Explaining performance variance: The relative contribution of intensity and direction dimensions of competitive state anxiety

Cognitive and affective components of challenge and threat states

“…If a situation is 21 approached as uncontrollable, the likelihood of failure increases, as the individual is more 22 likely to use personal efficacy to a lower extent (Bandura & Wood, 1989). The TCTSA 23 proposes that high levels of perceived control are related to a challenge state and low levels 24 of perceived control are related to a threat state (Jones et al, 2009 …”

“…-ranging from 1 (extremely difficult) to 21 5 (not at all difficult). The perceived behavioural control items were in line with the 22 theoretical framework of control (Skinner, 1996) where perceived control relates to the anger, and = .86 for happiness).…”

Competitive Anxiety in Lifesavers and Swimmers

“…Total scores could range from -27 to +27, with more-positive scores indicating a facilitating effect and negative scores a debilitating effect. Internal-consistency reliability estimates for the facilitative-debilitative measure range from .72 to .83 (Swain & Jones, 1996).…”

“…The level of precompetitive anxiety has been shown to differ depending on certain characteristics such as sport type (Furst & Tenenbaum, 1986;Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990), experience (Swain & Jones, 1996), age (Brustad, 1988), and gender (Jones & Cale, 1989;Jones, Swain, & Cale, 1991;Martens et al, 1990). For example, individual athletes experience higher levels of anxiety than team athletes (Griffin, 1972;Simon & Martens, 1979), and experienced athletes report lower levels of cognitive and somatic anxiety than do less experienced athletes .…”

Competing Under Pressure: State Anxiety, Sports Performance and Assessment

“…More specifically, researchers contended that athletes could perceive anxiety symptoms as either debilitative or facilitative to their sports performance (i.e., direction : Jones, 1991: Jones, , 1995Jones & Swain, 1992). As Swain and Jones (1996) hypothesised about the anxiety response: "Different individuals can report identical levels in terms of the intensity of the response, but because of variations in preferred levels, they may differ considerably in their interpretation of the debilitativefacilitative consequences for performance of that response" (p. 4). This line of research was stimulated by doubts about the conceptualisation of anxiety in the CSAI-2; of primary concern was that the scale only assessed anxiety intensity but neglected athletes' interpretations of the symptoms (Jones, 1991(Jones, , 1995.…”