the degree
to which athletes considered the anxiety as something
that would be debilitative (harmful) or facilitative
(helpful) in their athletic performance (G. Jones,
226
1995; G. Jones & Swain, 1992, 1995; G. Jones, Swain,
& Harwood, 1996). A key component to the idea
of directional competitive anxiety was the concept
of control (G. Jones, 1995). In essence, the degree
to which an athlete perceives an ability to control
a given stressor governs the extent to which the
stressor will be interpreted as facilitative or debilita-
tive to successful athletic performance.
Guilt/shame.   Lazarus (2000) emphasized the dif-
ference between guilt and shame. To Lazarus, guilt
was a result of a transgression to morals (e.g., win-
ning against someone whose career is in trouble),
and shame resulted from failing to live up to an
ideal (e.g., losing a competition). To cope with this
emotion, athletes may need to convince themselves
that those feelings are unnecessary, or they will try
to re-create the event that made them feel guilty or
shameful to make it seem unimportant. Athletes
may even go as far as to try and blame others.
Hope.   Lazarus (2000) stressed the importance of
hope in competition and defined it as believing that
better is possible. This is an important construct in
relation to competitive sport, because a lack of hope
may lead to a combination of anger, anxiety, guilt,
shame, sadness, and ultimately, poor sport perfor-
mance. However, feeling hopeful can allow athletes to
use psychological functions that impact performance,
such as motivation, attention and concentration.
Relief.   Relief is relevant to sport performance
because it consists of athletes’ feelings follow-
ing threat or anxiety. Lazarus (2000) noted that,
as with hope, feeling relief can lead to facilitative
psychol­ogical functions of motivation, attention,
and concentration. However, as with anxiety and
anger, being too relaxed may not benefit sport per-
formance. As noted earlier, athletes that feel under-
arousal may search for and engage in activities with
the goal of returning to optimal arousal (Ribble,
2010; Schmidt, Mussel, & Hewig, 2013).
Happiness.   Happiness may be produced through
triumph or victory, enabling progress to be made
toward a goal, or achievement of honors, fame, or
recognition. Happiness may not always last for very
long periods of time, but Lazarus (2000) noted that
happiness can help maintain motivation. Similarly,

positive affect has been found to be associated with
increased energy, improved aspects of cognitive
functioning, enhanced information processing, and
improved visual perception (Ashby, Isen, & Turken,
1999; Isen, 1987; Zadra & Clore, 2011). More recent
research suggests that the emotional benefits of posi-
tive affect may be enhanced when the positive experi-
ences are shared with others, for example, teammates
(Lambert et al., 2013).
Pride.  Finally, Lazarus (2000) juxtaposed anger
and shame with pride and said that pride results
from an enhancement of one’s social and self-esteem.
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
As with happiness, relief, and hope, pride can be
motivating. One caveat, however, is that being too
prideful (e.g., boasting and being cocky) can be
harmful to social relationships.
All in all, Lazarus (2000) helped us to understand
how these discrete emotions can impact performance
through drawing on relational meanings. Further, he
stressed the importance of motivation, attention, and
concentration in sport performance in response to
positive emotional states. Finally, he noted how having
the ability to cope with these discrete emotions can
help us maintain the required motivation, attention,
and concentration needed to perform consistently well.
The Inverted-U Theory
The theories discussed so far have focused on anxiety,
stress, and arousal; the inverted-U theory applies to
all three of these concepts (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908).
The premise of this theory is that while these three
emotions may have negative undertones, moderate
amounts of these may be beneficial for performance
(Martens & Landers, 1970). Specifically, this theory
takes the form of a bell curve on a plot. The begin-
ning of the curve would represent low anxiety,
arousal, or stress, resulting in poor performance.
The middle of the curve (at the top) would represent
how a moderate amount of anxiety, stress, or arousal
results in optimal performance. Finally, the end of
the curve suggests that too much anxiety, stress, or
arousal results in poor performance.
Individual Zones of Optimal Functioning
The individual zones of optimal functioning (IZOF)
theory attempts to improve upon the inverted-U
Emotion and Sport Performance
theory (Hanin, 1995). Specifically, the IZOF theory
accounts for individual differences in the degree
to which athletes perceive a given level of arousal
as optimal or nonoptimal. The inverted-U theory
assumes that the bell curve is accurate for all indi-
viduals; however, the IZOF theory acknowledges that
not all athletes are going to respond in the same way
to anxiety, stress, and arousal. Instead, IZOF theory
evaluates each athlete’s zone of optimal functioning
(Ruiz, Raglin, & Hanin, 2017). For some athletes,
their optimal zone might be brought about by low
anxiety. For others, perhaps very high anxiety is related
with optimal performance. Both models acknowledge
that anxiety, stress, and arousal may not always be
detrimental to performance, but the IZOF model
recognizes that the optimal level of these constructs
varies at the individual level (Ruiz et al., 2017).
THEORIES AND MODELS
OF STRESS AND SPORT
A definition of stress was provided earlier; there are
theories that may further help one understand the
construct of stress as it relates to sport and athletic
performance. Both IZOF and the inverted-U theory
have been applied to stress, yet other theories and
modes of stress are of interest to sport psychology
researchers and practitioners.
Two-Dimensional Model of Stress
Hans Selye (1985) originated the idea that we
should differentiate between good (eustress) and
bad (distress) forms of psychosocial stress. He
argued that the two types of stress cause different
outcomes because we adapt to the two types differ-
ently. More recently, researchers defined stress in
this two-dimensional manner. For example, Lepine,
Podsakoff, and Lepine (2005) differentiated the
two dimensions as challenge (i.e., good stress) and
hindrance (i.e., bad stress). Further, they relied on
concepts from Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory to
explain their model.
The expectancy theory framework is used to
explain how hindrance and challenge stressors may
be related to motivation differently and thus result
in different levels of athletic performance. The
idea is that hindrance and challenge stressors can
227
 Frame and Reichin
become associated with perceptions explained in
expectancy theory. A stressor may be associated
with thoughts or feelings about the relationship
between the effort an athlete will spend dealing
with the stressor and the likelihood that the athlete
will experience success (expectancy). There is
likely a belief regarding the probability of reaching
a desired goal or outcome given the athlete’s
successful performance (instrumentality). Finally,
the goal or outcome likely has some degree of value
to the athlete (valance). A challenge stressor is seen
as a situation in which athletes are able to meet the
demand with adequate resources and produce a
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
desired performance goal. Hindrance stressors are
those in which athletes believe that no amount of
coping will enable them to meet the demands and
reach a desired level of performance or goal.
For example, a baseball player at bat, poised to
make a game-winning home run, may perceive the
situation as a challenge stressor and be more moti-
vated to conquer the challenge stressors if he feels
(a) that he is likely to hit a home run, (b) that he
understands that by hitting a home run, his team
will win the game, and (c) that winning the game is
a desirable outcome. However, the player might view
the same scenario as a hindrance stressor if he is not
confident that he can hit a home run. Likewise, if he
is confident that he can hit a home run but knows
that a home run will not help his team win the game,
he will view the situation as more of a hindrance.
Finally, even if the player were to hit a home run and
his team win the game, if he sees no value in winning
the game (because the team’s season is over regard-
less of what he does), the player may see the stress of
the situation as a hindrance.
In addition to Lepine and colleagues’ (2005)
conceptualization of stress, Lazarus and Folkman
(1984) noted that two types of stress might be
threat and challenge. Threat-type stressors impair
performance, whereas challenge-type stressors
facilitate performance. The theory behind the threat–
challenge conceptualization of stress is that threat
stressors trigger negative emotions, which result in
passive or emotional (i.e., ineffective) coping, but
challenge stressors trigger positive emotions, which
promote problem-solving (i.e., effective) coping
strategies. Recent research has supported this idea
228
by showing that heart rate (somatic stress) increased
more following threat stress, but the heart rate was
unchanged following challenge stress (Williams,
Veldhuijzen van Zanten, Trotman, Quinton, &
Ginty, 2017). In sport, a large increase in heart rate
may be detrimental to performance.
Cognitive–Phenomenological Model
Historically, stress research focused on stress from a
physiological or biological viewpoint, that is, until
the introduction of the cognitive–phenomenological
view of stress (Lazarus & Launier, 1978). The
cognitive–phenomenological approach to stress
suggests that before stress can occur, the individual
must cognitively appraise a potential stressor as
threatening or challenging. To encounter stress, the
individual must perceive an imbalance between
the demands required to deal with the stressor
and her or his ability to deal with the stressor
effectively (Sulsky & Smith, 2005). The cognitive–
phenomenological approach suggests that a partic-
ular situation could be perceived as stressful to
some people but viewed as not stressful to others,
depending upon the person’s cognitive appraisal of
the scenario and perceived intensity of the stressor.
It has been hypothesized that the degree of stress
that may be endured or the stress threshold may vary
among athletes. In other words, some athletes have a
need for high degree of pressure and others perform
better in less stressful circumstances. This associa-
tion between stress arousal and performance is often
described as the Yerkes–Dodson law. This model,
illustrated by an arch-shaped inverted U, suggests
that as stress increases, performance increases up
to a point. At that point, a person’s performance
begins to decrease as stress continues to increase
(Yerkes & Dodson, 1908).
Managing and Coping With Stress
Although stress can have devastating effects on
athletic performance, research has uncovered various
interventions and processes that have been successful
at attenuating the stress–performance relationship.
One determinant of how stress affects a person is how
the individual chooses to cope with the stress. As with
many of the concepts mentioned, coping is multi­
dimensional. Coping is influenced by the situation

and individual difference factors. An inability to
effectively cope with stress may result in short-term
athletic performance problems and longer term perfor-
mance issues such as burnout. Coping is a conscious
process that requires both psychological and physical
efforts that serve to increase the resources one needs
to deal with stress or to decrease the demands of the
situation (Anshel, Kang, & Miesner, 2010; Carver,
Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Krohne, 1993; Lazarus,
1991). Some have argued that coping can become
an automatic response because of overlearning of a
particular coping strategy (Hardy, Jones, & Gould
1996), but others contend that if an athlete learns
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
to effortlessly eliminate situational stressors from
conscious awareness, then he or she is no longer
coping with the stress because the athlete is using
a stress management technique (Aldwin, 1994;
Compas, Connor, Osowiecki, & Welch, 1997).
THEORIES AND MODELS OF ANXIETY
Various theories further help explain the anxiety
construct. As stated previously, one theory differenti-
ates state versus trait anxiety, but many other theo-
ries should be kept in mind when reading the anxiety
performance literature, including the inverted-U
theory and the IZOF theory.
Directionality Hypothesis
Although theories have distinguished between state
and trait anxiety, some theories have focused on the
facets of each. For example, the directionality hypo­
thesis evaluates not only intensity but also direction
(G. Jones, Swain, & Hardy, 1993). Specifically,
researchers were interested in discovering if state
anxiety could be perceived as both facilitative and
debilitative. Results of previous studies have indi-
cated that high-quality performance had a stronger
association with those who perceived anxiety as
facilitative versus debilitative (G. Jones et al.,
1993). With respect to competitive sport, athletes
who perceived anxiety as being facilitative were
more likely to earn a degree, develop mastery in
their sport, and gain additional confidence in their
sport (Kamusoko & Pemberton, 2013). Whereas
the skill level of the athlete may play a role in the
performance impact of facilitative interpretations of
Emotion and Sport Performance
anxiety (Cunningham & Ashley, 2002), an athlete
who learns to perceive anxiety as facilitative may
use less avoidance-focused coping strategies and
have more adaptive behavioral and cognitive results
during and after competition (Baghurst, 2012;
Hatzigeorgiadis & Chroni, 2007). However, it may
be that the perceived level of excitement the athlete
experiences during competition plays a role in
whether anxiety is perceived as facilitative (Nicholls,
Polman, Levy, & Hulleman, 2012). Inversely,
debilitative anxiety was more likely to result in
burnout, a reduced sense of athletic accomplish-
ment, and diminished evaluation of the sport overall
(Gustafsson & Skoog, 2012).
Multidimensional Anxiety Theory
Martens, Vealey, Burton, and Martens (1990)
proposed a two-dimensional theory of anxiety:
the multi­dimensional anxiety theory (MAT). The
two components are the cognitive component
(e.g., fear of losing) and the somatic component
(i.e., physiological responses). Specifically,
Martens et al. (1990) noted that the two compo-
nents are independent of each other and there-
fore can be stimulated separately. This means
that they can increase and decrease at different
parts of competition. For example, physiological
responses to anxiety may increase during perfor-
mance, but cognitive aspects of anxiety may
remain constant. They hypothesized that cogni-
tive anxiety is the dimension which exerts the
greatest influence on performance (Martens
et al., 1990).
Critics note that this theory attempts to describe
a three-dimensional relationship—between cogni-
tive and somatic anxiety and performance—in a
two-dimensional manner. In other words, Martens
and colleagues (1990) are really exploring two two-
dimensional relationships examining cognitive and
somatic forms of state anxiety on sport performance.
The results of studies have supported these MAT
hypotheses with athletes (Chamberlain & Hale,
2007), although some research has found that an
athlete’s personality may impact the athlete’s physio­
logical and cognitive responses during competition
(Balyan, Tok, Tatar, Binboga, & Balyan, 2016).
Researchers have attempted to close this gap by
229
 Frame and Reichin
truly exploring the three-dimensional relationship
between cognitive and somatic anxiety.
Catastrophe Model
The catastrophe model attempts to improve upon
the MAT. The catastrophe model notes that the
level of cognitive anxiety determines the size of the
effect of physiological arousal (Hardy & Parfitt,
1991). Specifically, the model hypothesizes that
when cognitive anxiety is low, physiological arousal
acts as an inverted U (i.e., moderate amounts of
physiological arousal are beneficial for performance).
However, when cognitive anxiety is high, an
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
increase in physiological arousal is catastrophic to
performance. Once physiological arousal reaches
a certain level, performance doesn’t just taper off,
it drops quite suddenly. This effect is detrimental
to performance because in order for performance
to improve after this sudden drop, physiological
arousal would need to decrease dramatically
(Hardy, Beattie, & Woodman, 2007).
DRIVE REDUCTION THEORY OF AROUSAL
The inverted-U theory and the IZOF theory apply to
arousal as well. The theories of arousal subsequently
discussed, however, will examine arousal from a
different perspective.
Hull (1943) developed the drive reduction theory
of motivation. which focuses on the primary drives
that humans need. These primary drives include
hunger, thirst, sleep, sex, among others. When indi-
viduals fulfill these drives (e.g., when they eat when
hungry and sleep when tired), the drive is reduced.
This “reduction” acts as a learning mechanism,
whereby humans learn once they have these drives,
they will be acted upon, and therefore, the drives
will continue. This theory assumes a linear relation-
ship between arousal and performance, such that, as
arousal increases, performance increases. Research on
drive theory, however, has failed to produce consis-
tent support for the theory (Martens, 1971, 1974).
Moreover, drive theory fails to account for cognitive
appraisal (Gill, 1994) and is unable to accurately
explain the performance of complex tasks often
associated with athletic performance (Fisher, 1976;
Martens, 1971; Neiss, 1988; Weinberg, 1979).
230
THEORIES AND MODELS OF CHOKING
Choking as a Self-Defeating Behavior
The theory of choking revolves around the fact that
attempts to prevent choking are self-defeating or have
the opposite effect of the intended one. Baumeister
(1997) argued that performance becomes unconscious
and automatic to professional athletes, so any attempt
to interfere with this automatic process undermines
performance. In other words, any conscious effort to
perform especially well in competition may result in
choking (Baumeister, 1997). In sport performance,
this may happen in instances where it is especially
important to perform well because of high pres-
sure and the expectations of others, including the
athletes. Choking is more likely to happen during
a tournament or a championship game because the
added pressure of this type of competition requires
the athlete to rely on the automatic processes that
can be susceptible to error because of the athlete’s
conscious attempts to not choke.
Choking Because of Distraction
One of the earliest explanations for choking revolves
around the idea that the anxiety and stress created
from performing under pressure becomes a distrac-
tion to the athlete. The distraction then prevents
the athlete from performing the task or action at the
level expected or at a level that reflects her or his
training and nonpressure performance (Wine, 1971).
Distraction causes an athlete to experience divided
attention; choking is a result of the performer’s divided
attention (Englert, Bertrams, Purley, & Oudejans,
2015). One of the more prevalent theories tested in
the research that has examined choking as a result
of distraction is the attentional control theory (ACT;
Eysenck et al., 2007).
ACT evolved from the processing efficiency theory
(Eysenck & Calvo, 1992); it suggests that anxiety can
be both distracting and motivating (Wilson, 2008).
In the ACT paradigm, anxiety serves to inform the
athlete that the situation is important and thus trig-
gers the use of additional effort to maintain perfor-
mance while experiencing distractions. The anxiety,
however, may directly interfere with those functions
(e.g., working memory and executive functioning)
critical to performance. Specifically, according to

ACT, anxiety impairs the person’s ability to attend
to the task (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992; Eysenck et al.,
2007). The ability to control one’s attention is
reduced when threat-related cues are attended to
more so than goal-directed aspects of the situation
(Kinrade, Jackson, & Ashford, 2010).
Skill-Focus Theories
In contrast to distraction theories, skill-focus theo-
ries suggest that pressure causes the athlete to focus
attention on the technical execution of the skill. In
essence, an athlete’s anxiety impairs performance by
causing the athlete to become self-conscious about
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
the execution of a task that is normally performed
outside of conscious awareness (Masters & Maxwell,
2008). Skill-focused theories of choking are founded
on the idea that “learning progresses from a declara-
tive knowledge stage in which performance is
consciously controlled and requires much attention
to a procedural knowledge stage in which perfor-
mance is automatic and requires little attention”
(Masters & Maxwell, 2008, p. 161). In a stressful
situation, however, a process referred to as deautoma-
tization occurs. Deautomatization is the process by
which an athlete’s previously automatic behavior
or skill is reversed and becomes a behavior or skill
that requires effortful, declarative attention by the
athlete. In essence, what was once implicit—almost
unconscious—behavior becomes behavior that
requires full attention and explicit rules. It results
in the athlete attempting to coordinate movements
involved in a task by using explicit rules instead of
using procedural memory. The process by which the
automatic process becomes cognitively effortful is
mediated by a “de-chunking” process that slows and
impairs performance and introduces error between
steps, or chunks, making the athlete perform more
like a novice (Land & Tenenbaum, 2012).
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH FINDINGS
AND LIMITATIONS
Effect of Anxiety on Performance
As with stress, anxiety can significantly impact sport
performance. The mechanisms for this process,
however, is a function of various moderators and
mediators. The next section describes how some
Emotion and Sport Performance
of the mediators and moderators related to anxiety
have been examined. The impact of these concepts
on athletic performance is also discussed.
Criticality of the situation.   One of the concepts
related to anxiety is the degree to which the athlete
is under substantial pressure. Researchers have
found that in conditions appraised as low pressure,
precompetitive state anxiety was not related to sport
performance. Under high-pressure situations, how-
ever, precompetitive state anxiety was negatively
related to performance (Geukes, Harvey, Trezise, &
Mesagno, 2017). That is, critical or high-pressure
situations produced circumstances in which athletes’
level of anxiety impacted performance, whereas in
low-pressure situations, athletes were neither posi-
tively nor negatively influenced by anxiety. Similarly,
Neil, Wilson, Mellalieu, Hanton, and Taylor (2012)
found that only under critical performance situa-
tions did athletes consider their anxiety debilitative.
The researchers distinguished between how athletes
interpreted their anxiety as either debilitative or
facilitative because they found that facilitative anxi-
ety can be positively related to sport performance
(Neil et al., 2012). Neil et al. (2012) attributed
this finding to the athletes’ level of self-confidence.
These findings taken together highlight a potential
limitation of the existing theories and models
researched. Specifically, it seems that in extreme
situations, the high-pressure environment experi-
enced by athletes may be so overwhelming that all
anxiety is perceived by the athlete as debilitative and
has a negative impact on sport performance.
Intensity and direction of anxiety.   Not only does
the athlete’s perceived criticality of the situation
affect the relationship between anxiety and perfor-
mance, but the intensity and direction of anxiety is
also important. The MAT theory of anxiety suggests
that anxiety can be perceived at various levels of
intensity (e.g., high intensity, moderate intensity,
low intensity). Recent research has shown that
heightened intensity of anxiety is related to poorer
sport performance (Neil et al., 2012). Further, as
discussed previously in relation to the directionality
hypothesis, anxiety can be perceived by the athlete
as debilitative or facilitative. Recent research find-
ings suggest that cognitive anxiety that is perceived
231
 Frame and Reichin
as facilitative is associated with better performance
(Chamberlain & Hale, 2007).
Additionally, researchers have examined what
types of individuals may be more likely to experi-
ence intense feelings of anxiety and in what direc-
tion. Weinberger, Schwartz, and Davidson (1979)
suggested that athletes can be grouped based on
self-reported trait anxiety and scores of defensive-
ness on the Marlowe–Crowne Scale. The first group
are repressors, who self-report low trait anxiety but
score high on defensiveness. These individuals show
physiological symptoms of high anxiety, implying
they tend to avoid or ignore their anxiety symptoms
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
or feelings. The next group are those who self-report
low trait anxiety and are low on defensiveness.
These individuals report low trait anxiety.
Weinberger et al. (1979) recognized those who
self-report high anxiety but low defensiveness. These
individuals acknowledge their anxiety and are better
at coping than repressors. There are also athletes
who self-report high anxiety and score high on
defensiveness. Franklin, Smith, and Holmes (2015)
wanted to investigate if these groups of athletes differ
in their perceived intensity and direction of anxiety.
Results showed that repressors reported less intense
and more facilitative state anxiety than those in the
high-anxiety groups (Franklin et al., 2015). Further,
the researchers reported no significant differences
in reported intensity or direction for the repressor
and low-anxiety, low-defensive group. Finally, while
researchers suggest that both intensity and direc-
tion of anxiety can affect performance, direction
is apparently a stronger predictor of performance
(Chamberlain & Hale, 2007).
Self-control.   In addition to the perceived critical
level of the situation and the intensity and direction
of state anxiety, an athlete’s self-control strength can
moderate the effect of anxiety on sport performance.
Researchers found that there is a negative relation-
ship between anxiety and motor performance when
self-control strength is low (Englert & Bertrams,
2012, 2013). Englert and Bertrams (2012) defined low
self-control as “the ability to resist immediate urges or
to not give into automatic impulses in specific situ-
ations” (p. 581). Because of this ability, athletes are
likely to keep their anxiety from dictating their behav-
ior, and therefore, they do not allow their anxiety to
232
affect their performance. Further, recent research has
suggested that the degree to which an athlete main-
tains self-control may give him or her an enhanced
capability to translate intentions into action under tax-
ing situations (Landman, Nieuwenhuys, & Oudejans,
2016). Landman et al. (2016) found that under high-
pressure situations, athletes with higher action orien-
tation (AOD) had higher levels of performance
(i.e., accuracy in a shooting task). However, whereas
AOD (self-control strength) may have reduced the
effect of anxiety on performance that stems from high-
pressure situations, AOD did not lessen the perception
of anxiety (Landman et al., 2016). In summary, it may
be that the focus of interventions and training in the
realm of emotion and sport should be on assisting
athletes to maintain and strengthen their self-control
and compose in a variety of settings rather than
attempting to have them perceive stressful situations
as unthreatening and or positive.
SPORT STRESS
Stress, an aspect of everyday life for athletes
(Mellalieu, Neil, Hanton, & Fletcher, 2009), is
defined as the “process by which certain environ-
mental demands evoke an appraisal process in which
perceived demand exceeds resources and results
in undesirable, physiological, behavioral, or social
outcomes” (Salas, Driskell, & Hughes, 1996, p. 6).
Stress is inevitable, and most athletes experience
various degrees of stress on a regular basis. Stressful
situations can lead to poor performance (Liao &
Masters, 2002; Whitehead, Butz, Kozar, & Vaughn,
1996). Still, in other situations, stress may actually
enhance performance (Lindahl, Theorell, & Lindblad,
2005). As noted earlier, stress has psychophysiol­
ogical properties (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004;
Lazarus, 2000; Tetrick & Quick, 2003) and can
be chronic or acute (Dhabhar, 2012; Furrer et al.,
2015). Thus, research into sport stress has examined
both the physical and psychological components.
Sources of Stress
When athletes experience environmental stimuli
(e.g., threat, time constraint, high-demand task, group
pressure), they must determine the importance
of the stimuli and ascertain the degree to which

they have the skills, abilities, equipment, and other
resources to meet the demand of the situation.
Eventually, those athletes will determine if the current
situation presents a significant threat or a challenge
that can be handled easily or is categorized as stressful.
Depending upon the athletes’ appraisal of the stim-
ulus, the resulting stress may elicit changes in their
physiology, cognitions, emotions, behaviors, and sport
performance quality (Lazarus, 2000; Salas et al., 1996).
In this review we divide the categories of stressors
as external and internal.
External stressors.   There are an array of (external)
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
stressors that athletes experience in every contest.
External stressors can be acute or chronic; they
might include the sight of or interaction with an
opponent, bad weather, a bad call by a game official,
rude spectators, or disagreeable coaches (Suinn,
2005). Further, Mellalieu et al. (2009) noted various
performance stressors, including physical, technical,
and tactical preparation; injury; goals; performance
problems; self-presentation; and aspects relating to
one’s opponents. Mellalieu et al. also identified orga-
nizational stressors, including stress from coaches,
teammates, competitive environment, time demands,
and the media. The challenging and competitive
nature of sports means that these external stressors
are unavoidable in the day-to-day life of athletes and
in competition. Well-trained and skilled athletes,
however, effectively use appropriate strategies for
coping with these external stressors.
Internal stressors.   Internal stressors can be acute
or chronic stressors. In the sport performance lit-
erature, internal stressors include thoughts about
upcoming performance, the awareness of fatigue, or
fear of failure (Suinn, 2005). Further, Mellalieu et al.
(2009) noted additional internal stressors, such as
reflecting on previous accomplishments and pres-
sure to do well. Additionally, Hanton, Wagstaff,
and Fletcher (2012) found that cognitive stressors
fall into one of three categories. The first stressors
are those that make individuals feel as if they have
been personally harmed or that a goal of theirs
has been harmed. An example of this would be a
teammate insulting the way you look. The second
stressor that Hanton et al. described is one in which
the individual feels threatened. This threat could
Emotion and Sport Performance
be to career development, to performance, or to
the organization’s image. An example of a threat to
career development that the authors noted was new
athletes coming in and more veteran athletes feeling
threatened. Finally, the third stressor the authors
mentioned was challenges. These can be challenges
that an individual is determined to overcome or a
challenge that makes the individual excited about
the future.
Stress and Performance
Generally speaking, stress shows a negative relation-
ship with performance (Otter, Brink, Van der Does,
& Lemmink, 2016). Stress, however, can at times
be interpreted as positive and can be instrumental
in an athlete’s ability to perform well in competition
(Gillham & Gillham, 2014; Mellalieu et al., 2009;
Neil, Mellalieu, Hanton, 2006). Stress can manifest
in different ways. Stress can manifest physiologically
(e.g., heightened arousal or distress), behaviorally
(e.g., muscle tightness or coordination deficiencies),
and cognitively (e.g., negative thoughts or problems
concentrating; Suinn, 2005). These stressors can
affect an individual’s performance, which can be
problematic. One of the potential consequences of
stress includes overreaching (OR), which manifests
in physiological ways, both behaviorally and cogni-
tively. Overreaching can be functional (FOR) and
nonfunctional OR (NFOR). Brink, Visscher, Coutts,
and Lemmink (2012) noted that an individual who
exhibits symptoms of OR may show a decrease
in performance, fatigue, poor concentration, and
changes in sleeping and eating patterns. FOR is
short term, with long-term benefits, but NFOR can
be severe, coupled with more extreme symptoms
that continue for months (Brink et al., 2012).
Recovery is an important aspect to consider
when one is examining the stress performance rela-
tionship. If an individual spends more time under
stress than recovery, than performance can decrease
(Van der Does et al., 2015). However, when stress
is balanced with recovery, there can be positive
relation­ships with performance (Otter et al., 2016).
Researchers have divided stress into challenge
and hindrance (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lepine
et al., 2005). Challenge can be appraised as “positive
stress.” A degree of stress that challenges a person
233
 Frame and Reichin
can improve sport performance (Crane & Searle,
2016; Prem, Ohly, Kubicek, & Korunka, 2017).
Hindrance stress, however, inhibits the athlete
from performing at a level commensurate with her
or his competence. Results of meta-analytic results
have found that challenging stress is positively
associated with performance when compared with
the negative association with hindrance (Lepine
et al., 2005). In the workplace, Wallace, Edwards,
Arnold, Frazier, and Finch (2009) found that
manageable or challenging stressors were positively
associated with performance, whereas unmanage-
able or hindrance stressors were negatively associ-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
ated with performance.
AROUSAL
Arousal in terms of sport psychology can be chal-
lenging to define because of the complexity of
the construct (Gould & Krane, 1992; Venables,
1983). For sport psychology, however, the concept
of arousal and the regulation of arousal is often
mentioned and discussed (Gould & Udry, 1994;
Zaichkowsky & Baltzell, 2001). Yet, despite the
interest, the term arousal has many varying opera-
tional definitions in sport psychology research.
Also confusing is that the term arousal is often used
synonymously in relation to other constructs, such
as anxiety, emotion, excitement, and stress (Arent &
Landers, 2003). Early definitions of arousal consid-
ered the construct unidimensional and conceptual-
ized it as a physiological response and mobilization
of energy and an effort in response to a physical
demand (Zaichkowsky & Baltzell, 2001). Some of
these early definitions drew on motivation theories
and considered arousal as behavior that reflects the
intensity and the direction of behavior toward a goal
(Brown & McGill, 1989; Duffy, 1962; Sage, 1984).
These early definitions were criticized, and multi­
dimensional operational definitions of arousal were
put forth (Gould & Krane, 1992; Gould & Udry,
1994; Hockey & Hamilton, 1983; J. G. Jones &
Hardy, 1989; Wann, 1997). The multi­dimensional
perspective on arousal has also been supported by
research (Adam, Teeken, Ypelaar, Verstappen, &
Paas, 1997; Koob, 1991; Parfitt, Hardy, & Pates,
1995; Wann, 1997).
234
Others, however, have argued that the construct
of arousal is of limited use and have suggested that
studying arousal contributes little to the under-
standing of performance (Neiss, 1990). Specifically, it
has been suggested that it would be more beneficial to
understand the psychobiological processes and their
relationship to performance, as opposed to studying
the construct of arousal (Neiss, 1990). Contemporary
definitions of arousal in sport psychology research
tend to operationalize arousal as a physiological and
psychological phenomenon that ranges along an exci-
tation continuum from unconsciousness or sleep to
highly excited (Adam et al., 1997; Gould & Krane,
1992; Gould & Udry, 1994; Koob, 1991; Parfitt et al.,
1995; Wann, 1997; Zaichkowsky & Baltzell, 2001).
Arousal is a multidimensional construct that consists
of a cognitive interpretation—an appraisal compo-
nent and a complex physiological component.
The cognitive interpretation involves an indi-
vidual’s appraisal of the physiological component of
arousal. The appraisal can be favorable, thus resulting
in a positive effect, or it can be an unfavorable assess-
ment, which would result in a negative affect (Gould
& Udry, 1994). The physiological component of
arousal is thought to begin in the reticular activating
system, which interacts with the hypothalamus, the
cerebral cortex, and other components of the nervous
system (Gould & Udry, 1994; Hardy et al., 1996;
LeDoux, 1993; Zaichkowsky & Baltzell, 2001). The
physiological component of arousal begins with brain
mechanisms that produce various biological indica-
tors such as increased muscle tension, increased
cardiovascular activity, increased cortical activity,
increased physiological markers (e.g., electrodermal
activity), and changes in biochemistry (e.g., changes
in cortisol levels, changes in epinephrine levels, and
changes in norepinephrine levels; Zaichkowsky &
Baltzell, 2001).
Arousal has been measured with a variety of
methods, including physiological measurements,
self-report inventories, and behavioral observations
(A. M. Smith, Sim, Smith, Stuart, & Laskowski,
1998). Physiological measurements include changes
in physiology (e.g., changes in respiration, blood
pressure, galvanic skin response, muscle tension
[measured with an electromyogram], heart rate
[measured with an electrocardiogram], and brain

waves [measured with an electroencephalogram])
and changes in biochemistry (e.g., changes in
epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol). Whereas
self-report inventories are often used in research
to measure the cognitive interpretation—appraisal
component of arousal, it is worth noting that most
of these scales confound arousal with anxiety. It is
possible that the confounding of arousal and anxiety
is one reason that researchers often find low corre-
lations between the self-report skill measurement
and measures of physiological, behavioral, and
biochemical indicators of arousal.
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
CHOKING
In the academic literature, the phrase choking under
pressure was introduced in reference to the “occur-
rence of inferior performance despite individual
striving and situational demands for superior perfor-
mance” (Baumeister, 1984, p. 610). A more succinct
definition of choking as “suboptimal performance
under pressure conditions” has been the basis for
much of the research on choking (Baumeister &
Showers, 1986, p. 362). As with some of the other
topics discussed in this chapter, the definitions cited
have not been universally accepted. Some researchers
contend that the current operational conceptual-
ization does not adequately reflect the dramatic or
drastic performance decline typically associated
with the use of “choke” in athletic performance
(Gucciardi, Longbottom, Jackson, & Dimmock, 2010;
Hill et al., 2010; Mesagno, Marchant, & Morris,
2008). It is argued that choking represents a substan-
tial decline in performance that significantly exceeds
what might be expected because of chance or other
factors, and that choking is clearly and directly attrib-
utable to a “specific negative response to perceived
pressure” (Hill et al., 2010, p. 24). Whereas choking
is performance significantly below expectations in a
high-pressure situation, clutch performance is “any
performance increment or superior performance that
occurs under pressure” (Otten, 2009, p. 584). Thus,
clutch performance may be viewed as the opposite
of choking. Clutch performance involves perfor-
mance in which the perceived criticality of the situ-
ation creates heightened tension and anticipation.
Successful athletes in such situations often attribute
Emotion and Sport Performance
their success to a temporary yet optimal mental
state in which they were fully engaged in the task
or activity.
Research in Choking
Much of the research in the domain of choking
mirrored the research that we have described thus
far in other realms of stress, anxiety, and arousal.
The research designs typically involved measuring
performance before a pressure-filled scenario
and then measuring performance after a pressure
scenario. Research that used experimental designs
generally involved a baseline level of performance
(under practice or controlled conditions), manipu-
lating the level of state anxiety by altering the
perceived pressure of the situation, and assessing
the sub­sequent performance as compared with
the previously demonstrated standard (Mesagno,
Harvey, & Janelle, 2012). Nonexperimental obser-
vational or case studies examined the effects of
pressure inherent in high-stakes real-world situ-
ations such as championship games and title
matches. These naturalistic studies compare
previous performance in low-pressure settings
(e.g., preseason games, regular matches, practice)
with performance in high-pressure situations.
Qualitative studies that have examined choking
make use of reflective self-reports of those who
have choked in a high-pressure situation.
Experimental, quasi-experimental, and natural-
istic studies have produced empirical support for the
idea that choking exists as a distinct and observable
phenomenon. Regardless of how one defines choking,
research suggests—as does the anecdotal experiences
of many people—that when required to perform
under pressure, people may perform more poorly
than expected.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Several areas warrant future research on emotion
in competitive sport. For arousal, it is critical for
researchers to develop better measures of the cogni-
tive interpretation—appraisal component of arousal.
While the studies in the area of arousal that have
used measures of anxiety are informative, they do
not provide a full understanding of the cognitive
235
 Frame and Reichin
interpretation—appraisal component of arousal
because of a lack of reliable measures to assess the
construct. (See also Chapter 13, this volume.)
CONCLUSION
The primary purpose of this chapter was to
review the literature on emotion, specifically
stress, arousal, anxiety, and choking, as they relate
to sports performance. We have reviewed some
of the defining constructs within this area of
sport psychology, as well as how emotion affects
athletic performance. Research evidence suggests
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
that negative stress and debilitative state anxiety,
unlike positive stress and facilitative anxiety,
respectively, may inhibit sport performance.
Previous studies have also suggested, however,
that certain forms and intensities of anxiety,
arousal, and stress may be beneficial for athletic
performance.
We also discussed the phenomenon of choking
in sport. Although much research in this area
has been conducted as choking relates to athletic
performance, a full understanding of the phenom-
enon in terms of its causes and cures is still
lacking.
Research in the area of stress, anxiety, arousal,
and choking as it relates to sports performance has
direct applied implications for athletes and sport
psychologists. Competitive athletes are typically
under pressure to meet performance expectations.
It is incumbent upon them to determine the strate-
gies, routines, and thought processes that can aid
them in using a pressure situation to enhance their
performance.
Throughout this chapter we have attempted
to explain the research findings related to perfor-
mance and stress, anxiety, and arousal. Future
research in this domain should continue to focus
on the sources of undesirable emotions and ways
to provide effective interventions that results in
favorable and consistent performance in competi-
tive sport. Similarly, when investigating the ante-
cedents of sports performance future research
should use both physiological and psychological
methods to determine the athletes’ levels of stress,
arousal, and anxiety.
236
References
Abbot, E. (Producer), Greenhut, R. (Producer), &
Marshall, P. (Director). (1992). A league of their own
[Motion picture]. United States: Sony Pictures.
Adam, J., Teeken, J., Ypelaar, P., Verstappen, F., & Paas, F.
(1997). Exercise-induced arousal and information
processing. International Journal of Sport Psychology,
28, 217–226.
Aldwin, C. M. (1994). Stress, coping, and development: An
integrative perspective. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Stress won’t
go away? Maybe you are suffering from chronic stress.
Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/
chronic-stress.aspx
Amiot, C., Gaudreau, P., & Blanchard, C. (2004). Self-
determination, coping, and goal attainment in sport.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 396–411.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.26.3.396
Anshel, M. H., Kang, M., & Miesner, M. (2010). The
approach-avoidance framework for identifying
athletes’ coping style as a function of gender and race.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 341–349.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00796.x
Arent, S. M., & Landers, D. M. (2003). Arousal,
anxiety, and performance: A reexamination of
the Inverted-U hypothesis. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 74, 436–444. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/02701367.2003.10609113
Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, A. U. (1999). A neuro-
psychological theory of positive affect and its influence
on cognition. Psychological Review, 106, 529–550.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.3.529
Baghurst, T. (2012). The psychological components of
elite cycling. Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of
Sport Psychology, 4, 13–29.
Ball, C. (2013). Unexplained sporting slumps and causal
attributions. Journal of Sport Behavior, 36, 233–242.
Balyan, K. Y., Tok, S., Tatar, A., Binboga, E., & Balyan, M.
(2016). The relationship among personality, cogni-
tive anxiety, somatic anxiety, physiological arousal,
and performance in male athletes. Journal of Clinical
Sport Psychology, 10, 48–58. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1123/jcsp.2015-0013
Baudin, N., Blanch, A., Rolland, J., Martí-Guiu, M., &
Aluja, A. (2014). Core self-evaluations, life satisfac-
tion, and sport satisfaction. Escritos de Psicologia, 7,
19–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.5231/psy.writ.2014.2507
Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-
consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives
on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 46, 610–620. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.610

Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Esteem threat, self-regulatory
breakdown, and emotional distress as factors in self-
defeating behavior. Review of General Psychology, 1,
145–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.1.2.145
Baumeister, R. F., & Showers, C. (1986). A review of para-
doxical performance effects: Choking under pressure
in sports and mental tests. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 16, 361–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
ejsp.2420160405
Beedie, C. J., Terry, P. C., Lane, A. M., & Devonport, T. J.
(2011). Differential assessment of emotions and
moods: Development and validation of the Emotion
and Mood Components of Anxiety Questionnaire.
Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 228–233.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.034
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Beilock, S. L., & Gray, R. (2007). Why do athletes choke
under pressure? In G. Tenenbaum &, R. C. Eklund
(Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 425–444).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1037/11164-000
Brink, M. S., Visscher, C., Coutts, A. J., & Lemmink, K. A.
(2012). Changes in perceived stress and recovery in
overreached young elite soccer players. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 22, 285–292.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01237.x
Brown, J. D., & McGill, K. L. (1989). The cost of good
fortune: When positive life events produce negative
health consequences. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 1103–1110. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1103
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989).
Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically
based approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychol­ogy, 56, 267–283. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
Chamberlain, S. T., & Hale, B. D. (2007). Competitive
state anxiety and self-confidence: Intensity and
direction as relative predictors of performance on
a golf putting task. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping: An
International Journal, 20, 197–207. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/10615800701288572
Compas, B. E., Connor, J., Osowiecki, D., & Welch, A.
(1997). Effortful and involuntary responses to
stress: Implications for coping with chronic stress.
In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Coping with chronic stress
(pp. 105–130). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9862-3_4
Corbett, J. (2007, January 8). Magical season bobbled
away. USA Today, p. 5C.
Cox, R., Martens, M., & Russell, W. (2003). Measuring
anxiety in athletics: The revised Competitive State
Anxiety Inventory-2. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Emotion and Sport Performance
Psychology, 25, 519–533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/
jsep.25.4.519
Crane, M. F., & Searle, B. J. (2016). Building resilience
through exposure to stressors: The effects of chal-
lenges versus hindrances. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 21, 468–479. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0040064
Cunningham, G. B., & Ashley, F. B. (2002). Debilitative and
facilitative perceptions of trait anxiety among students
in a college golf class. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 94,
739–742. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.2002.94.3.739
Derouesné, C. (2011). Qu’est-ce qu’une émotion? Une
introduction à l’étude des émotions [What is an
emotion? An introduction to the study of emotions].
Gériatrie et Psychologie Neuropsychiatrie du
Vieillissement, 9, 69–81.
Dhabhar, F. (2012, December). Good stress, bad
stress. Stanford Medicine. Retrieved from https://
med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2012/12/
good-stress-bad-stress.html
Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors
and cortisol responses: A theoretical integration
and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological
Bulletin, 130, 355–391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.130.3.355
Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of
positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 47, 1105–1117. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.1105
Doron, J., & Bourbousson, J. (2017). How stressors are
dynamically appraised within a team during a game:
An exploratory study in basketball. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 27, 2080–2090.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sms.12796
Doron, J., & Gaudreau, P. (2014). A point-by-point
analysis of performance in a fencing match: Psychol­
ogical processes associated with winning and losing
streaks. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 36,
3–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2013-0043
Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of
achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 5, 84290–84299.
Duffy, E. (1962). Activation and behavior. Oxford, England:
Wiley.
Dyck, D., & Roithmayr, T. (2002). Organizational
stressors and health: How occupational health
nurses can help break the cycle. Workplace
Safety & Health, 50, 212–219. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/216507990205000507
Edwards, T., Hardy, L., Kingston, K., & Gould, D. (2002).
A qualitative analysis of catastrophic performances
and the associated thoughts, feelings, and emotions.
The Sport Psychologist, 16, 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1123/tsp.16.1.1
237
 Frame and Reichin
Ekman, P. (1999). Basic emotions. In T. Dalgleish &
M. J. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion
(pp. 45–60). New York, NY: Wiley.
Englert, C., & Bertrams, A. (2012). Anxiety, ego deple-
tion, and sports performance. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 34, 580–599. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1123/jsep.34.5.580
Englert, C., & Bertrams, A. (2013). Too exhausted
for operation? Anxiety, depleted self-control strength,
and perceptual–motor performance. Self and
Identity, 12, 650–662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15298868.2012.718865
Englert, C., Bertrams, A., Purley, P., & Oudejans, R. R. D.
(2015). Is ego depletion associated with increased
distractibility? Results from a basketball free throw
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
task. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 18, 26–31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.12.001
Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and
performance: The processing efficiency theory.
Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409–434. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/02699939208409696
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo,
M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance:
Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7, 336–353.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336
Fisher, A. C. (1976). Psychology of sport. Palo Alto, CA:
Mayfield.
Franklin, Z., Smith, N., & Holmes, P. (2015). Anxiety
symptom interpretation and performance expecta-
tions in high-anxious, low-anxious, defensive high-
anxious and repressor individuals. Personality and
Individual Differences, 77, 27–32.
Furrer, P., Moen, F., & Firing, K. (2015). How mindful-
ness training may mediate stress, performance and
burnout. The Sport Journal, 20, 1.
Gaudreau, P., & Antl, S. (2008). Athletes’ broad dimen-
sions of dispositional perfectionism: Examining
changes in life satisfaction and the mediating role of
sport-related motivation and coping. Journal of Sport
& Exercise Psychology, 30, 356–382. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1123/jsep.30.3.356
Gaudreau, P., & Blondin, J. (2004). Differential associa-
tions of dispositional optimism and pessimism with
coping, goal attainment, and emotional adjustment
during sport competition. International Journal of
Stress Management, 11, 245–269. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/1072-5245.11.3.245
Gaudreau, P., Blondin, J.-P., & Lapierre, A.-M. (2002).
Athletes’ coping during a competition: Relationship
of coping strategies with positive affect, negative
affect, and performance–goal discrepancy. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 3, 125–150. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S1469-0292(01)00015-2
Gaudreau, P., & Braaten, A. (2016). Achievement goals and
their underlying goal motivation: Does it matter why
238
sport participants pursue their goals? Psychologica
Belgica, 56, 244–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pb.266
Gaudreau, P., Gunnell, K. E., Hoar, S. D., Thompson, A., &
Lelièvre, J. (2015). Optimism, pessimism, and coping
in a dual-domain model of sport and school satisfac-
tion. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 4,
140–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spy0000032
Gaudreau, P., Nicholls, A., & Levy, A. R. (2010). The ups
and downs of coping and sport achievement: An
episodic process analysis of within-person associa-
tions. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32,
298–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.32.3.298
Geukes, K., Harvey, J. T., Trezise, A., & Mesagno, C.
(2017). Personality and performance in real-world
competitions: Testing trait activation of fear of nega-
tive evaluation, dispositional reinvestment, and
athletic identity in the field. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 30, 101–109. http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.
libraries.psu.edu/10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.02.008
Gill, D. L. (1994). A sport and exercise psychology
perspective on stress. Quest, 46, 20–27. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1994.10484108
Gillham, E., & Gillham, A. D. (2014). Identifying athletes’
sources of competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 37, 1–16.
Gould, D., Greenleaf, C., & Krane, V. (2002). Arousal-
anxiety and sport behavior. In T. S. Horn (Ed.),
Advances in sport psychology (pp. 207–236).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Gould, D., & Krane, V. (1992). The arousal–athletic perfor-
mance relationship: Current status and future direc-
tions. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology
(pp. 119–142). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Gould, D., & Udry, E. (1994). Psychological skills
for enhancing performance: Arousal regulation
strategies. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
26, 478–485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1249/
00005768-199404000-00013
Granero-Gallegos, A., Baena-Extremera, A., Gómez-
López, M., & Abraldes, J. A. (2014). Psychometric
properties of the “Sport Satisfaction Instrument
(SSI)” in female athletes: Predictive model of sport
commitment. Psychological Reports, 115, 148–164.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/08.06.PR0.115c14z1
Gray, R. (2004). Attending to the execution of a complex
sensorimotor skill: Expertise differences, choking,
and slumps. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, 10, 42–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
1076-898X.10.1.42
Gucciardi, D. F., Longbottom, J.-L., Jackson, B., &
Dimmock, J. A. (2010). Experienced golfers’
perspectives on choking under pressure. Journal
of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 61–83.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.32.1.61

Gustafsson, H., & Skoog, T. (2012). The mediational role
of perceived stress in the relation between optimism
and burnout in competitive athletes. Anxiety, Stress,
& Coping: An International Journal, 25, 183–199.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2011.594045
Hackfort, D., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1993). Anxiety.
In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant
(Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology
(pp. 328–364). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Haney, C., & Long, B. (1995). Coping effectiveness: A
path analysis of self-efficacy, control, coping, and
performance in sport competitions. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 25, 1726–1746. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01815.x
Hanin, Y. L. (1995). Individual zones of optimal func-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
tioning (IZOF) model: An idiographic approach to
performance anxiety. In K. Henschen & W. Straub
(Eds.), Sport psychology: An analysis of athlete behavior
(pp. 103–119). Longmeadow, MA: Movement.
Hanin, Y. L. (2007). Emotions in sport: Current issues
and perspectives. In G. Tenenbaum, R. C. Eklund,
G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of
sport psychology (pp. 31–58). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118270011.ch2
Hanton, S., Wagstaff, C. R., & Fletcher, D. (2012).
Cognitive appraisals of stressors encountered in
sport organizations. International Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 10, 276–289. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/1612197X.2012.682376
Hardy, L., Beattie, S., & Woodman, T. (2007). Anxiety-
induced performance catastrophes: Investigating
effort required as an asymmetry factor. British
Journal of Psychology, 98, 15–31. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1348/000712606X103428
Hardy, L., Jones, J. G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding
psychological preparation for sport: Theory and prac-
tice of elite performers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hardy, L., & Parfitt, G. (1991). A catastrophe model
of anxiety and performance. British Journal of
Psychology, 82, 163–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.2044-8295.1991.tb02391.x
Hatzigeorgiadis, A. (2006). Approach and avoidance
coping during task performance in young men:
The role of goal attainment expectancies. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 24, 299–307. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/17461390500188645
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Chroni, S. (2007). Pre-competition
anxiety and in-competition coping in experienced
male swimmers. International Journal of Sports
Science & Coaching, 2, 181–189. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1260/174795407781394310
Hill, D., Hanton, S., Matthews, N., & Fleming, S. (2010).
Choking in sport: A review. International Review of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3, 24–39. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/17509840903301199
Emotion and Sport Performance
Hockey, G., & Hamilton, P. (1983). The cognitive
patterning of stress states. In G. Hockey (Ed.), Stress
and fatigue in human performance (pp. 331–362).
Chichester, England: Wiley.
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to
behavior theory. Oxford, England: Appleton-Century.
Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes, and
social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.; pp. 203–253),
Advances in experimental social psychology. New York,
NY: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0065-2601(08)60415-3
Janelle, C. M. (2002). Anxiety, arousal and visual
attention: A mechanistic account of performance
variability. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 237–251.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026404102317284790
Jones, G. (1995). More than just a game: Research devel-
opments and issues in competitive anxiety in sport.
British Journal of Psychology, 86, 449–478. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1995.tb02565.x
Jones, G., & Swain, A. (1992). Intensity and direction
as dimensions of competitive state anxiety and
relationships with competitiveness. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 74, 467–472. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2466/pms.1992.74.2.467
Jones, G., & Swain, A. (1995). Predispositions to expe-
rience debilitative and facilitative anxiety in elite
and nonelite performers. The Sport Psychologist, 9,
201–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/tsp.9.2.201
Jones, G., Swain, A., & Hardy, L. (1993). Intensity and
direction dimensions of competitive state anxiety
and relationships with performance. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 11, 525–532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02640419308730023
Jones, G., Swain, A., & Harwood, C. (1996). Positive and
negative affect as predictors of competitive anxiety.
Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 109–114.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00140-2
Jones, J. G., & Hardy, L. (1989). Stress and cognitive func-
tioning in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 7, 41–63.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640418908729821
Kamusoko, S. D., & Pemberton, C. A. (2013). Student-
athlete wellbeing and persistence: An in-depth look
at student-athlete perceptions. Journal for the Study
of Sports and Athletes in Education, 7, 41–61. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1179/1935739713Z.0000000003
Kinrade, N. P., Jackson, R. C., & Ashford, K. J. (2010).
Dispositional reinvestment and skill failure in
cognitive and motor tasks. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 11, 312–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.psychsport.2010.02.005
Koob, G. F. (1991). Arousal, stress, and inverted U-shaped
curves: Implications for cognitive function. In R. G.
Lister & H. J. Weingartner (Eds.), Perspectives on
cognitive neuroscience (pp. 300–313). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
239
 Frame and Reichin
Krohne, H. W. (1993). Attention and avoidance: Strategies
in coping with aversiveness. Ashland, OH: Hogrefe &
Huber.
Laborde, S., Dosseville, F., & Kinrade, N. (2014).
Decision-specific reinvestment scale: An explora-
tion of its construct validity, and association with
stress and coping appraisals. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 15, 238–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.psychsport.2014.01.004
Lambert, N., Gwinn, A., Baumeister, R., Fincham, F.,
Strachman, A., Washburn, I., Gable, S., & Fincham, F.
(2013). A boost of positive affect: The perks of
sharing positive experiences. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 30, 24–43. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0265407512449400
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Land, W., & Tenenbaum, G. (2012). An outcome-
and process-oriented examination of a golf-
specific secondary task strategy to prevent
choking under pressure. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 24, 303–322. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/10413200.2011.642458
Landers, D. M., Arent, S. M., & Lutz, R. S. (2001). Affect
and cognitive performance in high school wrestlers
undergoing rapid weight loss. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 23, 307–316. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1123/jsep.23.4.307
Landman, A., Nieuwenhuys, A., & Oudejans, R. R. D.
(2016). Decision-related action orientation predicts
police officers’ shooting performance under pres-
sure. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping: An International
Journal, 29, 570–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10615806.2015.1070834
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (2000). How emotions influence perfor-
mance in competitive sports. The Sport Psychologist,
14, 229–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/tsp.14.3.229
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal,
and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., & Launier, R. (1978). Stress-related
transactions between person and environment.
In L. A. Pervin & M. Lewis (Eds.), Perspectives in
interactional psychology (pp. 287–327). New York,
NY: Plenum. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
978-1-4613-3997-7_12
LeDoux, J. E. (1993). Emotional networks in the brain.
In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of
emotions (pp. 109–118). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Lepine, J. A., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lepine, M. A. (2005).
A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–
hindrance stressor framework: An explanation
for inconsistent relationships among stressors
and performance. Academy of Management
240
Journal, 48, 764–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/
amj.2005.18803921
Liao, C.-M., & Masters, R. S. W. (2002). Self-focused
attention and performance failure under psycholog-
ical stress. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24,
289–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.24.3.289
Lindahl, M., Theorell, T., & Lindblad, F. (2005). Test
performance and self-esteem in relation to experi-
enced stress in Swedish sixth and ninth graders—
Saliva cortisol levels and psychological reactions
to demands. Acta Paediatrica, 94, 489–495. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2005.tb01922.x
Marquardt, C. (2009). The vicious circle involved in
the development of the yips. International Journal of
Sports Science & Coaching, 3, 67–88. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1260/174795409789577506
Martens, R. (1971). Internal–external control and
social reinforcement effects on motor performance.
Research Quarterly, 42, 307–313.
Martens, R. (1974). Arousal and motor performance.
Exercise and sport sciences review, 2, 155–188.
Martens, R., & Landers, D. M. (1970). Motor performance
under stress: A test of the inverted-U hypothesis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 29–37.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0029787
Martens, R., Vealey, R. S., Burton, D., & Martens, R. (1990).
Competitive anxiety in sport. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Martiny, S. E., Gleibs, I. H., Parks-Stamm, E. J., Martiny-
Huenger, T., Froehlich, L., Harter, A. L., & Roth, J.
(2015). Dealing with negative stereotypes in sports:
The role of cognitive anxiety when multiple identi-
ties are activated in sensorimotor tasks. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 37, 379–392. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2014-0284
Masters, R., & Maxwell, J. (2008). The theory of
reinvestment. International Review of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 1, 160–183. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/17509840802287218
McDaniel, K. D., Cummings, J. L., & Shain, S. (1989).
The “yips”: A focal dystonia of golfers. Neurology, 39,
192–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/WNL.39.2.192
Mellalieu, S. D., Neil, R., Hanton, S., & Fletcher, D.
(2009). Competition stress in sport performers:
Stressors experienced in the competition environ-
ment. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27, 729–744.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410902889834
Mesagno, C., Harvey, J. T., & Janelle, C. M. (2012).
Choking under pressure: The role of fear of negative
evaluation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 60–68.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.07.007
Mesagno, C., Marchant, D., & Morris, T. (2008). A
pre-performance routine to alleviate choking in

“choking-susceptible” athletes. The Sport Psychol­
ogist, 22, 439–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/
tsp.22.4.439
Neil, R., Mellalieu, S. D., & Hanton, S. (2006). Psycho­
logical skills usage and the competitive anxiety
response as a function of skill level in rugby union.
Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 5, 415–423.
Neil, R., Wilson, K., Mellalieu, S. D., Hanton, S., &
Taylor, J. (2012). Competitive anxiety intensity and
interpretation: A two-study investigation into their
relationship with performance. International Journal
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 96–111.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2012.645134
Neiss, R. (1988). Reconceptualizing arousal: Psycho­
biological states in motor performance. Psychological
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Bulletin, 103, 345–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.103.3.345
Neiss, R. (1990). Ending arousal’s reign of error: A reply
to Anderson. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 101–105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.101
Nicholls, A., Polman, R., & Levy, A. (2010). Coping
self-efficacy, pre-competitive anxiety, and subjective
performance among athletes. European Journal of
Sport Science, 10, 97–102. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/17461390903271592
Nicholls, A., Polman, R., & Levy, A. (2012). A path
analysis of stress appraisals, emotions, coping, and
performance satisfaction among athletes. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 13, 263–270. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.12.003
Nicholls, A., Polman, R., Levy, A., & Hulleman, J. (2012).
An explanation for the fallacy of facilitative anxiety:
Stress, emotions, coping, and subjective performance
in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 4,
273–293.
Nicolas, M., Martinent, G., & Campo, M. (2014). Evalua­
tion of the psychometric properties of a modified
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule including a
direction scale (PANAS-D) among French athletes.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 227–237.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.01.005
Otten, M. (2009). Choking vs. clutch performance:
A study of sport performance under pressure.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31, 583–601.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.31.5.583
Otter, R. T., Brink, M. S., Van der Does, H. T., &
Lemmink, K. A. (2016). Monitoring perceived stress
and recovery in relation to cycling performance in
female athletes. International Journal of Sports Medicine,
37, 12–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1555779
Parfitt, G., Hardy, L., & Pates, J. (1995). Somatic anxiety
and physiological arousal: Their effects upon a high
anaerobic, low memory demand task. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 196–213.
Emotion and Sport Performance
Prem, R., Ohly, S., Kubicek, B., & Korunka, C. (2017).
Thriving on challenge stressors? Exploring time
pressure and learning demands as antecedents
of thriving at work. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 38, 108–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
job.2115
Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D. L., & Hurrell, J. J.
(1997). Preventative stress management in organiza-
tions. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10238-000
Ribble, R. G. (2010). Optimal arousal theory. Pasadena,
CA: Salem Press.
Ruiz, M. C., Raglin, J. S., & Hanin, Y. L. (2017). The indi-
vidual zones of optimal functioning (IZOF) model
(1978–2014): Historical overview of its development
and use. International Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 15, 41–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
1612197X.2015.1041545
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,
1161–1178.
Russell, J. A., & Barrett, L. F. (1999). Core affect,
prototypical emotional episodes, and other things
called emotion: Dissecting the elephant. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 805–819.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.805
Sage, G. H. (1984). Motor learning and control: A neuropsy-
chological approach. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.
Salas, E., Driskell, J. E., & Hughes, S. (1996). Introduction:
The study of stress and human performance.
In J. E. Driskell & E. Salas (Eds.), Stress and human
performance (pp. 1–47). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sallen, J., Hirschmann, F., & Herrmann, C. (2018).
Evaluation and adaption of the trier inventory for
chronic stress (TICS) for assessment in competitive
sports. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 308. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00308
Schmidt, B., Mussel, P., & Hewig, J. (2013). I’m too calm—
Let’s take a risk! On the impact of state and trait
arousal on risk taking. Psychophysiology, 50, 498–503.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12032
Selye, H. (1985). The nature of stress. Basal Facts, 7, 3–11.
Smith, A. M., Sim, F. H., Smith, H. C., Stuart, M. J., &
Laskowski, E. R. (1998). Psychologic, situational,
and physiologic variables and on-ice perfor-
mance of youth hockey goalkeepers. Mayo Clinic
Proceedings, 73, 17–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0025-6196(11)63614-8
Smith, C., Hancock, H., Blake-Mortimer, J., & Eckert, K.
(2007). A randomised comparative trial of yoga
and relaxation to reduce stress and anxiety.
Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 15, 77–83.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2006.05.001
241
 Frame and Reichin
Smith, R. E., & Christensen, D. S. (1995). Psychological
skills as predictors of performance and survival in
professional baseball. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 17, 399–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/
jsep.17.4.399
Solomonov, Y., Avugos, S., & Bar-Eli, M. (2015). Do
clutch players win the game? Testing the validity
of the clutch player’s reputation in basketball.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 130–138.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.10.004
Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Anxiety and behavior. Oxford,
England: Academic Press.
Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Anxiety: Current trends in theory
and research. Oxford, England: Academic Press.
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Suinn, R. (2005). Behavioral intervention for stress
management in sports. International Journal of Stress
Management, 12, 343–362. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/1072-5245.12.4.343
Sulsky, L., & Smith, C. (2005). Work stress. Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Tetrick, L. E., & Quick, J. C. (2003). Prevention at work:
Public health in occupational settings. In J. C. Quick,
& L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational
health psychology; handbook of occupational health
psychology (pp. 3–17). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.
libraries.psu.edu/10.1037/10474-001
Thayer, R. E. (1996). The origin of everyday moods:
Managing energy, tension, and stress. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Thomas, O., Mellalieu, S., & Hanton, S. (2009). Stress
management in applied sport psychology. In
S. Hanton & S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Advances in
applied sport psychology: A review (pp. 124–161).
London, England: Routledge.
Uphill, M., McCarthy, P. J., & Jones, M. (2009). Getting
a grip on emotion regulation in sport: Conceptual
foundations and practical application. In S. Hanton
& S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Advances in applied sport
psychology: A review (pp. 162–194). London,
England: Routledge.
Valderrama, J., Miranda, R., & Jeglic, E. (2016).
Ruminative subtypes and impulsivity in risk for
suicidal behavior. Psychiatry Research, 236, 15–21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.01.008
Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. M. (2000). The study
of emotion in sport and exercise: Historical, defini-
tional, and conceptual perspectives. In Y. L. Hanin
(Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 3–37). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Van der Does, H. T., Brink, M. S., Visscher, C., Huijgen,
B. C., Frencken, W. G., & Lemmink, K. A. (2015).
242
The effect of stress and recovery on field-test
performance in floorball. International Journal of
Sports Medicine, 36, 460–465. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1055/s-0034-1398581
Van der Lei, H., Tenenbaum, G., & Land, W. (2016).
Individual arousal-related performance zones effect
on temporal and behavioral patterns in golf routines.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 26, 52–60. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.06.005
Venables, P. H. (1983). Cerebral mechanisms, autonomic
responsiveness, and attention in schizophrenia.
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 31, 47–91.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Wallace, J. C., Edwards, B. D., Arnold, T., Frazier, M. L.,
& Finch, D. M. (2009). Work stressors, role-based
performance, and the moderating influence of orga-
nizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
254–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013090
Wann, D. L. (1997). Sport psychology. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Weinberg, R. S. (1979). Anxiety and motor performance:
Drive theory versus cognitive theory. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 10, 112–121.
Weinberger, D. A., Schwartz, G. E., & Davidson, R. J.
(1979). Low-anxious, high-anxious, and repressive
coping styles: Psychometric patterns and behavioral
and physiological responses to stress. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 88, 369–380. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0021-843X.88.4.369
Weiss, S. M., & Reber, A. S. (2012). Curing the dreaded
“Steve Blass disease.” Journal of Sport Psychology in
Action, 3, 171–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
21520704.2012.682702
Whitehead, R., Butz, J. W., Kozar, B., & Vaughn, R. E.
(1996). Stress and performance: An application of
Gray’s three-factor arousal theory to basketball free-
throw shooting. Journal of Sports Sciences, 14, 393–401.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640419608727726
Williams, S. E., Veldhuijzen van Zanten, J. J. C. S.,
Trotman, G. P., Quinton, M. L., & Ginty, A. T. (2017).
Challenge and threat imagery manipulates heart rate
and anxiety responses to stress. International Journal
of Psychophysiology, 117, 111–118. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.04.011
Wilson, M. (2008). From processing efficiency to atten-
tional control: A mechanistic account of the anxiety–
performance relationship. International Review
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 184–201.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17509840802400787
Wine, J. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention.
Psychological Bulletin, 76, 92–104. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/h0031332

Witt, J. K., Linkenauger, S. A., & Proffitt, D. R. (2012). Get
me out of this slump! Visual illusions improve sports
performance. Psychological Science, 23, 397–399.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611428810
Wolf, S. A., Eys, M. A., & Kleinert, J. (2015). Predictors of
the precompetitive anxiety response: Relative impact
and prospects for anxiety regulation. International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 344–358.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2014.982676
Woodman, T., Albinson, J., & Hardy, L. (1997). An inves-
tigation of the zones of optimal functioning hypoth-
esis within a multidimensional framework. Journal
of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 131–141. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.19.2.131
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Emotion and Sport Performance
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation
of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-
formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology
and Psychology, 18, 459–482. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/cne.920180503
Zadra, J. R., & Clore, G. L. (2011). Emotion and percep-
tion: The role of affective information. WIREs
Cognitive Science, 2, 676–685. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/wcs.147
Zaichkowsky, L., & Baltzell, A. (2001). Arousal and
performance in sport. In R. Singer, Hausenblas, H. A.,
& Janelle, C. (Ed.), The handbook of research in
sport psychology (2nd ed., 319–339). New York, NY:
Wiley.
243