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

Abstract

Abstract This study examined the intensity (i.e., level) and direction (i.e., debilitative/facilitative) of competitive state anxiety and self-confidence and relationships with performance, in order to determine the relative contribution that these dimensions make to explaining performance variance. A longitudinal design was employed to permit a within-subjects analysis of both the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) and performance data. The inventory included the original scale plus a direction scale in which subjects rated the degree to which the experienced intensity was either facilitative or debilitative to subsequent performance. Ten subjects comprising the Loughborough University men's basketball squad completed the modified CSAI-2 20 minutes prior to each of six league matches. The objective measure of basketball performance employed was that developed by Sonstroem and Bernardo (1982). Standardized scores were computed for all subjects' modified CSAI-2 and performance scores in order to negate between-subject response variation. Subsequent polynomial trend analyses revealed that in the case of cognitive anxiety, the intensity-performance relationship was best explained by an inverted-U relationship and accounted for 18.4% of the variance, whereas the direction-performance relationship was best explained by a positive linear relationship and accounted for 23.4% of the variance. Somatic anxiety direction also formed a positive linear relationship, explaining 17% of performance variance as compared to somatic anxiety intensity which only explained less than 2%. The findings for self-confidence intensity revealed an inverted-U relationship and accounted for 21.2% of performance variance. The findings provide further evidence of the importance of assessing performers' interpretations of the symptoms they are experiencing. This clearly has implications for the employment of conventional competitive anxiety questionnaires. For the most part, they represent merely a measure of certain cognitive and physiological symptoms which have been labelled as anxiety by the individuals who have developed them.