Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Coping effectiveness : the relationship among cognitive appraisals, coping efforts, and perceived performance… Haney, Colleen Judith 1991

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_spring_haney_colleen_judith.pdf [ 8.06MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054148.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054148-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054148-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054148-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054148-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054148-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054148-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054148-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054148.ris

Full Text

COPING EFFECTIVENESS: THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG COGNITIVE APPRAISALS, COPING EFFORTS, AND PERCEIVED PERFORMANCE IN FEMALE ATHLETES by COLLEEN JUDITH HANEY B.Ed., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974 M.P.E., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1988 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Counselling Psychology) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 1991 ©Colleen Judith Haney, 1991 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Co<jtJs,e LL, tt^c- 7^-<o(-f<4LX)C-Y The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date " p^ce -^ge^ / 7^  /79/ DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT I examined a model of coping effectiveness for female athletes based on Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) theory of stress and coping and Bandura's (1986) s o c i a l cognitive theory. Coping effectiveness was defined as the r e l a t i o n s h i p among s p e c i f i c types of appraisals (control and s e l f - e f f i c a c y ) and coping responses (engagement and disengagement) as they r e l a t e to perceived performance. Participants were female basketball, f i e l d hockey, and soccer players aged 16 to 28 (M=18.7), who were s o l i c i t e d through t h e i r coaches. The contests consisted of 2 rounds of competition either a free-throw for basketball or a penalty shot for f i e l d hockey/soccer. Five minutes before each round, primary appraisal (importance and challenge), secondary appraisal ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control), and somatic anxiety were measured. After each round of the contest, coping and performance questionnaires were administered. I t was hypothesized that each coping function would be associated with a s p e c i f i c pattern of secondary appraisals and perceived performance. It was also expected that perceptions of success for the f i r s t performance would influence appraisals, coping strategies, and the perceived performance of the second contest. Furthermore, i t was hypothesized that the control/performance and anxiety/performance r e l a t i o n s h i p would be mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y . Path analysis using LISREL VI was performed to examine re l a t i o n s h i p s among the variables that describe coping effectiveness (appraisals, coping types, perceived performance). Results indicated a poor f i t t i n g model for both Round 1 and 2. However, a revised model was shown to provide an acceptable f i t , accounting for 37% of the variance i n performance. The o v e r a l l pattern of relationships for the variables i n the model offers some support for the hypothesized model and t h e o r e t i c a l support for Bandura's theory of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and Lazarus's appraisal/coping theory. Athletes' appraisal of control and type of coping used was related to perceived performance. However, s e l f - e f f i c a c y was not re l a t e d to perceived performance. In addition, perceived performance a f t e r the f i r s t contest influenced appraisal, which i n turn, influenced coping and perceived performance a f t e r the second contest. The hypothesized mediational r o l e of s e l f - e f f i c a c y was not supported i n t h i s study. Implications of these r e s u l t s and suggestions for future research are discussed. Table of Contents ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i i i LIST OF FIGURES X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x i INTRODUCTION 1 Background Theory of Stress and Coping 1 Chara c t e r i s t i c s of Competitive Sport Events 3 Cognitive Appraisals 4 Relationship Between S e l f - E f f i c a c y and Control 7 Coping Subscales 7 Coping Hierarchy 8 Coping Effectiveness 9 Research on Competitive Sport 11 Summary 12 HYPOTHESES 16 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 18 Lazarus and Folkman's Transactional Theory of Coping...18 Coping Functions 19 Coping i n Challenging Situations 32 Competitive sport events 3 3 Sport Interventions Focusing on Coping 34 Coping Measurement Issues 37 Gender Differences i n Coping 42 Cognitive Appraisals 43 Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory 45 Research on S e l f - e f f i c a c y 48 S e l f - e f f i c a c y as a Predictor of Performance 54 Control Appraisal 71 S e l f - e f f i c a c y Expectancy as a Mediator of Control.... 74 Links Between Lazarus' and Bandura's Theories 77 Coping Effectiveness 78 Sport Research on Coping Effectiveness 88 Counselling Implications for Performance Enhancement... 92 Summary 93 METHOD 95 Subjects and Procedures 95 Procedures for the basketball contest 96 Procedures for the f i e l d hockey and soccer contests..97 S i m i l a r i t i e s and differences i n tasks 98 Training Process for Research Assistants 98 Measures 99 Demographic Information 99 Screening Questionnaires 100 Predictor Variables 101 Secondary Appraisal 101 Anxiety Inventory 102 Coping Strategies 104 Performance 106 Description of P i l o t Study 107 P i l o t study ( f i e l d hockey) 107 P i l o t study (basketball) 108 Analysis of Data 108 RESULTS 110 Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s : Demographics 110 R e l i a b i l i t i e s of Scaled Variables 113 Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s — M o d e l Variables 115 Pooling of Samples 118 Group Differences for Age and Level of Sport 119 Path Analysis 123 Test of Hypotheses 128 Trimmed Model 137 DISCUSSION 142 Round 1 143 Round 2 144 Change Over Time 1 and Time 2 146 Mediation Effects 148 Coping Relationships 150 Conclusions and Implications 152 Limitations 154 References 157 APPENDIX A 168 Information for Coaches 169 P i l o t Results - Primary appraisal 171 Testing Procedures 175 Schema for Test Procedures 177 Protocol for the Contests 178 Informed Consent 180 APPENDIX B 181 Demographic Questionnaire 182 Screening Questionnaires 184 Primary Appraisal (stakes) 184 Primary Appraisal (emotions) 185 Predictor Measures 186 Secondary Appraisals 186 S e l f - e f f i c a c y and Control 186 State Anxiety 187 Coping Checklist 188 Perceived Performance 190 APPENDIX C 191 Reworded Coping Items 192 Coping Items from Carver et a l . (1989) 192 Revision of the Coping Questionnaire 193 Frequency Tabulations for Groups on Demographic Variables 199 Preliminary Analyses—Correlation Matrices 200 APPENDIX D 202 R e l i a b i l i t y Tables 203 APPENDIX E 205 Covariance and Correlation Matrices 206 APPENDIX F 211 Path Analysis Using Actual Score 212 L i s t of Tables 1. Demographic Characteristics of Female Athletes 112 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Internal Consistencies of Path Variables for Basketball, F i e l d Hockey, and Soccer Athletes 114 3. D i s t r i b u t i o n Characteristics of Model Variables 116 4. Pooled Correlation Matrices 12 0 5. Path Model F i t Indices 125 6. Path C o e f f i c i e n t s and Zero-Order Correlations 132 (Round 1 of the Competition) 7. Path C o e f f i c i e n t s and Zero-Order Correlations 133 (Round 2 of the Competition) 8. F i n a l Model - Nonsignificant Paths Deleted 139 C-1. Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Coping Items 194 (GFI, Chi-square, RMSR) C-2. Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Coping Items 197 (items deleted, loadings) C-3. Factor Loadings and Items for Coping Strategies.... 198 C-4. Chi-square Analyses of Demographic Variables 199 C-5. Correlation Matrices for Round 1 (younger, older) Athletes 200 C-6. Correlation Matrices for Round 2 (younger, older) Athletes 201 D-1. Internal Consistencies of Path Variables 203 (Basketball Athletes) D-2. Internal Consistencies of Path Variables 2 04 (Soccer & F i e l d Hockey Athletes) E-1. Covariance and Correlation Matrices-Round 1 206 (Basketball Athletes) E-2. Covariance and Correlation Matrices-Round 2 207 (Basketball Athletes) L i s t of Tables (continued) E-3. Covariance and correlation Matrices-Round 1 2 08 (Soccer & F i e l d Hockey Athletes) E-4. Covariance and Correlation Matrices-Round 2 209 (Soccer & F i e l d Hockey Athletes) E-5. Correlation Matrix For A l l Variables 210 F-1. Path F i t Indices For Actual Performance 214 F-2. Path Coef f i c i e n t s and Zero-Order Correlations 218 (Actual Performance) L i s t of Figures 1. Path Model Representing the Relationships Among Secondary Appraisals, Coping, and Performance i n Round 1 14 2. Path Model Representing the Relationships Among Secondary Appraisals, Coping, and Performance i n Round 2 15 3. Revised Path Model Representing the Relationships Among Secondary Appraisals, Coping, and Performance i n Round 1 127 4. Revised Path Model Representing the Relationships Among Secondary Appraisals, Coping, and Performance i n Round 2 129 5. Trimmed Model for Coping Effectiveness with Nonsignificant Paths Deleted (Round 1) 140 6. Trimmed Model for Coping Effectiveness with Nonsignificant Paths Deleted (Round 2) 141 7. Path Model Representing the Relationships Among Secondary Appraisals, Coping, and Actual Performance i n Round. 1 215 8. Path Model Representing the Relationships Among Secondary Appraisals, Coping, and Actual Performance i n Round 2 216 Acknowledgements I wish to dedicate t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n to my mother who I loved dearly. She i s sadly missed. Although she d i d not see the f i n a l e f f o r t of my dis s e r t a t i o n she encouraged me throughout l i f e to do my best. I also wish to thank my friends, my family, and my thesis committee for t h e i r support and encouragement throughout my di s s e r t a t i o n . I would l i k e to extend a special thank-you to my supervisor Dr. Bonita Long. Her encouragement and understanding throughout my di s s e r t a t i o n i s deeply appreciated. I f e e l p r i v i l e g e d to have worked with Dr. Bonita Long. As my mentor, she has challenged me and supported me through d i f f i c u l t times. F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank Dr. Robert Schutz for hi s encouragement and guidance on s t a t i s t i c a l matters and for h i s a v a i l a b i l i t y when I needed assistance. I would also l i k e to thank Dr. Richard Young and Dr. Susan Butt f o r t h e i r support and h e l p f u l comments on my d i s s e r t a t i o n . INTRODUCTION Researchers have examined the types of appraisals and coping e f f o r t s individuals use i n situations perceived as both challenging and threatening, such as taking an important exam or dealing with an i l l n e s s or death (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; McCrae & Costa, 1986; V i t a l i a n o , Russo, & Maiuro, 1987). However, l i t t l e i s known about the e f f e c t s of various appraisals and coping e f f o r t s on perceived performance i n competitive sport events. Understanding how in d i v i d u a l s cope i n sport situations may be useful to counsellors who often work with c l i e n t s who are having d i f f i c u l t y coping with a variety of competitive si t u a t i o n s (e.g., a t h l e t i c competitions, musical performances, career changes, exams). Furthermore, an examination of coping effectiveness and i t s relationship to performance i n competitive situations i s necessary i n order to develop e f f e c t i v e counselling interventions. Therefore, the purpose of t h i s study i s to examine patterns of appraisals and coping e f f o r t s used i n sport competitions i n order to determine how they r e l a t e to an individual's perceived performance. Background Theory of Stress and Coping Lazarus and Folkman (1984) provide a useful conceptual framework for understanding stress and coping. Their transactional model of stress and coping i s process oriented and concerned with what the person actually thinks and does i n a s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n . Coping i s defined as "constantly changing cognitive and behavioral e f f o r t s to manage s p e c i f i c i n t e r n a l and/or external demands that are appraised as exceeding the resources of the person" (p. 141). Two functional dimensions of coping were i d e n t i f i e d , managing the person-environment relationship that i s the source of stress (problem-focused coping), and/or regulating one's emotional response to stress (emotion-focused coping; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). These researchers found that both functions of coping are generally used i n every s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n and they may eith e r influence each other i n a f a c i l i t a t i v e manner or they may impede each other. Problem- and emotion-focused functions of coping may be further categorized into coping categories (e.g., confrontive coping, distancing, s e l f - c o n t r o l l i n g , seeking s o c i a l support, accepting r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , escape-avoidance, p l a n f u l problem-solving, and p o s i t i v e reappraisal) that consist of s p e c i f i c coping e f f o r t s (e.g., "I made a plan of action and followed i t " ; "I l e t my feelings out"). Coping e f f o r t s are made in response to cognitive appraisals defined as evaluative processes that intervene between the encounter and the reaction, influencing coping behavior and performance (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Lazarus and Folkman categorize appraisals as primary appraisal, an evaluation with respect to what i s at stake or how important the event i s ( i . e . , i s i t irrelevant, harmful, or beneficial) and secondary appraisal, an evaluation of what options are avail a b l e for coping. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Competitive Sport Events An important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of sport competitions i s the element of choice. S t r e s s f u l events such as i l l n e s s and d i s a s t e r are not t y p i c a l l y f r e e l y chosen (C o l l i n s , Baum, & Singer, 1983; Felton & Revenson, 1984; Forsythe & Compas, 1987). Freely chosen situations are those i n which p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s voluntary and i s for the enjoyment and s a t i s f a c t i o n of the participant. In f r e e l y chosen situations i n d i v i d u a l s may f e e l more i n control and perceive more options for coping with the encounter (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). E f f e c t i v e coping may d i f f e r for situations that are imposed on the i n d i v i d u a l compared with those that are not, therefore i t i s important to study how individuals cope with f r e e l y chosen events (e.g., sports). Another c h a r a c t e r i s t i c that distinguishes between events that are imposed on the person and competitive sport events i s the degree to which the event i s appraised as a threat and/or a challenge. Evidence suggests that these appraisals r e l a t e d i f f e r e n t i a l l y to coping (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; McCrae, 1984) . Threatening situations are those i n which the person perceives harm or loss to themselves, whereas i n challenging si t u a t i o n s the person perceives the potential for benefit or gain. With challenge appraisals, people experience p o s i t i v e emotions such as excitement and pleasure while i n threatening encounters, people experience negative emotions such as anxiety and fear (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Despite the emphasis on p o s i t i v e emotions in challenging sport events athletes often experience competitions as s t r e s s f u l (Huband & McKelvie, 1986; Smith, Smoll, & Schutz, 1990). There i s also some evidence that threat and challenge appraisals r e l a t e to d i f f e r e n t types of secondary appraisals and coping (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985) . Therefore, i n a sport s i t u a t i o n that i s perceived mainly as a challenge, i t i s expected that p a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l f e e l more i n control and use more problem-focused types of coping, compared with emotion-focused coping. In sport events, multiple opportunities to perform are usual and i t i s expected that the pattern of appraisal and coping i n early stages of the event w i l l be rel a t e d to coping i n l a t e r stages of the event. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), d i f f e r e n t relationships among appraisal and coping may occur as events unfold over time (e.g., the anticipatory stage or a f t e r the event). Folkman and Lazarus (1985) found that i n the anticipatory stage, before a midterm exam, problem-focused coping was used more by a l l students, and, af t e r the r e s u l t s of the exam were known, students who received poorer grades used more emotion-focused types of coping. Therefore, i t i s expected that during an athlete's i n i t i a l performance greater problem-focused coping w i l l be used. However, athletes who perceive t h e i r performance as unsatisfactory (after they perform) w i l l use a greater proportion of emotion-focused types of coping i n subsequent competitions. Cognitive Appraisals To understand the appraisal-coping r e l a t i o n s h i p i t i s important to focus on s p e c i f i c types of appraisals. Cognitive appraisal has been assessed a number of ways in the l i t e r a t u r e . Some studies focus on primary appraisals of importance and self-esteem, as well as secondary appraisals of control (Brody, 1988; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986), and other studies focus s o l e l y on control (Forsythe & Compas, 1987) or control and s e l f - e f f i c a c y appraisals (Hart & Cardozo, 1988; L i t t , 1988a, 1988b). Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n t h i s study are secondary appraisals of control and s e l f - e f f i c a c y because both have been i d e n t i f i e d as determinants of performance i n sport competitions (Feltz, 1982; McAuley, 1985). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) categorize b e l i e f s about control as either general or s p e c i f i c . General b e l i e f s concern the extent to which the person believes the outcome of the s i t u a t i o n can be controlled. These b e l i e f s have the greatest influence i n ambiguous and novel situations and are considered to be stable personality t r a i t s . S i tuational b e l i e f s of control r e f e r to the extent to which a person believes he or she can influence a s p e c i f i c s t r e s s f u l encounter. Lazarus and Folkman suggest that s i t u a t i o n a l control i s a secondary appraisal that p a r a l l e l s Bandura's construct of s e l f - e f f i c a c y since they both concern the a b i l i t y to implement coping e f f o r t s . However, Bandura (1977) defines s i t u a t i o n a l control and s e l f - e f f i c a c y more s p e c i f i c a l l y . Bandura (1986) suggests that control can be achieved both behaviorally (a person takes action to prevent aversive events) and c o g n i t i v e l y (a b e l i e f i n one's a b i l i t y to manage threat when i t a r i s e s ) . Behavioral control, whether actual or perceived, may make events more predictable and render situations less intimidating. However, perceived cognitive control over thought-provoking di s t r e s s , such as preoccupation with personal inadequacies, may lead to limited coping. For example. Wine (1971) found that individuals impaired t h e i r performance by dwelling on d e f i c i e n c i e s rather than focusing on the task at hand. This suggests that both perceived behavioral and cognitive control are important appraisals i n competitive situations. I t i s also important to consider a f f e c t i v e control (perceived or r e a l control over one's emotions) i n a s p e c i f i c encounter. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) suggest that the object of control i s complex and pertains not only to the s i t u a t i o n but to the person's int e r n a l state as well. For example, an athlete may f e e l i n control of the s k i l l that he or she i s performing but may not f e e l i n control of h i s or her emotions. Lack of a f f e c t i v e control may further influence how the athlete perceives and copes i n the s i t u a t i o n . Therefore, i n t h i s study control w i l l include the perceived control the athlete has over the s i t u a t i o n , over her emotions, and over her s p e c i f i c behavior (e.g., basketball free-shooting). Bandura (1977) defines s e l f - e f f i c a c y appraisals as convictions that one can successfully execute s p e c i f i c behaviors that w i l l lead to successful coping. S e l f - e f f i c a c y appraisals are considered to a f f e c t both the i n i t i a t i o n of coping behavior as well as people's emotional reactions and thought patterns (Feltz, 1982, 1988; McAuley, 1985; Taylor, 1989). Empirical support for s e l f - e f f i c a c y as a predictor of performance can be found i n studies on career performance (Stumpf, Brief , & Hartman, 1987), and physical performance (Feltz, 1982, 1988; McAuley, 1985). Therefore, i t i s expected that athletes with higher levels of s e l f - e f f i c a c y perform better than those low i n s e l f - e f f i c a c y . Relationship Between S e l f - E f f i c a c y and Control Although Lazarus and Folkman (1984) consider control and s e l f - e f f i c a c y appraisals to be similar, Bandura (1986) suggests that s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s a mediator of c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y . L i t t (1988a) also distinguishes between.self-efficacy expectations and control and suggests that they are separate appraisals that work i n conjunction with each other to determine coping behavior. He supports Bandura's notion that s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s a mediator of control appraisal and coping str a t e g i e s . Thus, i t i s expected that i n a competitive sport event s e l f - e f f i c a c y w i l l d i r e c t l y influence coping e f f o r t s and performance, and control appraisals w i l l i n d i r e c t l y influence coping e f f o r t s and performance through s e l f - e f f i c a c y ( i . e . , s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s a mediator of control). Coping Subscales Researchers using the Ways of Coping Checklist have i d e n t i f i e d anywhere from 5 to 8 coping subscales (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986; Parkes, 1986). These subscales were developed from research with middle-aged adults, undergraduate university students, and f i r s t year student nurses. However, there has only been one study that has attempted to id e n t i f y coping subscales relevant to an a t h l e t i c population. Larsson, Cook, and S t a r r i n (1988) studied 28 e l i t e male golfers (14 expérimentais, 14 controls) using Lazarus' model of stress and coping. The go l f e r s were tested before and after a stress inoculation intervention to enhance golf performance. Findings indicated p o s i t i v e associations among challenge appraisals, p o s i t i v e s e l f - t a l k , and performance (18 holes of g o l f ) . Negative s e l f - t a l k was associated with poorer performance. Many of Larsson's s e l f - t a l k items (e.g., "You can handle the pressure, just take one shot at a time") were generated from subscales i d e n t i f i e d by Folkman and Lazarus (1985) and Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, (1986) and are important to study i n competitive situations because of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to sport performance. Coping Hierarchy Some researchers suggest that the d i s t i n c t i o n between problem- and emotion-focused coping i s important but too s i m p l i s t i c and that s p e c i f i c coping strategies can be organized into higher-order categories (Carver et a l . , 1989; Scheier, Weintraub, & Carver, 1986; Tobin, Holroyd, Reynolds, & Wigal, 1989). To i l l u s t r a t e how the d i s t i n c t i o n between emotion- and problem-focused coping i s blurred, Scheier et a l . (1986) suggest that some problem-focused coping strategies (e.g., problem-solving) may f a c i l i t a t e engagement i n active coping. In addition, some emotion-focused coping strategies (e.g., seeking s o c i a l support) may also f a c i l i t a t e engagement in a c t i v e coping. In response to t h i s confusion, Tobin et a l . (1989) i d e n t i f i e d a higher-order of coping i n terms of engagement or disengagement. Engagement coping i s defined as "active e f f o r t s to manage both problem- and emotion-focused aspects of the s t r e s s f u l event" (Tobin et a l . 1989, p. 350), whereas disengagement coping concerns thoughts and behaviors that focus attention away from the s t r e s s f u l event. Engagement and disengagement coping may explain why s p e c i f i c coping subscales are found to be f a c i l i t a t i v e for some situa t i o n s . To study sport competitions i t i s important to focus on types of coping that may f a c i l i t a t e performance. For instance, performance i s enhanced when the athlete focuses on the task and i s able to block out di s t r a c t i o n s ( i . e . , i n t r u s i v e thoughts, feelings, and spectators). Therefore, i t i s expected that there w i l l be a posit i v e relationship between engagement coping and perceived performance. Coping Effectiveness In order to understand the relationships among appraisal, coping, and perceived performance, i t i s important to define coping effectiveness. However, coping effectiveness has been defined several d i f f e r e n t ways and there i s a wide v a r i a t i o n i n the way i n which i t i s measured (Menaghan, 1983). Coping effectiveness i s sometimes i d e n t i f i e d as the pattern of relat i o n s h i p s or the " f i t " between cognitive appraisals and coping strategies i n a s p e c i f i c s t r e s s f u l encounter (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986; Forsythe & Compas, 1987). Forsythe and Compas (1987) found that psychological symptomology was high when there was a mismatch between appraisal and coping. For example, a " f i t " was apparent when greater problem-focused coping e f f o r t s were associated with lower symptoms when the stressor was perceived as controllable. A mismatch occurred when greater problem-focused coping e f f o r t s were used to deal with stressors perceived as uncontrollable. Coping effectiveness has also been defined as the use of s p e c i f i c coping e f f o r t s to reduce stress. McCrae and Costa (1986) found that emotion-focused coping e f f o r t s such as wishful thinking, self-blame, h o s t i l e reactions and p a s s i v i t y were rel a t e d to increased psychological symptoms. In addition, these coping strategies were perceived by participants as less e f f e c t i v e for dealing with s t r e s s f u l encounters. Furthermore, Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, and Gruen (1986) suggest that a s p e c i f i c combination of types of coping within problem- and emotion-focused coping functions may lead to more e f f e c t i v e coping. For example, they found that for work-rela t e d stress p o s i t i v e reappraisal and planf u l problem solving were associated with sat i s f a c t o r y outcome and were also correlated highly, suggesting that p o s i t i v e reappraisal may f a c i l i t a t e problem-focused coping. Whether problem- and emotion-focused types of coping are adaptive depends on the s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n , how the situation i s appraised, and the duration of the s t r e s s f u l encounter (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Therefore, using the pattern of relationships between cognitive appraisal and coping e f f o r t s to define coping effectiveness may provide a better understanding of the coping process than focusing only on coping e f f o r t s . In t h i s study, the pattern of relationships among appraisal, coping e f f o r t s , and perceived performance w i l l be used to define coping effectiveness. For example, higher levels of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control appraisals and more engagement coping w i l l r e l a t e p o s i t i v e l y to perceived performance indicating e f f e c t i v e coping. Few empirical studies focus on how females cope with performance and there i s some indication i n the research l i t e r a t u r e that women i n some situations cope d i f f e r e n t l y than men (Endler & Parker, 1990; Long, 1990; Vingerhoets & Van Heck, 1990). Therefore, female competitors were the focus of t h i s research. Research on Competitive Sport Coping effectiveness i s important to study i n competitive si t u a t i o n s , however, sport competition research has tended to focus on the importance of anxiety and past performance as predictors of performance. When s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s studied i n conjunction with anxiety and past performance, s e l f - e f f i c a c y has been shown to be the strongest predictor for the i n i t i a l performance (Feltz, 1982). Feltz (1982) also found s e l f -e f f i c a c y to be a mediator of anxiety for a novel di v i n g task suggesting that anxiety a f f e c t s performance i n d i r e c t l y . Although past performance i s a powerful source of information, people sometimes use faulty appraisals when judging t h e i r performance. For example, people who c r e d i t t h e i r performance to external causes rather than t h e i r own c a p a b i l i t i e s may have doubts about t h e i r performance and perform poorly (Bandura, 1986). Focusing on past performance and anxiety does not explain how highly anxious competitors with lower past performance records sometimes perform better than t h e i r less anxious, highly rated, opponents. The rel a t i o n s h i p of s e l f - e f f i c a c y appraisals, coping e f f o r t s , and perceived performance are needed to better understand coping effectiveness. Summary In summary, both Lazarus' and Bandura's theories suggest that appraisal i s a key construct i n determining an ind i v i d u a l ' s coping e f f o r t s and effectiveness and that appraisal i s a complex process consisting of s e l f - e f f i c a c y , control, and emotional components. Most research focuses on (a) s t r e s s f u l events that are perceived as more of a threat than a challenge; (b) s t r e s s f u l encounters studied at one point i n time; (c) appraisal and coping without concern for effectiveness; and (d) performance predicted by past performance and anxiety. No sport studies have explored secondary appraisal and coping as multidimensional constructs i n r e l a t i o n to sport performance. In t h i s study I investigated a model of coping effectiveness. An assumption I made was that the rel a t i o n s h i p among s p e c i f i c patterns of appraisal ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control) and coping responses (e.g., engagement, disengagement) with perceived performance determines coping effectiveness. For example, high levels of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control appraisals and more engagement coping ( i . e . , p l a n f u l problem-solving, s e l f - c o n t r o l , suppression, emphasizing the p o s i t i v e , seeking s o c i a l support, and confrontive coping) are expected to re l a t e p o s i t i v e l y to perceived performance i n d i c a t i n g e f f e c t i v e coping. This i s i n contrast to disengagement coping ( i . e . , escape-avoidance, self-blame, and distancing) that i s expected to rel a t e negatively to perceived performance. Anxiety and past performance are included i n the model to better understand t h e i r relationship with perceived performance i n a competitive sport event. Three sport tasks were used to study these relationships; a basketball free-shot contest and a soccer and f i e l d hockey penalty shot competition. A l l three contests involved two rounds of competition. Figure 1 and 2 i l l u s t r a t e the expected rel a t i o n s h i p s among the elements of the coping effectiveness model. Previous research has not considered the complete model for determining coping effectiveness. Prior to Contest 5 Minutes Prior 5 Minutes After Contest Past Performance Control Self-Efficacy Anxiety X Engagement Coping Disengagement Coping Perceived Performance Figure 1. Path Model Representing the Relationships Among Secondary Appraisals, Coping, and Perceived Performance in Round 1. in Prior to Round 2 5 Minutes Prior 5 Minutes After Contest Round 1 Perceived Performance Control Self-Efficacy Ï Anxiety X Engagement Coping Disengagement Coping Perceived Performance Figure 2. Path Model Representing the Relationships Among Secondary Appraisals, Coping, and Perceived Performance in Round 2. HYPOTHESES The hypotheses are stated separately for Round 1 and Round 2 of the contests. Round 1 Each coping function w i l l be associated with a s p e c i f i c pattern of secondary appraisals and perceived performance (see Figure 1). 1. Past performance measured p r i o r to Round 1 w i l l be (a) p o s i t i v e l y related to secondary appraisals ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y and cont r o l ) , and (b) negatively related to anxiety assessed 5 minutes p r i o r to Round 1. 2. Secondary appraisals ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y and contr o l ) , assessed 5 minutes p r i o r to performance, w i l l be p o s i t i v e l y related to (a) engagement coping, (b) negatively related to disengagement coping, and (c) s e l f -e f f i c a c y w i l l be p o s i t i v e l y related to perceived performance assessed a f t e r Round 1. 3. The control appraisals-performance (post) r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l be mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y appraisals. 4. S e l f - e f f i c a c y appraisal w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger predictor of perceived performance than w i l l past performance. 5. The anxiety-performance (post) rel a t i o n s h i p w i l l be mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y appraisals. Round 2 Each coping function w i l l be associated with a s p e c i f i c pattern of secondary appraisals and perceived performance (see Figure 2) 1. Perceived performance after Round 1 w i l l be (a) p o s i t i v e l y related to secondary appraisals ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y and cont r o l ) , and (b) negatively related to anxiety assessed 5 minutes p r i o r to Round 2. 2. Secondary appraisals ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control), assessed 5 minutes p r i o r to performance, w i l l be p o s i t i v e l y related to (a) engagement coping, (b) negatively related to disengagement coping, and (c) s e l f - e f f i c a c y w i l l be p o s i t i v e l y related to perceived performance, assessed after Round 2 performance. 3. The control appraisals-performance (post) r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l be mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y appraisals. 4. Perceived performance assessed aft e r Round 1 w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger predictor of perceived performance a f t e r Round 2, compared with s e l f - e f f i c a c y assessed 5 minutes p r i o r to Round 2. 5. The anxiety-performance (post) relationship w i l l be mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y appraisals. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Challenging situations (e.g., job promotions, sport events) are expected to e l i c i t d i f f e r e n t appraisals and coping e f f o r t s than events that are perceived as more of a threat than a challenge (e.g., i l l n e s s , injury; McCrae, 1984) . Sport events are the focus of t h i s study because they o f f e r multiple opportunities to study patterns of appraisals, coping, and performance at d i f f e r e n t stages of an event and because there i s evidence to suggest that some athletes need help coping with s t r e s s f u l sport events (Anshel, 1990). Performance i s important for athletes competing i n sport events, yet, research has f a i l e d to examine the relationships between coping, appraisals, and performance. In t h i s study, Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) stress and coping theory and Bandura's (1977) So c i a l Learning Theory provide the framework from which coping, appraisal, and performance are linked. Evidence i s presented that coping effectiveness can be defined as the pattern of relat i o n s h i p s among appraisals, coping, and performance. Lazarus and Folkman's Transactional Theory of Coping Lazarus and Folkman (1984) developed a transactional theory of stress and coping that i s process-oriented and conceptualizes the coping process as a transaction between the person and the environmental context i n which coping takes place. Coping process i s defined as "constantly changing cognitive and behavioral e f f o r t s to manage s p e c i f i c external and/or inte r n a l demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person" (p. 141). According to Lazarus and Folkman's model, process refers to a change i n thoughts and acts as the s t r e s s f u l encounter unfolds. Coping e f f o r t s are concerned with what the person a c t u a l l y thinks or does i n a s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n (that are within the person's awareness). The key constructs i n t h e i r theory are appraisal (What i s at stake?) and coping (What options do I have?), which imply that the way indivi d u a l s perceive s p e c i f i c s t r e s s f u l events influences the manner i n which they respond to them. The three types of appraisal i d e n t i f i e d by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) are harm-loss, threat, and challenge. Researchers have i d e n t i f i e d other relevant appraisals, such as c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y ("I had a great deal of co n t r o l " vs. "I had l i t t l e control") and Locus of Control (Forsythe & Compas, 1987; V i t a l i a n o , Russo, & Maiuro, 1987). The type of appraisal used by the i n d i v i d u a l i s determined by the interaction between the person (e.g., personality factors) and the environment (e.g., type of s t r e s s o r ) . Coping Functions Problem-focused and emotion-focused coping are presumed to be the core functions of coping (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). Problem-focused coping, managing or a l t e r i n g the problem causing d i s t r e s s , i s more l i k e l y to be used i n situ a t i o n s appraised as changeable, whereas emotion-focused coping, directed at regulating emotional response to the stressor, i s used when the sit u a t i o n has been appraised as unchangeable. These two strategies may function separately or i n conjunction with one another (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). Problem-focused strategies include generating solutions to the problem and acting on the problem. Some empirical research suggests that problem-focused strategies are related to more e f f e c t i v e coping ( B i l l i n g s & Moos, 1981; Felton & Revenson, 1984; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986; Menaghan, 1983; Pear l i n & Schooler, 1978), whereas other research suggests that coping effectiveness depends not only on whether the person uses problem-focused coping, but also on the context of the s i t u a t i o n (Fleishman, 1984). Part of the d i f f i c u l t y i n judging whether problem-focused coping i s e f f e c t i v e may be due to the way i t i s defined and measured. For example, Folkman and Lazarus (1980) group problem-focused coping items (planful problem solving, confrontive) together, whereas they may be less ambiguous i f they were evaluated separately (Carver et a l . , 1989). Emotion-focused coping strategies, outlined by Folkman and Lazarus, include avoidance, s e l e c t i v e attention, and wishful thinking (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Emotion-focused coping i s used by individuals to maintain hope and optimism and to avoid acknowledging the worst. As a r e s u l t , some emotion-focused strategies tend to be interpreted as s e l f -deception (Lazarus, 1985). Self-deception i s best described as being on a continuum rather than dichotomized as pathogenic or healthy (Lazarus, 1985). For example, denial forms of coping may be e f f e c t i v e i n the early stages of a c r i s i s but not i n the la t e r stages (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Suis & Fletcher, 1985). Both problem- and emotion-focused coping have been studied i n s p e c i f i c situations (e.g., exams, i l l n e s s ) exploring how the individual copes p r i o r to, during, and af t e r the p a r t i c u l a r event (Bolger, 1990; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). In order to understand the coping process, i t i s important to study s t r e s s f u l events as they unfold over time. Therefore, the following section reviews some of the cent r a l studies on changes i n coping over time. Folkman and Lazarus (1980) studied 100 community residents aged 45 to 65 to determine what people think and do to cope with s p e c i f i c s t r e s s f u l encounters. Fifty-two men and 48 women were interviewed 7 times at 4-week i n t e r v a l s about s t r e s s f u l events that had occurred during the past month. In each interview, participants were asked to describe the s t r e s s f u l event as i t happened and what they thought and did during the event. A binary 68-item Ways of Coping Checklist (WCC) was used to indicate the types of coping people used i n the s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n . These researchers found that both problem-focused and emotion-focused strategies were used by a l l people and that health contexts favored emotion-focused coping, whereas work contexts favored problem-focused coping. For family stressors, a mix of emotion-focused and problem-focused strategies were used. S t r e s s f u l events seen as changeable were associated with more problem-focused coping, whereas those seen as immutable were associated with emotion-focused coping. Intraindividual analyses showed that people were not consistent i n t h e i r coping patterns across situations, although for 5% of the subjects with very consistent scores, they concluded that consistency was due to personality factors because of the wide variety of s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n s . Strengths of the Folkman and Lazarus (1980) study include: focusing on s p e c i f i c episodes (1,332) from a normal population on seven d i f f e r e n t occasions; categorizing the stressors (work, health, family); exploring i n t r a - and i n t e r i n d i v i d u a l analyses, and the actual interview format that asked the people what they thought and did i n a recent s t r e s s f u l encounter. Some concerns i n the study are the questionnaire, the i n t r a i n d i v i d u a l analyses, and the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of stressors. Forced choice binary questions f a i l to show how often a strategy i s used or how e f f e c t i v e the strategy i s perceived to be. I t i s also possible that the WCC does not capture a l l of the ways a person copes. I t seems that f o r the i n t r a i n d i v i d u a l analyses, a repeated measures multivariate design would have been more appropriate than t -tests considering the number of participants and the d i f f e r e n t s t r e s s f u l situations. Additionally, stressors were categorized into general areas of work, home, and family. I t would be useful to break these categories down even further (e.g., s p e c i f i c events within these areas), because there i s some ind i c a t i o n that coping strategies vary depending on how the s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n i s appraised and what options the i n d i v i d u a l has for coping (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986). Perhaps, there i s greater consistency i n coping with s i m i l a r challenging stressors such as sport events, compared to threatening events such as i l l n e s s . Stressful events perceived as challenging may be perceived as more contr o l l a b l e and more changeable. A study by Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, and DeLongis (1986) extended the findings of the 1980 study. Seventy-five married couples, aged 2 6 to 54, were interviewed monthly for 6 months. Participants were asked to i d e n t i f y the most s t r e s s f u l encounter during the past week and then to respond on a revised 51-item WCC (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Other measures were: a mastery scale developed by Pear l i n and Schooler (1978), and Rotter's (1980) Interpersonal Trust Scale. The relationship of personality factors (mastery and interpersonal t r u s t ) , primary appraisal (stakes a person has in the s t r e s s f u l encounter), secondary appraisal (options for coping), and coping (problem-focused and emotion-focused) strategies were examined to determine how much variance would be accounted for in r e l a t i o n to health status and psychological symptoms. Somatic health was assessed by a questionnaire developed by Belloc and Breslow (1972), whereas psychological symptoms were assessed with Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL) developed by Derogatis, Lipman, Rickels, Uhlenhuth, and Covi (1974). The regression equation was not s i g n i f i c a n t when the four predictor variables were regressed on somatic health. However, for psychological symptoms, when a l l variables (except secondary appraisal) were entered into the h i e r a r c h i c a l regression, they were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to psychological symptoms explaining 43% of the variance (R^ adjusted=.36). Planful problem-solving was negatively correlated with symptoms. Although personality factors were i n i t i a l l y conceptualized as influencing appraisal and coping, t h i s was not evident i n the r e s u l t s . Mastery and interpersonal t r u s t appeared to be independent of one another. These personality variables were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to appraisal and coping processes and therefore did not influence the appraisal and coping process as predicted. A further study by Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, (1986) explored the relationships among primary appraisal, secondary appraisal, coping, and outcome with the same population as i n the previous (1986) study. The main difference i n t h i s study was the use of i n t r a i n d i v i d u a l analyses comparing the same person with him/herself over 5 d i f f e r e n t stressors. The score for the independent variable (stakes) was formed by summing f i v e encounters reported by the person into two groups, above and below the mean score for that p a r t i c u l a r stake. The dependent variable, coping, consisted of the mean scores on each coping scale for events that were above the mean on that stake and mean scores for those below the mean. Six i n t r a i n d i v i d u a l (one analysis for each appraisal of stakes) multivariate analyses with repeated measures indicated that although coping and appraisal were strongly related, the types of coping used depended on what was at stake and what options the person had for coping. For example, when the threat to self-esteem (primary appraisal) was high, people used more confrontive coping, s e l f - c o n t r o l , escape-avoidance coping, and accepted r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and sought less s o c i a l support, compared with when the threat to self-esteem was low. Four i n t r a i n d i v i d u a l multivariate analyses for repeated measures were tested for secondary appraisals. Results indicated that for secondary appraisal rated as changeable, people used more confrontive coping, p l a n f u l problem-solving, and p o s i t i v e reappraisal. Planful problem-solving and p o s i t i v e reappraisal were associated with s a t i s f a c t o r y outcome. Additionally, multivariate analysis indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between primary appraisal ("losing respect f o r someone") and encounter outcomes (successful or unsuccessful). Unsatisfactory outcome was associated with more loss of respect. An important finding i n t h i s study i s that s p e c i f i c combinations of problem- and emotion-focused coping were i d e n t i f i e d . For example, planful problem-solving i n conjunction with s e l f - c o n t r o l was used more often than any other forms of coping for encounters involving work goals. A confusing aspect of both 1986 studies i s the way i n which appraisal and personality factors are defined. I t seems that the appraisal "threat to self-esteem" could also be considered a personality variable ( i . e . , low self-esteem). However, individuals with highly stable personality t r a i t s such as self-esteem or extraversion may not f e e l confident and extroverted i n every s i t u a t i o n they encounter. Therefore, i t i s important to study s p e c i f i c appraisals i n r e l a t i o n to coping behavior. Global personality measures may not r e l a t e to the coping process as consistently as a combination of personality t r a i t s and appraisal. Parkes (1986) studied 135 female student nurses (aged 18 to 25) to examine the r e l a t i v e importance of personality factors (extraversion, neuroticism), environmental factors ( s o c i a l support, work demands), and s i t u a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (type of stressor, importance of situation) as predictors of coping. Coping consisted of general coping ( t o t a l number of strategies used), d i r e c t coping (problem-focused) , and suppression (coping that e n t a i l s ignoring the s i t u a t i o n or avoiding thinking about the situation) a form of emotion-focused coping. Parkes also explored the difference between interactive and additive models for pred i c t i n g coping. Multiple regression analyses indicated that interactions between personal, environmental, and s i t u a t i o n a l factors explained 36.4% of the variance i n d i r e c t coping and 32.8% of the variance i n suppression scores. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , d i r e c t coping was predicted only by interactions between extraversion (personality f a c t o r ) , s o c i a l support (environmental f a c t o r ) , and importance of episode ( s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r ) . For suppression, personality factors (interaction of neuroticism and extraversion) and perceived importance of the s i t u a t i o n were major determinants. Direct coping and suppression were influenced by d i f f e r e n t combinations of person, environmental, and s i t u a t i o n a l variables. Overall, the in t e r a c t i v e model for predicting coping (direct and suppression) accounted for a greater portion of the variance than the additive model. Although s p e c i f i c types of coping were analyzed by an in t e r a c t i v e model for predicting coping, general coping was determined by an additive model. Hospital setting, personality, work environment, and s i t u a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were entered h i e r a r c h i c a l l y into the regression equation. The ov e r a l l multiple c o r r e l a t i o n was .52, with environmental factors accounting for most of the variance i n general coping. For environments characterized by high work demand or low support, a greater number of coping items were used. Contrary to these findings Long (1990) found that for 132 female and male managers, work environment was not related to coping. However, the d i f f e r e n t findings may be due to managers having more control over t h e i r environment, whereas student nurses perceive l i t t l e control over t h e i r environment. In Long's (1990) study importance of the s t r e s s f u l event accounted for the greatest amount of variance in coping (overall multiple c o r r e l a t i o n was .44). Perhaps, in the sport setting, an environment that i s characterized as demanding and important but also challenging, athletes w i l l perceive themselves as being i n control and higher levels of control w i l l r e l a t e to s p e c i f i c types of coping. The findings of Parkes' (1986) study support the transactional model of stress and coping i n which interactions between person, environment and s i t u a t i o n were moderately strong predictors of coping behavior. Questions about the study, however, concern the coping scale used and the issue of appraisal. The coping scale used was a forced choice measure asking the subjects whether or not they used a p a r t i c u l a r strategy. Perhaps important information may have been missed because i t i s conceivable that a strategy used "a l i t t l e " may not have been endorsed. Although Parkes suggests that she did not use appraisal as a predictor, she did assess appraisal components i n d i r e c t l y by asking how important the s i t u a t i o n was. Furthermore, because the nurses i n Parkes study i d e n t i f i e d a recent s t r e s s f u l event that had occurred at work, i t i s possible that differences i n coping strategies r e f l e c t differences i n the types of stressors that were chosen (Bolger, 1990). The studies by Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, and Gruen (1986) and Parkes (1986) endorsed personality factors as important i n conjunction with the s i t u a t i o n but neither found a strong r e l a t i o n s h i p between personality factors and a t o t a l coping measure ( i . e . , t o t a l scores for both emotion-focused and problem-focused coping). However, Parkes' finding that neuroticism and extraversion are strong predictors of both d i r e c t and suppressive coping when they are each analyzed i n conjunction with importance of the event, seems to indicate that i t i s c r u c i a l to determine the importance of the event i n order to i d e n t i f y coping patterns. The above studies focused on how individuals cope over time with d i f f e r e n t s t r e s s f u l situations. There are only a few studies that have investigated the r o l e of coping i n very s p e c i f i c contexts (e.g., exams, sports). Folkman and Lazarus (1985) studied undergraduate students (n=108) and assessed coping, emotions, and s o c i a l support during three stages of a midterm exam (anticipatory stage, waiting period, and after the grades were posted). A 57-item revised version of WCC (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980) was used to record how the students reacted i n each of the above s t r e s s f u l stages. Individual differences i n response to exam stress were explored across the three stages of the stressor. Results indicated that 96% of the students used both problem- and emotion-focused coping at each stage. During the anticipatory stage, problem-focused coping, s o c i a l support, and emphasizing the positive were more s a l i e n t , whereas distancing (emotion-focused coping) was used more i n the waiting stage. A combination of problem- and emotion-focused coping was used after the grades were posted. In addition, t h i s study addresses the issue of how emotion-focused coping may f a c i l i t a t e or impede problem-focused coping. For example, coping that emphasizes the posi t i v e aspects of a s t r e s s f u l encounter, and seeking s o c i a l support coping (emotional and instrumental), strategies i d e n t i f i e d as emotion-focused coping, were moderately correlated with problem-focused coping (for stage 1 & 2, r=.64; and for stage 2 & 3 r=.58) suggesting that a higher-order factor (that includes both problem- and emotion-focused coping strategies) i s important to investigate. Findings indicated that for an ambiguous s i t u a t i o n (outcome uncertainty before the exam), 94% of the students reported both threat and challenge emotions. Harm and benefit emotions were unrelated to each other at Time 1 but were moderately related at Time 3 (r=-.50) when more information was known. As the outcome of the s i t u a t i o n became clearer, p o s i t i v e (benefit) or negative (harm) emotions increased i n magnitude i n the d i r e c t i o n expected (e.g., benefit related to p o s i t i v e outcome). Although t h i s study suggests that the exam outcome determines emotions, Folkman and Lazarus (1988) suggest that emotional response depends not only on the outcome but on: (a) the ind i v i d u a l ' s own evaluation of how he/she performed (which may be appraised d i f f e r e n t l y by others), and (b) implications that the present encounter may have on future encounters. Appraisal (stakes, anticipated d i f f i c u l t y of the exam, and c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y ) , coping, and grade point average (GPA) were regressed on threat and challenge emotions separately. Stepwise multiple regression analysis indicated that wishful thinking, stakes, exam d i f f i c u l t y , and seeking s o c i a l support accounted for 44% of the variance i n threat emotions. Feeling i n control, stakes, problem-focused coping, and tension reduction accounted for 44% of the variance i n challenge appraisals at the anticipatory stage. Fifty-seven percent of the variance i n p o s i t i v e (benefit) emotions was explained by grade (33%) and seeking s o c i a l support, f e e l i n g i n control, s e l f - i s o l a t i o n and stakes (25%). In contrast, 39% of the variance i n harm emotions was accounted f o r by self-blame and 13% was accounted for by grade. These findings are interesting because they suggest that the way a person appraises and copes i n the s i t u a t i o n i s r e l a t e d to how the person f e e l s about the encounter rather than the actual performance (e.g., test grade) determining how the person f e e l s . Similar findings are reported by Bolger (1990). She tested 50 medical students across 3 stages of a major exam and found that neither coping e f f o r t s nor personality factors influenced exam score. Whether students who appraised the exam as more of a challenge coped d i f f e r e n t l y than those who appraised the exam as more of a threat, however, was not tested. Of concern i n Folkman and Lazarus' (1985) study i s the s e l e c t i o n of participants. Participants were u n i v e r s i t y Students who were studying stress and coping theories i n t h e i r courses. Folkman and Lazarus suggest that perhaps the findings r e f l e c t the theories taught to the students rather than t h e i r actual psychological processes. If t h i s were true (Folkman and Lazarus suggest i t i s not) then the r e s u l t s could be confounded simply by the students being informed of the differences between adaptive and maladaptive coping and responding to the questionnaire i n a biased manner. Coping i n Challenging Situations Although there have been a number of recent studies exploring how people cope during examinations (Bolger, 1990; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Lay, Edwards, Parker, & Endler, 1989; Peacock & Wong, 1990), only a few researchers have focused on coping with a s p e c i f i c event that i s perceived as more of a challenge than a threat (Crocker & Bouffard, i n press; Larsson, Cook, & Starrin, 1988). According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984) challenge refers to the opportunity for growth, gain, or mastery. Voluntary p a r t i c i p a t i o n , enjoyment, and s a t i s f a c t i o n are evident i n f r e e l y chosen challenging situations (McCrae, 1984). In f r e e l y chosen si t u a t i o n s , individuals may f e e l more i n control and perceive more options for coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Challenging situations i d e n t i f i e d by McCrae (1984) include s t a r t i n g school, job promotion, marriage, and physical a c t i v i t i e s . McCrae found that challenges e l i c i t e d coping e f f o r t s such as perseverance, posi t i v e thinking, i n t e l l e c t u a l denial, r e s t r a i n t , and humor. Smith and Ellsworth (1987) found that challenge emotions (hope, confidence) correlated highly with appraisal of certainty and self-agency (personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and c o n t r o l ) . Although Folkman and Lazarus' (1985) found that threat and challenge appraisals were related to d i f f e r e n t types of coping, i t seems important to i d e n t i f y coping processes i n challenging events. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) and Larsson et a l . (1988) reported that the degree of challenge i n physical a c t i v i t y was related to p o s i t i v e affect. Larsson et a l . (1988) studied 28 e l i t e male golfers before and a f t e r a stress inoculation intervention to enhance golf performance. Findings indicated p o s i t i v e associations among challenge appraisals, p o s i t i v e s e l f - t a l k , and performance. Crocker and Bouffard (in press) studied 30 disabled adults to determine how they coped with challenge i n physical a c t i v i t y . These researchers found that participants used s p e c i f i c types of problem-focused (restraint coping, suppression) and emotion-focused coping (positive reinterpretation). Therefore, i t seems l i k e l y that athletes who use p o s i t i v e s e l f - t a l k and p o s i t i v e coping strategies that keep them focused on the task w i l l perform better than athletes who use negative s e l f - t a l k and use coping strategies that focus away from the task. Competitive sport events. In order to understand coping strategies i n competitive sport events, i t i s necessary to i d e n t i f y the nature of the sport event. Sport events are usually discussed i n terms of competition. Some studies have focused on coping i n sport but have not addressed d i r e c t l y the issue of competition. Competition i s defined "as mutual s t r i v i n g between two individuals or groups for the same objective" and "implies strong personal involvement" (Chaplin, 1985, p. 93). Martens, Vealey, and Burton (1990) conceptualize competition as a s o c i a l evaluation process. Defining an event as competitive would include both components, a comparison of s k i l l or a b i l i t y and an evaluation of s k i l l by s e l f , coach, and peers. Of importance in the context of studying stress and coping i s the ec o l o g i c a l v a l i d i t y of the competitive s i t u a t i o n . Martens suggests that one aspect of a competitive event i s uncertainty about the outcome. "The more equal the a b i l i t i e s of the persons competing, the greater the uncertainty of the outcome" (p. 221). In addition. Martens suggests that greater uncertainty increases the l i k e l i h o o d that the event w i l l be challenging. Therefore, in the present study the sport events, basketball free-throw and s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey penalty shot, were expected to be perceived as a challenge by the athletes because they present uncertainty to the athletes and involve s o c i a l evaluation by s e l f , other players, and coaches. Sport Interventions Focusing on Coping Several sport researchers have developed and tested interventions for athletes to enhance t h e i r performance and reduce stress l e v e l s during competition, but the challenging aspects of competition have not been a major focus i n most studies (Anshel, 1990; Larsson et a l . , 1988; Nideffer, 1981; Smith, 1984; Smith & Ascough, 1985). Interventions related to Lazarus and Folkman's model of stress and coping, however, acknowledge both the appraisal of challenge and threat i n competition. For example, Larsson et a l . (1988) studied 28 male golfers randomly assigning 14 to an experimental treatment group and 14 to a control group. The experimental group received counselling and relaxation exercises from a psychologist, whereas the control group viewed golf films and discussed readings on golf with a senior g o l f e r . Personality tests were administered during the f i r s t session. A t r a i t anxiety inventory, a stress reaction questionnaire (consisting of appraisals and emotions), and a competition coping questionnaire, were administered af t e r a 72 hole golf competition, p r i o r to the intervention, and approximately 6 weeks af t e r the intervention. P r i o r to the intervention t - t e s t analyses indicated no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups for appraisals or coping. After the intervention, r e s u l t s indicated that g o l f e r s i n the experimental group reported higher scores on p o s i t i v e appraisals, lower scores on threat appraisals, and s i g n i f i c a n t l y less use of negative thinking. There was also a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between golf scores at posttreatment (experimental group performing better), however, there was no post-season performance difference. Larsson et a l . (1988) based the items on the coping questionnaire on Lazarus and Folkman's model of coping. For example, s e l f - t a l k p o s i t i v e thinking was measured with items such as "you can handle the pressure". Other items were s i m i l a r to Lazarus' emphasizing the p o s i t i v e and p o s i t i v e appraisal. Negative thinking items such as " I ' l l probably make a mistake" represented scales such as self-blame and wishful thinking. Although posi t i v e thinking and challenge appraisal were used more by the experimental group a f t e r treatment, s p e c i f i c coping strategies were not i d e n t i f i e d . This study indicates the need to i d e n t i f y how athletes appraise and cope during competition and suggests that teaching coping techniques such as relaxation and p o s i t i v e thinking helps athletes perceive competition as more of a challenge than a threat. Some researchers have found s i g n i f i c a n t relationships between appraisal and perceived performance but not for objective performance ( M i l l e r & McAuley, 1987). Therefore, i t would have been i n t e r e s t i n g i f perceived performance had been measured as well as objective performance. In summary, most coping studies focus on i d e n t i f y i n g combinations of variables (person, appraisal, s i t u a t i o n , environment) to predict psychological well-being. In some studies, appraisal i s viewed as an important predictor of coping (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986; V i t a l i a n o et a l . , 1987). In other studies, r e s u l t s indicate that personality i s important (McCrae & Costa, 1986; Parkes, 1986; Scheier et a l . , 1986). In most studies, i t seems that the i n t e r a c t i o n of appraisal, coping, personality, and environment account for a greater amount of the variance i n psychological symptoms than either personality, appraisal, or environment alone (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986; V i t a l i a n o et a l . , 1987). I t i s also expected that i n a s i t u a t i o n perceived as challenging, appraisals and coping w i l l r e l a t e d i f f e r e n t l y to performance as the event unfolds over time. For example, many studies f i n d that people use d i f f e r e n t combinations of problem- and emotion-focused coping with s t r e s s f u l encounters (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Forsythe & Compas, 1987) . For changeable encounters, people focused on the s i t u a t i o n (problem-focused coping) whereas for situations that had to be accepted, people used escape-avoidance (emotion-focused coping), focusing on s e l f rather than the s i t u a t i o n (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986). There i s also evidence that people cope d i f f e r e n t l y i n situations perceived as more or less challenging/threatening (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985), however, t h i s theory has mainly been tested i n situations that are perceived as more threatening than challenging (e.g., exams). Coping Measurement Issues One of the most widely used inventories to measure coping was developed by Folkman and Lazarus (1980). The WCC assesses thoughts and actions that the i n d i v i d u a l uses to cope with s p e c i f i c s t r e s s f u l encounters. Individuals are asked to summarize a recent s t r e s s f u l event and respond to 68 statements that describe methods of dealing with the event. In some studies, temporal sequence of strategies i s determined by administering the checklist as the s t r e s s f u l event unfolds over time. However, researchers have recently i d e n t i f i e d problems with the WCC. Issues of concern are: (a) ambiguous items, (b) numerous subscales, (c) s i t u a t i o n a l determinants of coping, (d) response key of coping items, and (e) the structure of problem- and emotion-focused coping. Carver et a l . (1989) i d e n t i f i e d several ambiguous items on the WCC because more than one construct appeared i n a singl e item. For example, "I went over i n my mind what I would say or do" would be clearer i f "do" and "say" were addressed by two d i f f e r e n t statements because they are two d i f f e r e n t actions. I t i s also apparent that some of the items could be reduced i n length "I t r i e d not to act too h a s t i l y — o r follow my f i r s t hunch" (the l a s t part could be deleted). Most recent coping studies i d e n t i f y from 5 to 8 d i f f e r e n t coping subscales (Carver et a l . , 1989; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986; Parkes, 1986). Middle-aged adults, u n i v e r s i t y students, and nursing students have been studied, however, i t i s unclear whether the number of coping subscales i s influenced more by the type of research participant or by the type of s t r e s s f u l encounter. Focusing on very s p e c i f i c s t r e s s f u l encounters with similar populations as the encounter unfolds may provide more information on coping subscales. Cross-sectional studies (McCrae, 1984) and longitudinal analyses of people coping with d i f f e r e n t situations over time (Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986) indicate that d i f f e r e n t situations c a l l for d i f f e r e n t coping strategies. The effectiveness of coping strategies i n d i f f e r e n t s i tuations, however, has yet to be determined (Mattlin, Wethington, & Kessler, 1990). For example, venting of emotions may be functional for people mourning the loss of a loved one for a certain length of time but can impede adjustment i n the long term (Felton, Revenson, & Hinrichsen, 1984) . Additionally, mental disengagement may allow people to take t h e i r mind off a problem and be adaptive i n some situa t i o n s (e.g., i l l n e s s ) but i t may be maladaptive i n other situations (e.g., sport events where concentration on the task i s c r u c i a l ) . I t i s also possible that d i f f e r e n t coping strategies that are ef f e c t i v e at one stage of an encounter w i l l not be as ef f e c t i v e at other stages of the encounter. For example, focusing on the task (problem-focused) and t e l l i n g oneself to calm down (emotion-focused) may be important for enhanced performance; i f the person performs poorly i n one stage of the competition however, i t may be important to not think about the past performance ( i . e . , to use denial, wishful thinking-usually considered i n e f f e c t i v e forms of emotion-focused coping) and to refocus energies on the next performance. Stone, Greenberg, Kennedy-Moore, and Newman (1991) suggest that the response key on the WCC may be perceived d i f f e r e n t l y by people. For example, people may assess items i n terms of duration, frequency, e f f o r t , or usefulness. Their recent findings suggest that only 9 items out of 66 were consistently assessed i n terms of the above categories. However, they were studying students with a vari e t y of d i f f e r e n t stressors and i t seems l i k e l y that even the categories of interpersonal and health stressors were too general to t e s t the hypothesis. Stone et a l . suggest that one solu t i o n may be to compare coping only within p a r t i c u l a r problem categories. A better test would be to study a very s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n at the same stage i n time (as the event unfolds) for a l l participants. This type of study may f i n d consistency i n response meaning. Some researchers are not s a t i s f i e d with the d i s t i n c t i o n between problem- and emotion-focused coping functions and have developed t h e i r own higher l e v e l categories of coping (Carver et a l . , 1989; Scheier, Weintraub, & Carver, 1986; Tobin, Holroyd, Reynolds, & Wigal, 1989). For example. Carver et a l . (1989) suggest that emotion-focused responses are diverse. Some responses involve denial whereas others involve p o s i t i v e interpretation. Depending on the s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n , some emotion-focused responses may f a c i l i t a t e problem-focused coping while others w i l l not. Tobin et a l . (1989) organized coping into two factors c a l l e d engagement and disengagement coping. These factors were developed from four coping scales (problem- and emotion-focused engagement and disengagement coping). Engagement coping involves active e f f o r t s to manage the s i t u a t i o n as well as e f f o r t s to manage emotional responses to the s i t u a t i o n . Disengagement coping involves avoiding behaviors i n order to avoid the s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n and strategies to avoid thinking about the s i t u a t i o n . Engagement and disengagement coping subscales may explain why s p e c i f i c coping subscales are f a c i l i t a t i v e for some si t u a t i o n s . Understanding how coping strategies fluctuate from being e f f e c t i v e to i n e f f e c t i v e i s important i f we are to gain a more accurate understanding of the coping process. In summary, most of the studies reviewed encompass a diverse range of s t r e s s f u l encounters and many d i f f e r e n t variables to explore the coping process. The WCC seems to be most useful i n determining coping strategies i n s p e c i f i c s ituations as the encounter unfolds over time. However, attention needs to be paid to c l a r i t y of coping items, content of coping subscales, and the perceived effectiveness of strategies i n s p e c i f i c encounters. In addition. Carver et a l . (1989) and Tobin et a l . (1989) suggest a need to c l o s e l y s c r u t i n i z e higher-order coping strategies s p e c i f i c to the s i t u a t i o n rather than focusing only on the more general functions, problem- and emotion-focused coping, i n order to gain a better understanding of the coping process. Gender Differences In Coping Several researchers have found gender differences i n coping (Carver et a l . , 1989; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Long, 1990; Stone & Neale, 1984; Vingerhoets & Van Heck, 1990). Carver et a l . (1989) studied 978 undergraduates and found that women had greater tendencies to focus on and vent emotions, and to seek s o c i a l support for both instrumental and emotional reasons. Men reported greater use of drugs and alcohol to cope. Although, they found gender differences they d i d not analyze women and men separately i n r e l a t i o n to the stressor i d e n t i f i e d . Folkman and Lazarus (1980) studied 100 community residents and found that women and men did not d i f f e r i n t h e i r use of emotion-focused coping and that women used more of both problem and emotion-focused types of coping. They suggested that more coping indicates more stress. Indeed women i n t h e i r study probably had to deal with many more stressors (e.g., health, family), whereas men mainly i d e n t i f i e d work as a stressor. Some researchers have found that men prefer problem-focused coping, whereas women prefer emotion-focused coping (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978; Stone & Neale, 1984). These studies have not matched men and women on c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as marital status, occupation, and socioeconomic status. Long (1990) c o l l e c t e d data from 132 managers (72 women and 60 men) and found that women scored higher on emotion-focused coping (avoidance, problem reappraisal) but there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences for problem-focused coping. This i s one of the few studies that used men and women from similar occupations ( f u l l - t i m e managers). The difference i n emotion-focused coping may be due to the types of s t r e s s f u l experiences i d e n t i f i e d . Women in the study, reported 68% of t h e i r stressors as interpersonal, whereas men reported only 32% of the stressors as interpersonal. In summary, some studies have found that women and men cope with situations d i f f e r e n t l y . Folkman and Lazarus (1980) found that women use more of both emotion- and problem-focused coping than men. Carver et a l . (1989) and Long (1990) found that women use more emotion-focused types of coping (venting emotions, seeking s o c i a l support, problem reappraisal) than men. Therefore, only female athletes were the focus of t h i s study. Cognitive Appraisals Many coping studies are based on Lazarus' transactional model of stress and coping. Although there i s some agreement among researchers on coping categories, there i s l i t t l e agreement on what constitutes appraisal. As a r e s u l t , the appraisal construct i s defined and measured d i f f e r e n t l y across studies. For example, some studies focus on primary appraisals of importance and self-esteem, as well as secondary appraisals of control (Brody, 1988; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986). Other studies focus s o l e l y on control appraisals (Forsythe & Compass, 1987) or control and s e l f -e f f i c a c y appraisals (Bandura & Wood, 1989; Hart & Cardozo, 1988; L i t t , 1988a, 1988b). Of p a r t i c u l a r relevance to the current study are the secondary appraisals of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control because both have been i d e n t i f i e d as determinants of performance i n sport competitions (Feltz, 1982; McAuley, 1985). Control appraisals i d e n t i f i e d by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) are general control, b e l i e f s concerning the extent that people believe the outcome of the s i t u a t i o n can be controlled, and, s i t u a t i o n a l control, peoples' b e l i e f s that they can influence a s p e c i f i c s t r e s s f u l encounter. However, these appraisals have not been well researched i n s p e c i f i c s t r e s s f u l encounters as they unfold over time. In addition, Lazarus and Folkman have suggested that s i t u a t i o n a l control i s a secondary appraisal that p a r a l l e l s Bandura's construct of s e l f - e f f i c a c y . Bandura (1977) however, defines s e l f -e f f i c a c y expectations and control more s p e c i f i c a l l y . In p a r t i c u l a r , s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectations have been widely studied by many researchers. Therefore, Bandura's (1977) Soci a l Learning Theory would seem to be a useful source from which to explore appraisal. The next section of t h i s paper reviews Bandura's construct of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and examines s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectancy appraisal and control appraisal i n l i g h t of recent research findings. F i n a l l y , p a r a l l e l s between Lazarus' and Bandura's theories are presented i n order to study coping effectiveness, an area i n the coping l i t e r a t u r e that has received l i t t l e attention. Bandura's So c i a l Cognitive Theory Bandura (1977) suggests that behavior change i s mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectations, an indiv i d u a l ' s b e l i e f that he/she can successfully perform a p a r t i c u l a r behavior and that the behavior w i l l lead to a desired outcome. Perceived s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectations a f f e c t choice of a c t i v i t y , e f f o r t expended, persistence of coping e f f o r t s , people's thought patterns and emotions i n actual and anticipated s t r e s s f u l situations (Bandura, 1986). Bandura (1977) states that although s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectations i n t e r a c t with outcome expectations (a b e l i e f that a given behavior w i l l lead to a s p e c i f i c outcome), s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectations may be independent of outcome expectations. For example, an athlete may be confident i n his/her a b i l i t y to perform an a c t i v i t y (e.g., free-throw shot, penalty shot), but may be uncertain whether his/her team w i l l win the contest. Bandura, Reese, and Adams (1982) state that the higher the l e v e l of perceived s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectancies, the greater the performance accomplishments. S e l f - e f f i c a c y expectations vary on dimensions of l e v e l , strength, and generality. Level of ef f i c a c y r e f e r s to a person's estimate of his/her best possible performance of a s p e c i f i c behavior (e.g., the maximum number of baskets he/she can score out of 10). Strength of e f f i c a c y refers to how confident one i s i n performing the behavior (e.g., how confident I am that I can score the number of baskets stated). A person may perceive herself/himself as capable of scoring 7 baskets out of 10 (level) but not confident about scoring 7 out of 10 baskets (strength). Strength determines how s e l f - e f f i c a c i o u s the person feels about performing a s p e c i f i c task. The l e v e l and strength of one's s e l f - e f f i c a c y determine how much e f f o r t one w i l l expend and how long one w i l l p e r s i s t at a task. Individuals who have a stronger sense of s e l f - e f f i c a c y w i l l exert a greater e f f o r t to master challenges. The t h i r d dimension of s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s generality, the extent to which s e l f - e f f i c a c y attained i n a s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n w i l l generalize to other situ a t i o n s . Once s e l f -e f f i c a c y i s enhanced i t may generalize to other situations (Bandura, Adams, & Beyer, 1977). For example, enhanced s e l f -e f f i c a c y gained through mastery experiences of a s p e c i f i c phobia (e.g., acrophobia) may increase coping e f f i c a c y i n s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . However, g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y i s most l i k e l y for a c t i v i t i e s that are similar to those i n which the indi v i d u a l ' s s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s enhanced (Bandura, 1986). Bandura (1977) asserts that d i f f e r e n t sources of information influence s e l f - e f f i c a c y : (a) performance accomplishments, (b) vicarious experiences, (c) verbal persuasion, and (d) arousal. Performance accomplishments provide the most dependable source of e f f i c a c y information for a f f e c t i n g change i n s e l f - e f f i c a c y because they are based on mastery experiences (Bandura et a l . , 1977; F e l t z , Landers, & Raeder, 1979). Whereas successes r a i s e s e l f -e f f i c a c y appraisals, f a i l u r e lowers them p a r t i c u l a r l y i f i t occurs early i n the learning process. After a strong sense of s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s developed through many successful experiences, however, occasional f a i l u r e s w i l l not have much e f f e c t on one's perceived c a p a b i l i t i e s (Bandura, 1986). Performance accomplishments are clos e l y linked to vicarious experience. People judge t h e i r c a p a b i l i t i e s p a r t l y by comparing t h e i r performance to the performance of others who are s i m i l a r or s l i g h t l y higher i n a b i l i t y (Suis & M i l l e r , 1977). Although vicarious experience i s less dependable than one's own experience, verbal persuasion has an additive e f f e c t when used i n conjunction with performance aids (e.g., modeling). The more believable the source of information, the greater the chance of s e l f - e f f i c a c y enhancement (Bandura, 1977). Thus, individuals who are encouraged (verbal persuasion) and who receive performance modeling w i l l use greater e f f o r t than those who receive modeling only (Bandura, 1977). Another source of eff i c a c y information i s phys i o l o g i c a l arousal. Social learning theory suggests that i t i s the cognitive appraisal of arousal that i s either energizing or d e b i l i t a t i n g and that anxiety i s self-generated by an indi v i d u a l ' s appraisal of the si t u a t i o n . For example, ind i v i d u a l s who perceive t h e i r arousal as due to personal inadequacy w i l l probably have lower s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectations than individuals who perceive t h e i r arousal as caused by external factors such as the s i t u a t i o n (Bandura, 1977) . People develop d i f f e r e n t e f f i c a c y expectations from s i m i l a r experiences. Although performance gains are a powerful source of e f f i c a c y information, people sometimes use f a u l t y appraisals. For example, people who c r e d i t t h e i r accomplishments to external factors rather than to t h e i r own c a p a b i l i t i e s may have doubts about t h e i r c a p a b i l i t i e s (Bandura, 1977). Successes are more l i k e l y to enhance s e l f -e f f i c a c y i f performances are perceived as r e s u l t i n g from s k i l l s and e f f o r t s (internal factors) rather than from the environment. Research on S e l f - E f f i c a c y Empirical evidence for s e l f - e f f i c a c y as a predictor of coping behavior i s found i n studies of phobic behavior (Bandura & Adams, 1977; Bandura et a l . , 1982), smoking cessation (Condiotte & Lichtenstein, 1981; K i l l e n , MacCoby, & Taylor, 1984), health behaviors (Ewart, Taylor, Reese, & Debusk, 1983), career related events (Stumpf, B r i e f , & Hartman, 1987), and physical performance (Feltz, 1982, 1988; Lee, 1982; McAuley, 1985; Weinberg, Gould, Yukelson, & Jackson, 1981). Bandura et a l . (1982) studied 10 snake phobic subjects to determine whether e f f i c a c y expectations operated as cognitive mediators of coping behavior and fear arousal. Di f f e r e n t l e v e l s of s e l f - e f f i c a c y were induced i n subjects through enactive mastery or therapist modeling. Coping behavior was measured by performance of 18 h i e r a r c h i c a l tasks (e.g., approaching, touching, holding the snakes). For the snake phobic subjects, fear arousal was measured by subjects indicating verbally the intensity, using a lO-point scale, of fear they f e l t when the task was described (anticipatory fear) and the fear f e l t while they were performing the behavior (performance fear). S e l f - e f f i c a c y judgements were measured by asking subjects to i d e n t i f y the tasks they believed that they could perform and to rate how confident (score range of 10-100) they were that they could perform the tasks. The l e v e l of s e l f - e f f i c a c y was the number of performed tasks with a value greater than 20. For example, subjects were considered low s e l f - e f f i c a c i o u s i f they believed they could place t h e i r hands on the cage, medium i f they believed they could l i f t the snake i n the cage, and high i f they believed they could l i f t the snake outside the cage. A l l of the behaviors were modeled p r i o r to performance. It was hypothesized that high s e l f - e f f i c a c y would predict high performance and that perceived increased s e l f - e f f i c a c y would lessen the degree of anticipatory and performance arousal. Results indicated that the higher the l e v e l of induced s e l f - e f f i c a c y , the greater the performance. The resultant t - t e s t analysis found that experimenter modeling (vicarious experience) produced a 14% increase i n perceived s e l f -e f f i c a c y . As subjects' s e l f - e f f i c a c y increased, they experienced less anticipatory and performance arousal i n coping with threats. This finding suggests that fear arousal i s mediated ( i . e . , i s causally antecedent to s e l f - e f f i c a c y ) by an ind i v i d u a l ' s perceptions of s e l f - e f f i c a c y . The second part of t h i s study investigated the association of s e l f - e f f i c a c y performance and fear arousal i n 14 female spider phobies. The procedures were s i m i l a r to the above study except that only low and moderate l e v e l s of s e l f - e f f i c a c y were induced. Analysis performed on the differences between paired scores using t - t e s t s for correlated means indicated that high levels of perceived s e l f - e f f i c a c y produced higher levels of performance attainments and reduced fear arousal. An additional experiment was designed to t e s t generality of the s e l f - e f f i c a c y theory for fear arousal. Participants for t h i s study were 12 female spider phobic subjects. Pretest procedures were similar to the previous experiments except that performance tasks were selected for each person according to her s e l f - e f f i c a c y judgement for strong, medium, and weak strength values. Physiological measures, heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) were taken 3 0 seconds p r i o r to performance (anticipatory arousal), and during 30 seconds while performing (performance arousal). F i n a l l y , a l l participants received participant modeling treatment to ra i s e t h e i r s e l f - e f f i c a c y for six s p e c i f i c tasks (e.g., observing a caged spider from a distance of 1 foot, placing a gloved hand near the cage) to maximal strength and then were retested. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze data a f t e r the tasks had been modeled and a f t e r the subjects' s e l f - e f f i c a c y had been enhanced. Results indicated that s e l f - e f f i c a c y strength was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to anticipatory arousal and performance arousal a f t e r the i n i t i a l modeling. Results a f t e r the participants mastered the tasks indicated that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between baseline measures of HR and BP for anticipatory or performance measures. Bandura et a l . (1982) equates s e l f - r e p o r t arousal i n study one and two with physiological (HR, BP) arousal i n study three. Bandura does not distinguish between somatic arousal (e.g., perceived pain, v i s c e r a l upset) and autonomic arousal (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure). I t seems that the issue of d i f f e r e n t types of arousal i s acknowledged but i n d i r e c t l y . For example, two subjects verbalized t h e i r experience as they mastered tasks and as t h e i r fears were disconfirmed t h e i r s e l f - e f f i c a c y was greatly enhanced. This finding suggests that s e l f - e f f i c a c y may be a mediator of fear arousal, although, i t must be noted that i t i s only based on the verbal reports of two people. A more important finding may be that i t i s how people interpret t h e i r success rather than success per se that determines cognitive and behavioral change. The importance of how people in t e r p r e t t h e i r success i s also supported i n sport s p e c i f i c studies by Gould, Weiss, and Weinberg (1981), Highlen and Bennett (1979), and S i l v a , Schultz, Haslam, and Murray (1981). These researchers found that wrestlers who are more successful focus on p o s i t i v e s e l f - r e f e r e n t thoughts or p o s i t i v e comparison, whereas less successful wrestlers focus on negative s e l f - r e f e r e n t thought. According to S o c i a l Learning Theory i f individuals tend to focus on negative aspects of performance ( f r i g h t f u l s e l f - r e f e r e n t thoughts) they underestimate t h e i r s e l f - e f f i c a c y , whereas indivi d u a l s who focus on p o s i t i v e aspects of performance tend to enhance t h e i r performance. These findings indicate the importance of p o s i t i v e s e l f - r e f e r e n t thought i n both c l i n i c a l populations (phobic c l i e n t s ) and n o n c l i n i c a l populations (athletes). Although research findings for s e l f - r e f e r e n t thought are s i m i l a r for c l i n i c a l and n o n c l i n i c a l populations, anxiety patterns and t h e i r r e l a t i o n to coping behavior d i f f e r . These differences may be due to how people appraise the s i t u a t i o n or to the type of s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n . In n o n c l i n i c a l populations (e.g., sport participants, Feltz et a l . , 1979; Gould et a l . , 1981; Huband & McKelvie, 1986), anticipatory anxiety and performance anxiety show d i f f e r e n t patterns than i n the c l i n i c a l studies by Bandura et a l . (1977, 1982). In the sport studies, anticipatory anxiety was very high but declined during performance, whereas for the c l i n i c a l studies, anxiety was high at both anticipatory and performance l e v e l s . Perhaps the difference i s due to the appraisal and nature of the stressor. In the sport setting, the stressor seems to be appraised as more of a challenge than a threat, whereas the opposite i s true for the c l i n i c a l settings. Performance in c l i n i c a l settings shows a negative r e l a t i o n s h i p to anxiety, however, there are c o n f l i c t i n g findings for the relationship between anxiety and performance i n challenging a c t i v i t i e s such as sport events (Kerr, 1987) . For example. Burton (1988) found that for both short and long distance swimmers, cognitive anxiety had a negative l i n e a r relationship to performance, self-confidence had a p o s i t i v e l i n e a r relationship to performance, and somatic anxiety had an inverted-U relationship to performance. Other researchers found no r e l a t i o n s h i p between anxiety and performance (Maynard & Howe, 1987; McKelvie, V a l l i a n t , & Asu, 1985). Taylor (1987) found that anxiety r e l a t e s to performance d i f f e r e n t l y depending on the type of sport studied. According to Bandura (1978), autonomic arousal (HR, BP) has no causal relationship to avoidance behavior because autonomic arousal takes longer to activate than avoidance responses and therefore can not be causes of the responses. Also, avoidance responses may be performed i n the absence of arousal (Rescorla & Soloman, 1967). However, phys i o l o g i c a l arousal provides a source of e f f i c a c y information operating through cognitive appraisal. Bandura states that there i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between arousal and behavior but i t i s mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y . Thus, reducing one's arousal may enhance performance but i t does so through r a i s i n g one's s e l f -e f f i c a c y . Bandura views anxiety as a unidimensional construct whereas other researchers view anxiety as a multidimensional construct with cognitive, somatic and p h y s i o l o g i c a l components (Borkovec, 1976; Martens et a l . , 1990; Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1982; McAuley, 1984). Multidimensional measures provide more s p e c i f i c information. For example, patterns of behaviors may emerge and e f f e c t behavior d i f f e r e n t l y when separate components (e.g., cognitive, somatic, behavioral) are i d e n t i f i e d . A d d i t i o n a l l y , Bandura (1986) states that "people are more i n c l i n e d to expect success when they are not beset by aversive arousal than i f they are tense and v i s c e r a l l y upset" (p. 401). The key to t h i s statement seems to be "aversive". I t seems possible that people i n challenging situations may be very aroused but not perceive the arousal as aversive. In fact, they may perceive i t as f a c i l i t a t i n g . For example, Mahoney and Avener (1977) found that e l i t e q u a l i f y i n g gymnasts experienced higher anxiety than nonqualifiers but viewed t h e i r anxiety i n a more p o s i t i v e l i g h t . This suggests that higher e f f i c a c y strength would be p o s i t i v e l y related to a high l e v e l of challenge, whereas the opposite would be true for a low l e v e l of challenge (higher l e v e l of threat). This notion supports Bandura's contention that s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s a mediator of anxiety and performance and that enhancing one's s e l f - e f f i c a c y w i l l influence one's appraisal of anxiety without necessarily reducing anxiety. S e l f - E f f i c a c y as a Predictor of Performance S e l f - e f f i c a c y has been i d e n t i f i e d as a predictor of physical performance i n both lab settings (Feltz & Mugno, 1983; Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979) and f i e l d studies (Barling & Abel, 1983; Feltz, 1982; Feltz & Albrecht, 1986; Gould et a l . , 1981; Highlen & Bennett, 1979; Lee, 1982; McAuley, 1985; Taylor, 1989). In addition, there i s c o n f l i c t i n g evidence on whether s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s a better predictor of performance than past performance. The following studies are reviewed to further understand the relationship between s e l f - e f f i c a c y and coping behavior s p e c i f i c a l l y i n sport situations. Taylor (1989) studied 72 male undergraduate students to investigate the relationships of s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectations, performance, and competitive outcome for a muscular endurance task. Personal s e l f - e f f i c a c y , based on expectations i n t e r n a l l y derived, and competitive s e l f -e f f i c a c y , based on performance standards, was assessed. The lab task involved students s i t t i n g on a chair holding one leg i n a horizontal position as long as possible while competing against a confederate for two competitions. S e l f - e f f i c a c y was assessed measuring magnitude, amount of time subjects believed that they could hold up t h e i r leg (30 sec. to 8 min), and strength (how confident they were that they could hold t h e i r leg up for the chosen time, scale 10-point increments to 100). A general s e l f - e f f i c a c y score was obtained by summing the confidence scores and d i v i d i n g by the t o t a l number of responses. This method of measurement for s e l f - e f f i c a c y was suggested by Bandura and Adams (1977) and has been used by Weinberg et a l . (1981) i n the sport se t t i n g . The top 36 e f f i c a c y scorers, determined by a median s p l i t , were c l a s s i f i e d as high on personal s e l f - e f f i c a c y whereas the rest were c l a s s i f i e d as low. Students were then randomly assigned to low s e l f - e f f i c a c y (where a confederate stated he was a v a r s i t y track athlete) or to a high s e l f -e f f i c a c y condition (where a confederate said he had an injured l e g). Students were given f a l s e feedback about t h e i r leg strength with students i n the higher s e l f - e f f i c a c y condition being t o l d they had greater strength than the confederate. The competitive s e l f - e f f i c a c y questionnaire (e.g.. How many t r i a l s do you think you can win? Confidence in your prediction? Confidence i n winning?) was then administered o r a l l y . Outcome was also manipulated as a success/failure for each condition. Questionnaires were administered p r i o r to the second competition and at task completion. I t was expected that personal s e l f - e f f i c a c y would be a s i g n i f i c a n t predictor of performance as suggested by findings from e a r l i e r research (Bandura, 1977; Weinberg et a l . , 1979) and that competitive s e l f - e f f i c a c y would not be a s i g n i f i c a n t predictor because i t provides d i f f e r e n t information to the in d i v i d u a l . Competitive s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s related to external standards (e.g., win, loss) rather than in t e r n a l standards (bettering one's own performance). I t was also hypothesized that feedback would s i g n i f i c a n t l y influence competitive s e l f - e f f i c a c y because the outcome feedback i s the source from which competitive s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s derived. ANOVA revealed that personal s e l f - e f f i c a c y was a s i g n i f i c a n t predictor of performance. Highly s e l f -ef f i c a c i o u s participants performed at a higher l e v e l than low s e l f - e f f i c a c i o u s participants. This finding i s supported i n research by Bandura et a l . (1977) and Feltz and Albrecht (1986). Competitive outcome feedback was a s i g n i f i c a n t predictor of competitive s e l f - e f f i c a c y . Students who believed that they had won had higher competitive s e l f -e f f i c a c y , whereas those who thought that they had l o s t showed a decrease i n competitive s e l f - e f f i c a c y . From t h i s finding, Taylor suggests that performance and competitive feedback outcome are two d i f f e r e n t sources of information a f f e c t i n g s e l f - e f f i c a c y . The personal by competitive s e l f -e f f i c a c y i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t was s i g n i f i c a n t i n d i c a t i n g that in the high competitive s e l f - e f f i c a c y condition (expect to win), students with high personal s e l f - e f f i c a c y performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than students with low personal s e l f -e f f i c a c y . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences for the low competitive s e l f - e f f i c a c y condition. Although the two constructs appear to be conceptually d i f f e r e n t , they are empirically related to one another and i t seems possible that high personal s e l f - e f f i c a c y may f a c i l i t a t e competitive s e l f - e f f i c a c y (e.g., i f people are confident of t h e i r performance they may work harder to perform well and even i f they do not win they w i l l s t i l l p e r s i s t because of the strength of t h e i r personal s e l f -efficacy) . Personal s e l f - e f f i c a c y was not influenced by competitive outcome, winning or losing on the task did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y influence personal s e l f - e f f i c a c y . However, personal feedback (time leg was held up) would be expected to have an e f f e c t on personal s e l f - e f f i c a c y because i t was based on information from which personal s e l f - e f f i c a c y was derived. This was not tested. The outcome (win/loss) across t r i a l s i n t e r a c t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t indicating that students who won showed an increase in competitive s e l f - e f f i c a c y across t r i a l s . Taylor (1989) suggests that competitive s e l f - e f f i c a c y may be considered a state measure, whereas personal s e l f -e f f i c a c y i s a t r a i t measure. S e l f - e f f i c a c y was assessed by asking the students to answer yes/no (for 16 items) i f they could hold t h e i r leg up from 30 seconds to 8 minutes. Then confidence rated 10 to 100, was recorded for each yes response. Because t h i s was a novel task, personal s e l f -e f f i c a c y might seem to be a t r a i t measure of s e l f - e f f i c a c y based on related past performance. However, Bandura (1977) argues that s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s si t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c and that i f the s i t u a t i o n changes then the person's s e l f - e f f i c a c y may also change. This seems contrary to t r a i t theory. For example, an individual may be highly s e l f - e f f i c a c i o u s i n speaking or teaching to a small group of people but f e e l very i n e f f i c a c i o u s speaking to a large group of people. One could argue that competitive s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s s i m i l a r to Bandura's concept of outcome expectancy, whereas personal e f f i c a c y i s s i m i l a r to e f f i c a c y expectations. Bandura suggests that e f f i c a c y expectations have the strongest influence on behavior, however, perhaps t h i s holds only for p a r t i c u l a r situations. Two concerns regarding the Taylor (1989) study are the behavior task and the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of these findings to natural sport settings. Bandura suggests that judgements i n simulated sit u a t i o n s may d i f f e r from e f f i c a c y judgements i n actual s i t u a t i o n s . The novel leg r a i s i n g task i s u n l i k e l y to motivate, excite, and inspire competition i n an i n d i v i d u a l that i s comparable to an actual competitive sport event. In actual competition there i s also more at stake, more anxiety, and more feedback and s o c i a l evaluation (e.g., from the coach, teainmates, friends) . Therefore, i t i s very important when studying s e l f - e f f i c a c y to determine i f the part i c i p a n t s perceive the task as challenging, i f the participants have enough experience to accurately gauge t h e i r s e l f - e f f i c a c y , and to study events that are s i m i l a r to actual competitions. Feltz (1982) examined Bandura's model of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and an anxiety based model to study approach/avoidance behavior i n 80 female college students performing a back dive. Bandura's model predicted a re c i p r o c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - e f f i c a c y and diving performance and also predicted that s e l f - e f f i c a c y was a mediator of diving performance. The anxiety model predicted that performance, cognitive anxiety, and physiological arousal (heart rate) were causal influences of back diving performance. In the anxiety model, s e l f - e f f i c a c y was designated as an e f f e c t of performance rather than a predictor of performance. The purpose of the study was to test two t h e o r e t i c a l models and to investigate the r o l e of s e l f - e f f i c a c y as a mediating variable i n the performance of a high avoidance diving task across t r i a l s . The participants were deep water swimmers with no experience i n back diving. Dependent measures were; heart rate (HR), s t a t e - t r a i t anxiety and diving e f f i c a c y (strength of b e l i e f ) . Diving performance was measured by a trained observer. Students were shown two filmed performances of the back dive, then measures were administered i n the following order; HR (taken continuously u n t i l the diver l e f t the board), the anxiety questionnaire, the diving e f f i c a c y scale, and then the actual dive was performed. This process was s i m i l a r for each of four dives. Results of path analysis indicated that for the Bandura model a l l paths from past performance (performance at d i f f e r e n t tasks), or actual back diving performance to s e l f -e f f i c a c y were s i g n i f i c a n t . Path c o e f f i c i e n t s between actual diving performance and s e l f - e f f i c a c y were large (>.77) supporting Bandura's contention that performance on the same task i s a more dependable source of information than performance on a d i f f e r e n t task. The e f f e c t of diving performance on s e l f - e f f i c a c y increased over t r i a l s , whereas the e f f e c t of s e l f - e f f i c a c y on diving performance decreased over t r i a l s . S e l f - e f f i c a c y was the only predictor that increased over t r i a l s (when past performance, previous dives, and HR were not included i n the regression). S e l f - e f f i c a c y was the best predictor of performance only f o r the f i r s t dive, whereas the actual dive performance (past performance) became the strongest predictor for the next dive a f t e r time 1. Weinberg et a l . (1979) also found that s e l f - e f f i c a c y predicted performance on the f i r s t t r i a l but that outcome feedback (success/failure) s i g n i f i c a n t l y influenced performance on the second t r i a l . On the second t r i a l , high s e l f - e f f i c a c i o u s students persisted (extended t h e i r legs longer) and had higher expectancies for success than low s e l f - e f f i c a c i o u s subjects. F e l t z ' r e c i p r o c a l hypothesis that performance influences s e l f - e f f i c a c y and that s e l f - e f f i c a c y influences performance was supported but the r e l a t i o n s h i p was not equally r e c i p r o c a l . S e l f - e f f i c a c y was a stronger predictor of performance only for the f i r s t dive. Once the f i r s t dive had been attempted (successfully or unsuccessfully) that attempt became the best predictor of the next dive. None of the HR to s e l f - e f f i c a c y path c o e f f i c i e n t s were s i g n i f i c a n t indicating that physiological arousal was not a predictor of e f f i c a c y expectations. Error terms for HR were high i n d i c a t i n g that other factors affected HR. Perhaps, the self-efficacy/HR relationship did not hold because the subjects had a choice of whether or not to perforin the dive (14% of the subjects chose not to dive on the f i r s t attempt). Thus, being able to avoid the task would probably reduce HR and would also a f f e c t the mean HR (92 BPM). I t i s questionable i f HR should be used as a measure of anxiety since there i s inconsistent agreement between s e l f - r e p o r t and p h y s i o l o g i c a l measures (actual HR and perceived anxiety). For example, Yan Lan and G i l l (1984) and K a r t e r o l i o t i s and G i l l (1987) found no r e l a t i o n s h i p between somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and HR. Feltz suggested that s e l f - e f f i c a c y f a c i l i t a t e d arousal p r i o r to the f i r s t dive (as s e l f - e f f i c a c y increased HR increased). This finding may be p a r t i c u l a r to the sport setting where athletes report high anticipatory anxiety p r i o r to performance. I t was hypothesized for the anxiety based model that diving performance and past performance would d i r e c t l y a f f e c t cognitive anxiety and HR. Results indicated that a l l paths were s i g n i f i c a n t for cognitive anxiety with previous performance having a greater influence on cognitive anxiety. The past performance, HR, and diving paths were not s i g n i f i c a n t i n d i c a t i n g that past performance and d i v i n g performance were not good predictors of HR. The anxiety model suggests that past performance, cognitive anxiety, and HR influence s e l f - e f f i c a c y , however, only performance t r i a l s and anxiety (time 1, 2, and 3) s i g n i f i c a n t l y influenced s e l f - e f f i c a c y with the influence of anxiety decreasing over time. HR was not a s i g n i f i c a n t influence of s e l f - e f f i c a c y . Because the s e l f - e f f i c a c y / d i v i n g paths were s i g n i f i c a n t , i t seems that s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s needed to explain diving performance. Cognitive anxiety was an e f f e c t of diving performance but was not a consistent predictor of diving performance. In summary, the Bandura model indicated that diving performance was influenced by s e l f - e f f i c a c y and past performance. At time 1 s e l f - e f f i c a c y was a better predictor of performance but from time 2 to 4 both previous dives and s e l f - e f f i c a c y were consistent predictors of performance. Bandura (1977) postulates that s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s a better predictor of performance than past performance but he also mentions that previous mastery behavior has a strong influence on subsequent behavior as a r e s u l t of enhancing s e l f - e f f i c a c y . In the anxiety model, the only s i g n i f i c a n t predictor of performance was previous back dive. Although cognitive anxiety influenced s e l f - e f f i c a c y , i t did not have a consistent influence on performance. It may be that d i f f e r e n t patterns of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and anxiety a f f e c t coping behavior and performance d i f f e r e n t l y . For example, high l e v e l s of cognitive, somatic, and phy s i o l o g i c a l anxiety may f a c i l i t a t e s e l f - e f f i c a c y p r i o r to performance, but may hamper coping e f f o r t s during performance. Bandura (1986) suggests that individuals who judge themselves as s e l f -e f f i c a c i o u s i n coping with s t r e s s f u l situations dwell less on personal d e f i c i e n c i e s so i t may not matter how anxious they f e e l but to what extent the anxiety causes an i n d i v i d u a l to focus on s e l f rather than the task. This type of information would help both coaches and c l i n i c i a n s to understand differences between high and low s e l f - e f f i c a c i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s . For example, i t may be more important to focus on p o s i t i v e cognitive self-statements that w i l l enhance s e l f - e f f i c a c y and probably reduce anxiety rather than focusing s o l e l y on anxiety reduction. Fe l t z (1982) tested a respecified model with HR paths (nonsignificant paths) deleted from past performance to HR, and from s e l f - e f f i c a c y (time 2,3, and 4) to HR because they were not systematically influencing performance. These equations were tested against the f u l l model and the differences were nonsignificant suggesting that back dive performance and past performance for the f i r s t dive were the only causal influences of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and that HR was not needed i n the model. The measurement of s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s an important issue to address i n the Feltz (1982) study. Bandura (1986) suggests that i t i s important to study the l e v e l , strength, and generality of s e l f - e f f i c a c y . In Feltz study, only s e l f -e f f i c a c y strength was tested. Feltz argued that 4 l e v e l s (heights of the board) of d i f f i c u l t y would not d i s t i n g u i s h among the performers. Since some divers could not even attempt the i n i t i a l dive, i t seems possible that the height of the board may have d i f f e r e n t i a t e d divers a f t e r the i n i t i a l attempt ( i . e . , more s e l f - e f f i c a c i o u s subjects would attempt the dive at higher levels of board height). However, i f the athletes were experienced, i t would seem appropriate to use the measure of strength because athletes with diving experience would view the d i f f e r e n t height as d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of challenge. F e l t z and Albrecht (1986) further analyzed the r e s p e c i f i e d model i d e n t i f i e d by Feltz (1982). The purpose of t h i s study was to investigate the role of s e l f - e f f i c a c y as a mediator of the rel a t i o n s h i p between physiological arousal and past performance with present performance. Eighty female college students performed 3 back dives. Heart rate was taken by ECG aft e r the electrodes were attached and p r i o r to administration of a state anxiety and diving s e l f - e f f i c a c y scale. Heart rate was taken continuously u n t i l the subject l e f t the board. Past performance accomplishments were measured by a composite score of years of swimming, diving experience, and other r i s k taking experiences. Results indicated s i g n i f i c a n t path c o e f f i c i e n t s from past performance to s e l f - e f f i c a c y and from present diving performance to s e l f - e f f i c a c y . Path c o e f f i c i e n t s between actual diving performance and s e l f - e f f i c a c y were larger (dive 2=.77; dive 3=.82; dive 4=.84) than past performance and s e l f - e f f i c a c y (.27). None of the heart rate to s e l f -e f f i c a c y paths were s i g n i f i c a n t . As found i n Feltz (1982), the path c o e f f i c i e n t s between dives ( i . e . , dive 1 and dive 2) increased over t r i a l s (from .28 to .80), whereas the path c o e f f i c i e n t s between s e l f - e f f i c a c y and performance decreased (from .47 to .18). This finding supports Bandura's theory that performance accomplishments have the greatest e f f e c t on s e l f - e f f i c a c y and that previous performance strongly influences next performance. A second study employing the same students and same tasks was completed to tes t the respec i f i e d model (a model i n which nonsignificant and nonmeaningful paths c o e f f i c i e n t s were deleted) and to investigate the influence of perceived arousal. Results indicated that perceived autonomic arousal was a s i g n i f i c a n t predictor of s e l f - e f f i c a c y for each diving t r a i l (-.23, -.21, -.20, -.23) however, i t was not a s i g n i f i c a n t predictor of diving performance. As suggested by Bandura (1977), perceived arousal influences performance through s e l f - e f f i c a c y and therefore s e l f - e f f i c a c y can be considered a mediator of anxiety and performance. M i l l e r and McAuley (1987) studied 18 (16 male, 2 female) undergraduate students from a beginning basketball class to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a free-throw performance. A pretest was then used to match students on a b i l i t y . A b i l i t y was determined by the number of free-throws completed out of 20 attempts. A l l participants were then randomly assigned to either a goal t r a i n i n g or an instruction (no goal training) condition. Over a 5-week period students i n the goal t r a i n i n g condition received t r a i n i n g i n p o s i t i v e s e l f -statements, assistance to set short-term and long-term r e a l i s t i c goals, encouragement to focus on personal successes rather than t h e i r scores, and to set goals with s p e c i f i c objectives i n mind so that at least some of the objectives would be met. The instruction group received information on free-throw technique only. After the i n i t i a l 10 minute group meeting, and afte r the l a s t free-throw session, a l l students completed a free-throw s e l f - e f f i c a c y inventory. The s e l f - e f f i c a c y inventory comprised four l e v e l s of free-throw d i f f i c u l t y established by three basketball experts (poor=7, average=10, good=13, excellent=16). Students indicated (yes/no) the levels they thought they could successfully complete and rated how confident (10% to 100%) they were at each l e v e l . S e l f - e f f i c a c y strength was then calculated by adding the number of certainty rates for the d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s and then dividing by the t o t a l number of d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l s . Students then participated i n two rounds of free-throw performance (10 shots i n each round). Following each performance, students recorded how successful they thought t h e i r performance had been. Repeated measures ANOVAs assessed the e f f e c t s of the goal s e t t i n g and ins t r u c t i o n groups on free-throw score and perceptions of success. There was a nonsignificant difference between groups on both variables. There was a main e f f e c t for perceived success with the treatment group perceiving t h e i r performance as more successful at E<.05. ANCOVA was conducted to determine the ef f e c t s of the goal and i n s t r u c t i o n groups on s e l f - e f f i c a c y . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between groups for s e l f - e f f i c a c y at posttreatment F(1,15)=5.82, p<.05. The goal group had s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher mean scores than the i n s t r u c t i o n group. Findings that the treatment did not enhance actual free-shot performance may be due to using inexperienced basketball players, the amount of practice time, the treatment, or the incentive for enhancing performance. Students who have not played basketball before would have d i f f i c u l t y judging t h e i r c a p a b i l i t i e s to shoot a s p e c i f i c number of baskets and may view the task as either too d i f f i c u l t or too easy. Five weeks (one class session each week) i s not long enough to master or develop consistency i n performance at free-throw shooting. Free-throw shooting i s a complex task with many variables a f f e c t i n g performance ( s k i l l , e f f o r t , spectators). Other studies used a less complex task (e.g., leg raising) where parti c i p a n t s had an opportunity to master the event. The actual treatment was only 10 minutes i n length and may have acted more as a pep t a l k rather than a s p e c i f i c treatment. Additionally, because no differences were found for the treatment group i n performance, t h i s may be due to the i n s t r u c t i o n group also setting goals even though they were less formal. However, t h i s was not tested. Important factors related to s e l f - e f f i c a c y are s k i l l l e v e l and incentive. McAuley and M i l l e r ' s (1987) c o r r e l a t i o n a l findings indicated that the s e l f -ef f icacy /performance relationship was stronger than the performance/past performance relationship. This finding i s contrary to e a r l i e r studies by Feltz (1982) and Feltz and Albrecht (1986). S e l f - e f f i c a c y and performance were measured only a few minutes apart, whereas past performance and present performance were measured one week apart. I t may also be possible that the finding i s r e f l e c t i v e of the s k i l l l e v e l of the participants. One would expect the part i c i p a n t s to f e e l more comfortable with performing and more s e l f -e f f i c a c i o u s about t h e i r basketball c a p a b i l i t i e s because they were u n s k i l l e d to begin with and the performance s i t u a t i o n was not a competition but a class a c t i v i t y . Because mastery of complex s k i l l s depends on consistency, i t i s not su r p r i s i n g that performance does not predict performance. One strength of M i l l e r and McAuley's study i s that an actual component of a game was used for the research, rather then a novel event. Unfortunately because the part i c i p a n t s were members of a class, i t i s impossible to determine how important or meaningful the task was for them. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) suggest that the importance of the a c t i v i t y and how the a c t i v i t y i s appraised strongly influence coping behavior. A more appropriate group for the free-throw a c t i v i t y i s basketball players because they would have the desire, incentive and s k i l l l e v e l to t e s t the hypothesis more e f f e c t i v e l y . In summary, both the sport and phobic studies are novel situations and i t seems unl i k e l y that novel si t u a t i o n s w i l l generate the same l e v e l of excitement, commitment, or challenge as actual s k i l l e d situations. Researchers use novel, threatening situations because these si t u a t i o n s present ambiguity and fear, an e f f e c t i v e t e s t for s e l f -e f f i c a c y . However, a c t i v i t i e s that involve actual components of sport events w i l l also create uncertainty but the uncertainty w i l l a r i s e from the challenge of the s i t u a t i o n and from performance evaluation (e.g., peers and coaches) rather than from fear. Bandura (1977) states that the i n d i v i d u a l must possess the s k i l l s and adequate incentives i n order for s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectations to influence behavior. S k i l l e d athletes p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n even minor competitions (e.g., during practices) would seem to be an appropriate population to study s e l f - e f f i c a c y and performance, yet, no researchers have s p e c i f i c a l l y studied s e l f - e f f i c a c y and performance i n an actual sport event as i t unfolds over time. Research situations requiring experienced complex s k i l l s w i l l be more generalizable than findings from studies involving novel tasks (Kazdin, 1980). In a natural sport s e t t i n g , s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectancies may have a stronger influence on coping behavior and performance than i n analogue situations. As evidenced above. Social Learning Theory has provided an explanation for s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectancy as an important mechanism i n r e l a t i o n to coping behavior and performance. A large number of empirical studies support s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectancy as a key predictor of behavior. However, Bandura suggests that s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectancy i s not the only appraisal that influences behavior. Researchers studying the construct of s e l f - e f f i c a c y appraisal have also recognized the importance of control appraisal in r e l a t i o n to coping and performance (Bandura & Wood, 1989; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Hart & Cardozo, 1988; L i t t , 1988a, 1988b). Control Appraisal Bandura (1986) and Lazarus and Folkman (1984) address the importance of control appraisal i n t h e i r research. Lazarus and Folkman define control i n terms of both general control and s i t u a t i o n a l control. General control concerns peoples' b e l i e f s that the outcome can be controlled whereas s i t u a t i o n a l control focuses on peoples' b e l i e f s that they can influence the s p e c i f i c s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n . Lazarus and Folkman suggest that s i t u a t i o n a l control i s a secondary appraisal that influences the a b i l i t y to implement coping e f f o r t s . Additionally, they suggest that s i t u a t i o n a l control i s s i m i l a r to the construct of s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectancy. Bandura defines s i t u a t i o n a l control more s p e c i f i c a l l y ( i . e . , c o g n i t i v e l y and behaviorally) and views control as a separate construct that i s independent from s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectancy. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) suggest that s i t u a t i o n a l control appraisals are cl o s e l y linked to coping behavior. Folkman (1984) notes the d i f f i c u l t y of evaluating s i t u a t i o n a l control appraisals suggesting that the problem i s "control over what". Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, Delongis, & Gruen, (1986) studied d i f f e r e n t aspects of s i t u a t i o n a l control, but did not address the issue of personal or emotional control. Their study involved interviewing 85 married couples over a 6-month period to examine the relationship among cognitive appraisals, coping processes, and outcomes. For the secondary control appraisal, viewing the encounter as changeable, people used more problem-solving coping and posit i v e reappraisal, whereas f o r encounters that had to be accepted people used more distancing and escape-avoidance coping. In addition, s a t i s f a c t o r y outcome was related to higher lev e l s of changeability. Other researchers suggest that i t i s important to i d e n t i f y d i f f e r e n t aspects of control (Bandura, 1986, 1988; Hart & Cardozo, 1988; Steptoe, 1989). Three relevant aspects of control for a sport context are behavioral, cognitive, and a f f e c t i v e control. Bandura (1986) suggests that control can be achieved behaviorally or cog n i t i v e l y . Behavioral control allows people to take action that f o r e s t a l l s aversive events. For example, basketball players who fear they w i l l play poorly against a highly rated team w i l l worry about the f e a r f u l consequences (humiliation of defeat), however, those who believe they can manage t h e i r opponent w i l l focus on po s i t i v e aspects of the game and f e e l less anxious. Behavioral control, whether actual or perceived, makes events more predictable and reduces uncertainty and can therefore reduce the stressfulness of the event. Steptoe (1989) suggests that behavioral control emerges through an interaction between the person and the s i t u a t i o n and that i n order to understand a p a r t i c u l a r encounter " i t i s necessary to know prec i s e l y i n what ways events are amenable to change" (p. 311). Therefore, i t seems important not only to examine control i n the o v e r a l l s i t u a t i o n but also to study control over s p e c i f i c events i n the si t u a t i o n . Cognitive control allows people to believe that they can manage f e a r f u l situations should they a r i s e . For example, i n evaluative situations (e.g., exams) people who dwell on t h e i r weaknesses instead of focusing on the task impair t h e i r performance (Sarason, 1978; Wine, 1971). Bandura (1988) states that the a b i l i t y to control negative thoughts requires not only s k i l l i n thought control but "a r e s i l i e n t s e l f - b e l i e f of e f f i c a c y to apply them consistently and p e r s i s t e n t l y " (p. 90). Af f e c t i v e control, perceived or r e a l control over one's emotions, has been studied by some researchers (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Hart, i n press). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) recognize that control i s a complex construct to study but should include control over the si t u a t i o n and over peoples' i n t e r n a l states. For example, i n a sport event, athletes may experience control of the situation, control over the s k i l l s they are about to perform, and control over t h e i r emotional state separately. Perhaps, lack of one type of control may or may not a f f e c t the other types. Researchers usually do not study control i n i s o l a t i o n from other psychological constructs. Some researchers suggest that control i s mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectancy (Bandura et a l . , 1982; Bandura, 1986, 1988; Bandura & Wood, 1989; L i t t , 1988a, 1988b). S e l f - e f f i c a c y Expectancy as a Mediator of Control People who believe themselves to be highly s e l f -e f f i c a c i o u s f i n d ways to change environments that o f f e r l i m i t e d opportunities for change, the reverse i s true for low s e l f - e f f i c a c i o u s people (Bandura & Wood, 1989; L i t t , 1988a). Bandura and Wood (1989) studied 60 (40 male, 20 female) graduate business students who participated i n managing a simulated organization over 18 sessions. Students were led to believe that the organization was co n t r o l l a b l e or uncontrollable. The h i g h - c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y condition portrayed the organization as predictable and co n t r o l l a b l e whereas the low c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y condition portrayed the organization as d i f f i c u l t to predict and control. In addition, within these two groups, performance standards were easy or d i f f i c u l t . Perceived s e l f - e f f i c a c y and organizational performance (number of production hours for each t r i a l ) data were collected a f t e r session 6, 12, and 18. Results of ANOVA indicated that s e l f - e f f i c a c y was enhanced fo r students i n the h i g h - c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y condition. A second ANOVA (2X3) high c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y - l o w standard, high c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y - h i g h standard across 3 d i f f e r e n t times, indicated that students who had been i n the easy (low) performance standard condition enhanced t h e i r s e l f - e f f i c a c y , whereas students i n the d i f f i c u l t condition lowered t h e i r s e l f - e f f i c a c y . Students i n the l o w - c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y condition decreased t h e i r l e v e l of s e l f - e f f i c a c y regardless of whether they were i n the easy or d i f f i c u l t performance group. Students i n the h i g h - c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y condition also attained higher performance lev e l s than those i n the low-c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y group. In addition to several ANOVAs that explained the relationship among the 4 conditions, the causal ordering of factors was tested by path analysis. In the path model, past interview performance influenced perceived s e l f - e f f i c a c y , personal goal setting, and performance on the f i r s t interview (path c o e f f i c i e n t s .45, .38, .60). S e l f - e f f i c a c y influenced a n a l y t i c strategies that led to performance. A l l path c o e f f i c i e n t s were s i g n i f i c a n t at E<.05. For the second set of interviews, performance on the f i r s t interview influenced s e l f - e f f i c a c y and subsequent performance for the second interview (path c o e f f i c i e n t s .24, .33). S e l f - e f f i c a c y influenced performance goals and performance (path c o e f f i c i e n t s .71, .29). Although Bandura and Wood (1989) indicated that they were t e s t i n g the causal structure of the model and suggested that the causal structure f i t s c l o s e l y to the t h e o r e t i c a l model, information regarding the f i t or other aspects of the path model (e.g., why some paths were deleted) were not reported. In summary, situations perceived as c o n t r o l l a b l e enhance s e l f - e f f i c a c y and performance, whereas sit u a t i o n s perceived as uncontrollable, even i f the task i s easy, lead to lower s e l f - e f f i c a c y and performance suggesting that s e l f -e f f i c a c y i s a mediator of control appraisal. This notion i s supported i n research by Bandura (1982), Bezjak and Lee (1990), and L i t t (1988b). L i t t (1988b) studied 62 female undergraduates p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a cold-pressor task over 3 occasions. The students were assigned to 5 d i f f e r e n t groups: (a) high-e f f i c a c y ; low-efficacy group, (b) low-efficacy; high e f f i c a c y group, (c) low-efficacy; low-efficacy group, and (d) a control group. Students i n the high-efficacy groups were t o l d that t h e i r performance (using hand warming to cope) was i n the 90th percentile, whereas the low-efficacy groups were t o l d that t h e i r performance was i n the 37th pe r c e n t i l e . Students were t o l d that the purpose was to study i n d i v i d u a l control strategies. Results indicated that students who tolerated the cold-pressor task longer had higher l e v e l s of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and perceived control and performed best when both factors were high. However, students who performed longer also reported the most pain. The researchers suggested that " s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectations determine preference for control and persistence i n an aversive s i t u a t i o n " (p. 157) and that highly s e l f -e f f i c a c i o u s individuals benefit the most from the use of control. Bandura and Wood's (1989) study supports the notion that s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s a mediator between control and performance. More f i e l d studies (e.g., sport events) t e s t i n g s e l f - e f f i c a c y as a mediator of control and performance need to be conducted because only a few studies have focused on the r e l a t i o n s h i p of control and s e l f - e f f i c a c y i n nonlab sit u a t i o n s . The relationship between s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control i n a natural setting, where neither s e l f - e f f i c a c y nor control were manipulated, need to be tested empirically. Another strength of Bandura and Wood's study was the use of multivariate analyses i n conjunction with causal modeling. Multiv a r i a t e analyses were used to determine change over time under conditions of c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y . Similar analyses were conducted for the relationship between perceived s e l f -e f f i c a c y and perceived control i n the organizations. Path analysis was used to test the model, however, many questions regarding the model were not addressed (e.g.. What was Goodness-of-fit for each t r i a l , how and why the model was modified?). Links Between Lazarus' and Bandura's Theories To summarize what i s known about coping and appraisal, i t i s important to examine commonalties between Lazarus' stress and coping theory and Bandura's Social Learning Theory. Both of these theories focus on s p e c i f i c events as they unfold over time. Lazarus and Folkman's theory concentrates more on the constructs of coping and appraisal but also addresses the importance of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to performance. Bandura focuses more on s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectation and performance but also addresses the importance of coping. Both theories r e a l i z e the importance of other constructs such as anxiety and control appraisal but view these as being mediated by appraisal and coping i n r e l a t i o n to performance. The way that coping i s studied i n Lazarus and Folkman's research seems to f i l l a major gap i n research that focuses on s e l f - e f f i c a c y and performance. For example, although Bandura notes the importance of coping behavior and performance, most studies of s e l f - e f f i c a c y do not i d e n t i f y or measure the cognitive and behavioral coping strategies people use as an encounter unfolds. Identifying the coping strategies that high or low s e l f - e f f i c a c i o u s people use when they perform would enhance our understanding of performance e s p e c i a l l y i n regard to what constitutes e f f e c t i v e coping during d i f f e r e n t stages of performance. Bandura's extensive research on s e l f - e f f i c a c y i d e n t i f i e s an appraisal ( s e l f -efficacy) that has been shown to predict performance under many d i f f e r e n t conditions. Given the extensive research from both theories, one would expect that using the strengths of both theories would help researchers better understand how appraisal and coping r e l a t e to coping effectiveness i n s t r e s s f u l s ituations. Therefore, the next section of t h i s paper reviews coping effectiveness. Coping Effectiveness Evidence for the effectiveness of coping i s often i n d i r e c t (Menaghan, 1983). Coping effectiveness i s sometimes defined as the respondent's claim that the strategy was he l p f u l or the problem was solved (McCrae & Costa, 1986). At other times, i t i s defined as a reduction i n psychological symptoms such as emotional states (Felton & Revenson, 1984; Turner, Clancy, & V i t a l i a n o , 1987) or as the pattern of r e l a t i o n s h i p s or the " f i t " between cognitive appraisal and coping strategy (Aldwin & Revenson, 1987; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986; Forsythe & Compas, 1987) . Few researchers have studied models of coping effectiveness i n challenging situations. McCrae and Costa (1986) report the findings from two research studies involving adult community residents. P a r t i c i p a n t s i n the studies were 406 adults (Study 1, n=255, 101 females, 154 males; Study 2, n=151, 71 females, 80 males) from a previous longitudinal study of aging. The purpose of the study was to examine the influence of personality on coping responses, the perceived effectiveness of coping strategies, and the effects of coping and personality on well-being. Participants were contacted by mail to complete a personality inventory consisting of: (a) a neuroticism scale, (b) an extraversion scale, and (c) an openness scale. Participants were also asked to i d e n t i f y 3 s t r e s s f u l events (loss, threat, challenge) that occurred over the past 6 months. Approximately one month l a t e r , p a r t i c i p a n t s were sent a coping questionnaire and asked to respond i n reference to the stressors i d e n t i f i e d e a r l i e r . A f t e r each coping item the participants were asked "Did i t help solve the problem?" (yes/no) and "Did i t make you f e e l better?" Thus, two types of coping effectiveness were measured: (a) problem-solving effectiveness and (b) stress reduction effectiveness. C o r r e l a t i o n a l analysis indicated that neuroticism was associated with h o s t i l i t y , withdrawal, escape, wishful thinking, and p a s s i v i t y . Extraversion was associated with p o s i t i v e thinking and r e s t r a i n t , and open individuals were more l i k e l y to use humor in s t r e s s f u l encounters than closed i n d i v i d u a l s . Rank order findings indicated that seeking help, i d e n t i f i e d as problem-focused coping i n t h i s study, and expressing feelings, an emotion-focused coping strategy were considered the most e f f e c t i v e coping strategies for a l l s t r e s s f u l events (e.g., challenge, loss, threat). Self-blame and wishful thinking were l i s t e d as the least e f f e c t i v e coping strategies. Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, and DeLongis, (1986) s i m i l a r l y found that planful problem solving and seeking s o c i a l support were associated with reductions i n psychological symptoms. McCrae and Costa suggest that e f f e c t i v e coping strategies are s i m i l a r regardless of the s t r e s s f u l encounter i d e n t i f i e d . Other researchers, however, have found that individuals cope d i f f e r e n t l y i n d i f f e r e n t situations (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, Delongis, & Gruen, 1986; P e a r l i n & Schooler, 1978). For example, i n challenging situations, one would expect to perceive more control and cope i n a more problem-focused manner than i n threatening situations perceived as less c o n t r o l l a b l e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , within challenging, threatening, and loss encounters differences in coping would be expected depending on the duration of the stress, the stage of the s t r e s s f u l event, and the importance of the event. In McCrae and Costa's study, coping was assessed by asking people to r e c a l l how they coped with an event that may have occurred 9 months previous. Participants were not asked to focus on any p a r t i c u l a r stage of the s t r e s s f u l encounter. Stone et a l . (1991) suggest that not focusing on a s p e c i f i c stage confounds the coping measure because people may respond to d i f f e r e n t stages of the event d i f f e r e n t l y (e.g., during the s t r e s s f u l event, after the event). E f f e c t i v e coping at one stage may be i n e f f e c t i v e at another stage of the s t r e s s f u l event. In addition, the coping questionnaire was completed from 1 to 9 months a f t e r the stressors were i d e n t i f i e d . I t i s possible that pa r t i c i p a n t s may view the stressor d i f f e r e n t l y with such a great time lapse and they may also have d i f f i c u l t y remembering exactly what they did or f e l t . I t i s also possible that the event may not have the same importance as i t did 9 months e a r l i e r . An additional concern i n t h i s study i s the inter p r e t a t i o n of c o r r e l a t i o n a l analysis. These researchers state that "open individuals are more l i k e l y to use humor i n dealing with str e s s " (p. 392). Correlational analysis determines the degree of relationship between variables not the d i r e c t i o n of rel a t i o n s h i p . Perhaps indiv i d u a l s with a sense of humor are more l i k e l y to be open. In summary, the above study suggests that coping e f f o r t s help determine coping effectiveness. Coping e f f o r t s , however, are adaptive depending on the s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n , how the s i t u a t i o n i s appraised, and the duration of the s t r e s s f u l encounter. Therefore, i t seems important to explore the rela t i o n s h i p between cognitive appraisal and coping i n order to better understand coping effectiveness. Two studies are reviewed to explore the relationships between coping appraisals and coping e f f o r t s . Forsythe and Compas (1987) studied 84 (32 male and 52 female) college students to determine the "goodness of f i t " between c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y and coping. Students were asked to record the most s t r e s s f u l l i f e event during the past 6 months and the most s t r e s s f u l d a i l y events from the past 2 weeks. They then rated c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y appraisals for the event (e.g., I had a great deal of control) and whether the event was caused by someone else (external) or caused by themselves ( i n t e r n a l ) . Coping was assessed with a revised version of WCC (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Psychological symptoms were assessed with the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-Derogatis et a l . , 1974). Results of t - t e s t analysis indicated that students i n co n t r o l l a b l e situations used a higher proportion of problem-to emotion-focused coping for major l i f e events. This f i n d i n g i s supported i n research by Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, and Gruen (1986) and suggests that how people cope may be more important than the number of coping strategies they use. Six (2X2) ANOVAS were conducted on the l i f e event and d a i l y event stressors to determine high and low levels of control appraisals and problem-focused coping; control appraisals and emotion-focused coping; and, control appraisals and r a t i o of problem- and emotion-focused coping. Highs and lows were determined by median s p l i t s . Findings for l i f e events indicated that students who perceived events as c o n t r o l l a b l e reported lower symptoms and used more problem-focused coping supporting the "goodness of f i t " hypothesis. However, for students who used more problem-focused coping i n events perceived as uncontrollable, higher symptoms were reported. The researchers suggest that lack of a si m i l a r finding for d a i l y events may be due to differences i n the stressors reported. For d a i l y events, most stressors were rel a t e d to school (e.g., exams), whereas l i f e event stressors were much more serious (e.g., death of a r e l a t i v e ) . Perceived control over a l i f e event was not associated with symptoms suggesting that other variables may mediate control appraisal. Indeed low control appraisal was re l a t e d to higher symptoms only when coping strategies (e.g., problem-focused coping) intended to change the stressor were used. Overall, Forsythe and Compas' study stresses the importance of i d e n t i f y i n g both appraisal and coping to understand the concept of coping effectiveness. Only one study has tested a model for coping effectiveness i n a challenging s i t u a t i o n . Stumpf et a l . (1987) studied 78 graduate business students during a job interview task (the t h i r d out of 10 interviews) to determine how people cope e f f e c t i v e l y with work-related performance. It was hypothesized that s e l f - e f f i c a c y would be negatively r e l a t e d to emotion-focused coping; s e l f - e f f i c a c y would have a p o s i t i v e relationship with actual performance; emotion-focused coping would be negatively related to actual and perceived performance; past performance and current performance would be negatively related with anxiety at time 1 ; and actual performance would be related to current performance. One and one half hours pr i o r to the interview, measures of verbal persuasion, perceived past interview performance, anxiety (somatic), and s e l f - e f f i c a c y questionnaires were administered. After the interview, the WCC (emotion-focused coping items only; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980), perceived performance during the interview, and anxiety questionnaires were collected. Actual interview performance ratings were also collected. Data were analyzed f i r s t by path analysis then by h i e r a r c h i c a l multiple regression to examine the variance accounted for by the variables. Results indicated that path c o e f f i c i e n t s from past performance to s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectations and anxiety at time 1 were s i g n i f i c a n t (E<.05, bs=.66. - . 4 8 ) . Students who perceived t h e i r past performance interview as favorable reported higher lev e l s of s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectancy and lower l e v e l s of anxiety than students who perceived t h e i r past performance as poor. Past performance to actual performance was s i g n i f i c a n t but only moderately so (b= .20) . This finding i s s i m i l a r to Feltz's (1982) r e s u l t s , however, one would expect the relationship to be stronger in t h i s study because the past performance task was very similar to the performance task. Actual performance was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to perceived current performance (b=.39). This finding may be due to the students experience with the task. Also, t h i s was only the second interview of 10 and perhaps the student and interviewer had similar expectations for the task. The d i r e c t path c o e f f i c i e n t from s e l f - e f f i c a c y to emotion-focused coping was s i g n i f i c a n t (b=-.34). As hypothesized more s e l f - e f f i c a c i o u s students focused more on the task at hand and used less emotion-focused coping. Bandura (1986) supports t h i s finding and suggests that more s e l f - e f f i c a c i o u s people are less self-focused and therefore more task-focused. S e l f - e f f i c a c y was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to actual performance. This i s not surp r i s i n g because the interviewers actual rating was based on a comparison with other students, whereas the students perceived performance rating was based on how they compared to t h e i r l a s t interview. The students had an opportunity to practice over a number of interviews and therefore t h e i r own assessment was probably more accurate than that of the interviewer. Anxiety at time 1 (before the interview) had a s i g n i f i c a n t d i r e c t e f f e c t on s e l f - e f f i c a c y expectations (b=-.24) and on anxiety at time 2 (after the interview, b=.44). Anxiety 1 was not hypothesized to re l a t e to performance. However, anxiety 1 was related to s e l f - e f f i c a c y 1 and s e l f -e f f i c a c y 1 was related to performance suggesting that performance and anxiety were mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y . Bandura (1977) suggests that when s e l f - e f f i c a c y i s cont r o l l e d the anxiety/performance rela t i o n s h i p disappears and therefore s e l f - e f f i c a c y mediates the re l a t i o n s h i p between anxiety and performance. Emotion-focused coping rela t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y to current perceived performance (b=-.23) and to anxiety 2 (b=.23) but actual performance, however, was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to emotion-focused coping. Some recent studies have found that perceived performance has a stronger relationship with coping and s e l f - e f f i c a c y compared to actual performance ( M i l l e r & McAuley, 1987). I t seems that people experienced with the task are more accurate judges of t h e i r performance than others. The next stage of analysis was model trimming. Three nonsignificant paths were deleted (verbal persuasion to s e l f - e f f i c a c y ; s e l f - e f f i c a c y to actual performance; emotion-focused coping to actual performance). Path c o e f f i c i e n t s were recalculated and a l l were s i g n i f i c a n t , E<.05. S i g n i f i c a n t i n d i r e c t e f f e cts were i d e n t i f i e d for: past performance and emotion-focused coping through s e l f - e f f i c a c y (-.26); past performance and current performance through s e l f - e f f i c a c y (.19). These findings suggest that s e l f -e f f i c a c y i s a mediator of performance and emotion-focused coping. In addition, perceived performance i n d i r e c t l y affected anxiety 2 through s e l f - e f f i c a c y and emotion-focused coping. H i e r a r c h i c a l regressions were performed to determine the variance accounted for i n outcome variables. Perceived current performance was accounted for by actual performance (18%), emotion-focused coping (9%), and s e l f - e f f i c a c y (4%). Twelve percent of the variance i n emotion-focused coping was accounted for by s e l f - e f f i c a c y . Thirty-one percent of the variance i n s e l f - e f f i c a c y was due to anxiety at time 1, whereas 34% was due to past performance. In summary, Stumpf et a l . ' s (1987) research emphasizes the important relationships of s e l f - e f f i c a c y , coping, and perceived performance when studying coping effectiveness. However, examining students across two interviews rather than one allows the researchers to i d e n t i f y the relat i o n s h i p s of the variables as they change over time. In the present study, only anxiety was measured twice. S e l f -e f f i c a c y may rel a t e d i f f e r e n t i a l l y to other variables i n the model as performance changes. In Stumpf et al . ' s (1987) study s e l f - e f f i c a c y and emotion-focused coping were related to perceived performance but not to actual performance. Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, Delongis, and Gruen (1986) also reported s i g n i f i c a n t relationships among appraisal, coping, and perceived outcome (satisfactory, unsatisfactory). Both studies found a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the pattern of appraisal and coping e f f o r t s i n r e l a t i o n to perceived performance/outcome (e.g., high levels of s e l f - e f f i c a c y , problem-solving coping, and reappraisal coping i n r e l a t i o n to better perceived performance). Therefore, i t i s important i n both challenging and threatening situations to study the patterns of appraisals and coping on performance as i t changes over time. An important aspect of Stumpf et a l . ' s (1987) study i s the use of path analysis that allows researchers to study both d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t relationships of variables. Path analyses have recently been used i n stress and coping studies (Wagner, Compas, & Howell, 1988) because these analyses allow researchers to test the " f i t " of a model (the degree to which the equations can reproduce the pattern of corr e l a t i o n s or covariances among the va r i a b l e s ) . Causal modeling analysis also provides a te s t of differences between d i f f e r e n t models to determine the model that best f i t s the data. Sport Research On Coping Effectiveness Coping effectiveness i n sport events has been studied i n d i r e c t l y . For example, sport researchers have tended to focus on anxiety and past performance as predictors of performance (Sonstroem & Bernardo, 1982; Taylor, 1989; Weinberg, 1978), s e l f - e f f i c a c y as a predictor of performance (Feltz, 1982; Weinberg et a l . , 1979), or s e l f - e f f i c a c y , anxiety and past performance i n r e l a t i o n to performance (Feltz, 1982, 1988; McAuley, 1985). Few studies, however. have linked coping i n a sport s i t u a t i o n to s e l f - e f f i c a c y , anxiety, and performance. Although anxiety has been the focus of many research studies, some researchers have f a i l e d to f i n d s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between anxiety and performance (Gould, P e t l i c h k o f f , & Weinberg, 1984; K a r t e r o l i o t i s & G i l l , 1987; Maynard & Howe, 1987; McAuley, 1985). Kerr (1987) suggests that one of the problems with current research on anxiety and performance i s the s i m p l i c i t y of rel a t i o n s h i p s . For example, some researchers suggest that high or low l e v e l s of anxiety enhance performance under certain conditions, whereas others suggest a moderate (optimal) l e v e l i s most b e n e f i c i a l for performance. Kerr suggests that i t i s the interp r e t a t i o n of arousal depending on the motivational state of the athlete that i s important ( i . e . , whether the athlete f e e l s anxiety-avoidance or excitement seeking). High arousal may be interpreted as challenging and pleasant or as threatening and unpleasant, alternately low arousal may be interpreted as relaxation or boredom. This notion challenges the unidimensional label commonly used i n anxiety research ( i . e . , high and low anxiety). Kerr emphasizes the importance of appraisal and suggests that anxiety should be studied i n conjunction with appraisal. Past performance i s a powerful source of information (Bandura, 1977). However, people sometimes use f a u l t y appraisals when judging t h e i r performance. For example, people who at t r i b u t e t h e i r performance to external factors rather than i n t e r n a l factors may doubt t h e i r performance and perform poorly. As mentioned e a r l i e r , past performance i s measured d i f f e r e n t l y i n most studies and t h i s also may account for the lack of relationship with performance. Focusing on past performance and anxiety does not explain how highly anxious athletes with poor performance records sometimes perform better than t h e i r less anxious, highly rated competitors. Self-confidence and s e l f - e f f i c a c y have been advocated as c r i t i c a l psychological s k i l l s i n a t h l e t i c performance. Sport researchers studying intervention techniques to enhance athletes performance address the importance of coping strategies i n r e l a t i o n to s e l f - e f f i c a c y , anxiety, and performance. For example, Weinberg et a l . (1979) suggest that teaching the athlete to focus attention on p o s i t i v e aspects of performance reduces anxiety and enhances performance. Larsson et a l . (1988) taught athletes coping s k i l l s (relaxation, p o s i t i v e s e l f - t a l k , imagery) and found that a f t e r the intervention the athletes appraised competitions as less threatening and used less negative thinking during competition. These intervention studies i d e n t i f y the important factors ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y , anxiety, control, coping efforts) influencing performance but they do not present a t h e o r e t i c a l model of coping effectiveness. One model that has been developed but has only been tested on a small number of athletes i s the COPE model (Anshel, 1990). Anshel (1990) studied 35 (24 male, 15 female) undergraduate baseball and s o f t b a l l players under conditions of induced c r i t i c a l feedback from t h e i r coach. A l l p a r t i c i p a n t s were required to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study by the head coach. The purpose of the study was to t e s t the effectiveness of an intervention program for teaching coping strategies. The athletes were randomly assigned to 3 groups: (a) treatment group with a counsellor for stress inoculation and cognitive control management, (b) placebo group with a leader to watch sport videos, and (c) no treatment group that d i d not meet except for administration of questionnaires. A l l players were subjected to negative feedback from an "expert" aft e r a practise. The treatment group and placebo group met for three one hour sessions over three weeks. Questionnaires (e.g., self-esteem, fear of negative evaluation, control, affect, and a t t r i b u t i o n measures) were administered at pre-intervention and post-intervention. ANCOVA results indicated no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between groups for self-esteem. S i g n i f i c a n t differences were found for fear of negative evaluation and negative a f f e c t , suggesting that for the p a r t i c i p a t i n g athletes, a 3-session coping intervention helped them change s e l f - t a l k from negative to pos i t i v e as well as reducing t h e i r negative a f f e c t . Although there were 35 students p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the study, only data from 20 students were used for the study. Group i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the 15 students without complete data was not reported. This information i s important i f evaluation of a model or intervention i s the purpose of the study. Why were the participants not tested? Could t h i s have been due to the fact that the p a r t i c i p a n t s were not volunteers? Were males' or females' data excluded? Gender differences were reported and i t was suggested they were due to the negative f e e l i n g the men held towards t h e i r coach, whereas the women held p o s i t i v e feelings toward t h e i r coach. In summary, there has been no d i r e c t research on a model of coping effectiveness for challenging a t h l e t i c competitions. Although Martens et a l . (1990) suggest the need to investigate psychological factors such as s e l f -confidence i n conjunction with other psychological factors, only a few studies address t h i s area of research. Kerr (1987) emphasizes the importance of appraisal, the athletes' feelings, and motivational state when studying performance. However, although some researchers focus on constructs such as s e l f - e f f i c a c y , anxiety, and coping, they do not l i n k theory with practice, or the interventions have been too short i n duration to t e s t the theory or model advocated. Counselling Implications For Performance Enhancement From the review of l i t e r a t u r e , i t i s evident that empirical studies on stress and coping and sport intervention i d e n t i f y psychological factors such as s e l f -e f f i c a c y , control, anxiety, and coping strategies as important for performance enhancement. The major focus of programs designed to enhance sport performance seem to be anxiety management for athletes exhibiting under-arousal (Whelan, Epkins, & Meyers, 1990; Weinberg et a l . , 1981) or over-arousal (Murphy & Woolfoik, 1987; Smith, 1989; Suinn, 1987; Woolfolk & Lehrer, 1984). Some researchers also focus on the r e l a t i o n s h i p among constructs such as s e l f - e f f i c a c y and anxiety and, to a lesser extent, on coping (Anshel, 1990; Fe l t z & Reissinger, 1990; Larsson et a l . , 1988), however, these studies have f a i l e d to provide a model of coping effectiveness based on psychological theory that can be tested i n challenging a t h l e t i c events. There i s a need to develop a model of coping effectiveness that includes t h e o r e t i c a l l y sound psychological constructs ( i . e . , s e l f -e f f i c a c y , coping, anxiety, control) and i d e n t i f i e s s p e c i f i c combinations of these constructs as they r e l a t e to performance s a t i s f a c t i o n and coping effectiveness i n challenging situations. This w i l l allow p r a c t i t i o n e r s to more c l e a r l y understand and determine factors that have the greatest impact on performance and that contribute most to coping effectiveness. For example, for some athletes, enhancing s e l f - e f f i c a c y may lower anxiety and thus enhance performance. However, for other athletes, i t may be more b e n e f i c i a l to develop additional coping strategies or focus on p o s i t i v e s e l f - t a l k to improve performance and reduce anxiety i f warranted. Summary In summary, Lazarus' and Bandura's theories suggest that appraisal i s a key construct i n determining coping and performance. Most research has focused on s t r e s s f u l events that are perceived as threatening rather than challenging and s t r e s s f u l events that are studied at one point i n time. In addition, appraisal, coping, and performance have been studied but without concern for effectiveness. No sport studies have explored secondary appraisal (control, s e l f -efficacy) and coping (engagement, disengagement) i n r e l a t i o n to sport performance as the events unfold over time. Understanding how the relationships between appraisal, coping, and performance determine coping effectiveness may be useful to counsellors who work with people who are having d i f f i c u l t y coping i n a variety of situations. METHOD Subjects and Procedures Female basketball, soccer, and f i e l d hockey players were s o l i c i t e d from university, college, community, and secondary school teams v i a l e t t e r s to t h e i r coaches (descriptive s t a t i s t i c s for the participants are found i n the Results section). Coaches were then contacted by telephone to request t h e i r teams p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the project and to set a date for the research. See Appendix A for a copy of the l e t t e r and b r i e f description of the project. P r i o r to the contest, athletes met with research assistants who discussed the research project with them and emphasized that the research project was only for par t i c i p a n t s who volunteer. A t o t a l of 24 coaches were contacted and 20 teams were tested. Data from 178 athletes met the c r i t e r i a for inclusion i n the study. The c r i t e r i a for i n c l u s i o n were: (a) participants scoring greater than 3 for challenge emotions—confidence, hopeful, and eager (and scoring at least 1 on the open-ended challenge question), and (b) scoring more than 1 on the importance (something at stake) question. C r i t e r i a were determined from a p i l o t study. For the s p e c i f i c scales see Appendix A. Although 210 athletes participated i n the research, a l l of the pa r t i c i p a n t s ' data were not included i n the analyses because (a) they were tested during a tournament and could only compete i n one round of the competition (n=15), (b) they had incomplete data (n=6), or (c) they did not meet the i n i t i a l c r i t e r i a for importance and challenge (basketball, n=7; f i e l d hockey, soccer (n=4). The data included i n the study were from 178 athletes. Procedures for the basketball contest. A l l players were i n v i t e d to pa r t i c i p a t e i n a free-throw contest scheduled as part of a team practice. Players from each team were randomly assigned to smaller teams of 4 or 5 players. The smaller teams competed i n two rounds of competition. In each round, players shot 2 consecutive free-throws u n t i l each player had completed 8 free-throws. Two shots are the number t y p i c a l l y awarded to players i n a basketball game. Eight shots rather than 10 shots ( t y p i c a l l y shot during practice) added an element of challenge (uncertainty) to the contest since most players were less certain of how many shots they could score out of 8 than out of 10. During the contest, players not shooting rebounded for the shooter. The competitions took approximately one hour depending on the number of participants. Small prizes (T-shirts, water bottles) were awarded to the winning teams. At each free-throw contest data were c o l l e c t e d on 5 occasions. Fifteen minutes pr i o r to the competition, c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , a rationale for the study, and informed consent were explained by the research assistant to each group of participants. The participants were then asked to complete an informed consent. See Appendix A for the informed consent form. Five minutes p r i o r to the f i r s t performance primary appraisal questionnaires (stakes, emotions), secondary appraisal questionnaires ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y , control), and a state anxiety questionnaire were administered. A f t e r a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s at a p a r t i c u l a r basket had attempted 8 shots, a performance s a t i s f a c t i o n questionnaire and a sport s p e c i f i c coping questionnaire were administered. To control for the influence of performance and coping questionnaires on responses, both questionnaires were counter balanced. Individual and team res u l t s were recorded by each assistant i n order to determine the winner of the contest. Upon completion of the questionnaires. Round 2 of the contest commenced. The two tes t i n g sessions during Round 2 followed the same format as for Round 1. However, af t e r Round 2 athletes also completed a demographic questionnaire. A l l teams were thanked for p a r t i c i p a t i n g and any questions they had were answered. Players were informed that t h e i r coaches would be sent a f i n a l report of the study. F i n a l l y , prizes were awarded. See Appendix A for s p e c i f i c Testing Procedures. Procedures for the f i e l d hockey and soccer contests. A l l players were inv i t e d to participate i n a penalty-shot contest during one of t h e i r practices or as part of a tournament (After the f i r s t attempt to te s t at a tournament only practices were used because there was not enough time for most teams to complete both rounds of competition). Teams competed i n two rounds of competition. In each round. at each goal, players shot one shot at a time u n t i l each player had attempted 5 shots. One shot i s t y p i c a l i n a game and 5 shots were thought to generate a competition consistent with the basketball task. Data were c o l l e c t e d on 5 occasions (15 minutes pr i o r to Round 1; 5 minutes p r i o r to Round 1; immediatly aft e r Round 1; and p r i o r to and a f t e r Round 2) i n the same manner as the basketball free-throw contest. See Appendix A Schema for tes t procedures. S i m i l a r i t i e s and differences i n tasks. Both tasks involved team competitions during a practice or tournament. Research assistants tested a maximum of 6 players at one time. Both tasks are s k i l l s used i n the game. However, goalies were used for the f i e l d hockey and soccer task i n order to make the tasks as game l i k e as possible. Goalies changed goals a f t e r the f i r s t round of competition. In addition, the number of shots d i f f e r e d because of the nature of the task. It takes only a few seconds to shoot 2 free-throws, whereas, i t takes longer to l i n e up and shoot a penalty-shot on goal. Therefore, during the same amount of time, basketball players shot a t o t a l of 16 shots, whereas f i e l d hockey/soccer players shot a t o t a l of 10 shots. Training Process for Research Assistants Research assistants (one for each group of participants) were female graduate students from the University of B r i t i s h Columbia fa m i l i a r with basketball, soccer, or f i e l d hockey. Two tra i n i n g sessions were held before the actual data c o l l e c t i o n to discuss the rationale to be presented to the athletes and to review the s p e c i f i c procedures involved for c o l l e c t i n g data i n order to ensure s i m i l a r i t y of approach across the 3 tasks and across the d i f f e r e n t competitions. The ra t i o n a l e presented to the participants included (a) purpose—to study how women experience competition (few studies on women i n sport, limited research on what athletes a c t u a l l y think and do, and, how they f e e l during competition), (b) c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y — o n l y the investigator and her supervisor have access to the data (no access to coaches or anyone e l s e ) , (c) importance of honesty—how you ac t u a l l y f e e l — n o r i g h t or wrong answers, and (d) informed consent-volunteer project—may withdraw at any time. A l l research assistants were then asked to par t i c i p a t e i n a p i l o t study to practice the procedures before c o l l e c t i n g data f o r the study. See Appendix A for Protocol for Basketball, Soccer, and F i e l d Hockey Contests. Measures The measures included a demographic inventory, an appraisal questionnaire, a coping che c k l i s t , a performance questionnaire and a state anxiety questionnaire. See Appendix B for measures. The demographic questionnaire. Descriptive information on age, l e v e l of education attained, r e l a t i o n s h i p status, job t i t l e ( i f working), years of experience playing the sport, other sport involvement (level and years of p a r t i c i p a t i o n ) , related coaching, and general importance of sport to the athlete were collected from each player. Screening questionnaires. Two types of Primary appraisal (what i s at stake; perception of threat/challenge) were assessed. Stakes were assessed by statements previously i d e n t i f i e d by Hart and Cardozo (1988). The stakes i d e n t i f i e d by Hart and Cardozo were "the importance of the s i t u a t i o n " and "how much the s i t u a t i o n mattered." Respondents indicated on a 4-point L i k e r t scale (O="does not apply"; 3="applies a great deal") the extent that each stake was important i n the s t r e s s f u l encounter. The scale was scored by summing the ratings of the 2 items (range 0 to 6). Higher scores indicated greater stakes. Primary appraisal of threat, challenge, harm or benefit i d e n t i f i e d by Folkman and Lazarus (1985) i s determined by 15 adjectives that are thought to i d e n t i f y whether the p a r t i c i p a n t appraises the s t r e s s f u l encounter as one that involves threat, challenge, loss, or gain. Participants are asked to indicate on a 5-point L i k e r t scale (0="not at a l l " to 4="a great deal") the extent that they f e e l each emotion. Scales are scored by summing the ratings of each item. Alpha r e l i a b i l i t i e s for each scale based on 189 u n i v e r s i t y undergraduate students were: threat .80 (3 items); challenge .59 (3 items); harm .84 (5 items); and benefit .78 (4 items; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). Only the threat and challenge subscales were used i n the analysis for the purpose of screening p a r t i c i p a n t s . The harm and benefit subscales are not relevant to the screening process. This questionnaire was administered a f t e r the other primary appraisal questionnaire because i t asks individuals to i d e n t i f y emotions that are products of appraisals (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). I t was expected that participants would view the s i t u a t i o n as both a challenge and a threat. Data from pa r t i c i p a n t s who viewed the task as a threat only were not included i n the analysis because the focus of the study was on s i t u a t i o n s that are viewed as challenging. Both primary appraisal questionnaires were p i l o t e d to determine c r i t e r i a for including participants i n the study and to e s t a b l i s h v a l i d i t y (face v a l i d i t y ) and r e l i a b i l i t y (internal consistency) for these instruments i n sport competitions. See Appendix A for d e t a i l s of the Primary Appraisal c r i t e r i a . Predictor Variables Secondary appraisal. Secondary appraisal consisted of items representing control and s e l f - e f f i c a c y appraisals. Control was measured with 3 items previously used by Hart and Cardozo (1988) i n a study of 135 college students. The control items involved f e e l i n g i n control of emotions ("I f e e l i n control of my emotions"), behavior ("I f e e l i n control of what I am doing"), and the s i t u a t i o n ("I f e e l i n control of the s i t u a t i o n " ) . Respondents indicated on a 5-point L i k e r t scale (O="not at a l l " to 4="a great deal") the amount of control they f e l t in r e l a t i o n to the s i t u a t i o n . the task, and to t h e i r emotions. Scores range from 0 to 12 so that higher scores indicated more control. Secondary appraisals of s e l f - e f f i c a c y were measured using a scale modeled after Bandura's (1977) and more recently employed by Feltz and Riessinger (1990) and M i l l e r and McAuley (1987). The s e l f - e f f i c a c y scale asked players to indicate how confident they were that they could complete the number of shots l i s t e d (e.g., f i e l d hockey/soccer 2, 3, 4, out of 5, basketball 3, 5, 7, out of 8). The exact numbers for each l e v e l were determined by 3 experts from each sport. Each athlete was asked to rate on a 100-point scale (10="great uncertainty" to 100="complete certainty") her confidence i n her c a p a b i l i t i e s to a t t a i n her goal at each l e v e l . For t h i s study, only 2 of the 3 scores were used for each sport. P i l o t study re s u l t s found that most basketball players scored at least 3 of 8 baskets, therefore, only the second and t h i r d s e l f - e f f i c a c y scores (5 and 7 out of 8) were used i n the study for basketball players. For s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey players, very few were able to score 4 out of 5 goals due to the d i f f i c u l t y of the task. Therefore, only the f i r s t and second s e l f - e f f i c a c y scores (2 and 3 out of 5) were used for these players. Strength of s e l f - e f f i c a c y was determined by summing the c e r t a i n t y ratings across the 2 l e v e l s . Scores ranged from 2 0 to 2 00 so that higher scores indicated greater confidence. Anxiety. The Competitive Sport Anxiety Inventory-II (CSAI-2) developed by Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, and Smith (1982) i s a multidimensional questionnaire used to measure cognitive state anxiety, somatic state anxiety and self-confidence. The CSAI-2 l i s t s 27 items that athletes have used to describe t h e i r feelings before competition. Respondents indicate how they react to each item by responding on a 4-point Like r t scale from "not at a l l " to "very much so". Only the somatic scale was used for the analysis. The self-confidence and cognitive scales appear s i m i l a r to the appraisal measures and therefore were not used to allow the results to be more interprétable. Internal consistency measuring the degree that the subscales are homogeneous i s reported for three samples from the sports of wrestling and v o l l e y b a l l (Cronbach's alpha=.79 to .90) demonstrating a high degree of consistency for each scale. Concurrent v a l i d i t y was reported by determining the c o r r e l a t i o n s of the 3 subscales with 8 other state and t r a i t anxiety measures. A l l c o e f f i c i e n t s r e f l e c t the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the three scales i n precompetitive situations (precompetitive defined as within 1 hour of competition). Correlations vary from .30 to .67 between CSAI-Cognitive and CSAI-Somatic but variations are thought to be due to differences i n the sport events sampled. Normative information for each subscale for males and females at the high school l e v e l i n sports of basketball, golf, swimming, and track and f i e l d have been reported (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1990) . Coping strategies. Coping strategies were assessed with a revised 2-factor version of the Ways of Coping Checklist (WCC; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986). The two hypothesized factors, engagement and disengagement coping, were i d e n t i f i e d i n research by Tobin, Holroyd, Reynolds, and Wigal (1989) and Carver et a l . (1989). Engagement coping involves engaging i n active coping to manage the s i t u a t i o n (e.g., focusing p o s i t i v e l y on the task), and disengagement coping involves disengaging from the task (e.g., focusing negatively on the s e l f , avoiding the task). The revised instrument contained 50 items that describe a wide range of cognitive and behavioral strategies people use to manage stress. Participants were asked to "think about the a c t i v i t y you just performed and how you reacted during the performance" and then to "indicate the extent to which you used each of the following strategies during the a c t i v i t y just performed". Items were responded to on a 4-point L i k e r t scale (0="does not apply or not used" to 3="used a great deal"). For the present study, 46 items were taken d i r e c t l y from Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, and Gruen's (1986) Ways of Coping Checklist (WCC). Their WCC contains 2 problem-focused subscales (confrontive coping, pl a n f u l problem-solving), 5 emotion-focused coping subscales (distancing, s e l f - c o n t r o l l i n g , accepting r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , escape-avoidance, p o s i t i v e reappraisal) and 1 mixed subscale (seeking s o c i a l support). An additional 4 items were chosen from a scale "suppression of competing a c t i v i t i e s " developed by Carver et a l . (1989). For the present study 5 items not applicable to s p e c i f i c sport contests ( i . e . , Slept more than usual; I got professional help; Tried to get the person responsible to change his or her mind; Tried to make myself f e e l better by eating, drinking, smoking, using drugs or medication, and so forth; Found new faith) were deleted and 1 item containing 2 d i f f e r e n t ideas was formed into 2 separate items. Seven items were reworded s l i g h t l y f or c l a r i t y and conciseness (e.g., I t r i e d not to act too h a s t i l y — o r follow my f i r s t hunch, l a s t part deleted). Items from Carver et a l . (1989) were chosen because they are p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant for the sport situations i n that they i d e n t i f y strategies that concern focusing on the task and t r y i n g to avoid being distracted from the task. Focusing on the task i s considered important for good performance by many sport researchers (Nideffer, 1986; Suinn, 1987). See Appendix C fo r coping item revisions. Because there has not been a coping c h e c k l i s t developed s p e c i f i c a l l y for sport situations, the modified WCC was p i l o t e d i n order to tes t for the presence of a hypothesized higher-order factor structure (engagement, disengagement) and to develop a reduced questionnaire that would take less time to administer i n the sport setting. See Appendix C for re v i s i o n of the WCC and for the f i n a l Coping Checklist used in the study. Past Performance. Past performance was assessed with one item. Players were asked "how s a t i s f i e d do you f e e l with your performance i n your l a s t game?" (Smith & Ellsworth, 1987). Respondents indicated on a 5-point L i k e r t scale from "not at a l l " to "very s a t i s f i e d " how s a t i s f i e d they were with t h e i r performance. Performance. Player's perceived performance was assessed with two items. They were asked "how successful do you f e e l you were i n t h i s competition" ( M i l l e r & McAuley, 1987; Robinson & Howe, 1989) and "how s a t i s f i e d do you f e e l with your performance i n t h i s competition" (Smith & Ellsworth, 1987) . Respondents indicated on a 5-point L i k e r t scale from "not at a l l " to "very s a t i s f i e d / s u c c e s s f u l " how s a t i s f i e d / s u c c e s s f u l they were with t h e i r performance. Total points scored were also recorded by the research assistant while the task was performed. However, the performance measure, t o t a l points scored, was not part of the hypothesized analyses. M i l l e r and McAuley (1987) used both subjective (perceived performance) and objective (number of baskets scored) performance measures with 18 basketball players p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a free-shot contest. These researchers found that only the subjective measures were related to s e l f - e f f i c a c y . The present study used a subjective measure—the sum of the two items, perceived success and perceived s a t i s f a c t i o n . Higher scores indicated better perceived performance. P i l o t Study Two p i l o t studies were undertaken, one with f i e l d hockey players and one with basketball players. The purpose of the f i r s t study with f i e l d hockey players was to p i l o t the demographic questionnaire, primary appraisal questionnaires, coping checklist, and performance questionnaire. During the basketball p i l o t , I also administered the above questionnaires and (a) tested the procedures that were used i n the actual study over 2 rounds of competition, and (b) administered the secondary appraisal questionnaires. P i l o t study ( f i e l d hockey). Demographic information, primary appraisal questionnaires, a coping c h e c k l i s t , and 2 performance questions were administered i n the p i l o t study. (Coaches were approached during t h e i r practices or at t h e i r o f f i c e s to obtain permission to i n v i t e athletes to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study). The questionnaires were administered to 50 volunteer f i e l d hockey players p r i o r to and a f t e r they had completed a penalty shot contest. The purpose of the f i r s t primary appraisal questionnaire i s to determine the importance and stressfulness of the event. Carver et a l . (1989) considered events as s t r e s s f u l i f the item "was of importance to me" and "mattered to me a great deal" were rated either 3 or 4 on a 5-point scale (O="not at a l l " , 4="a great deal"). Hart and Cardozo (1988) also suggest that higher scores on the 2 items r e f l e c t greater importance. The p i l o t study established psychometric properties (internal consistency) for the items to determine standards by which to judge importance and stressfulness of an event. The purpose of p i l o t i n g the second primary appraisal questionnaire (emotion-subscales) was to es t a b l i s h r e l i a b i l i t y (internal consistency, Cronbach's Alpha) for the measure (4 scales) and to determine i f the event i s appraised as a challenge and/or threat by estab l i s h i n g s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a (norms) on which to base the judgement. See Appendix A for p i l o t r e s u l t s . P i l o t study (basketball). The basketball players completed the same questionnaires as the f i e l d hockey players. However, there was an additional opportunity (a) to te s t the procedures that were to be used i n the actual study over 2 rounds of competition and (b) to administer the secondary appraisal and anxiety questionnaires. In p a r t i c u l a r , for the s e l f - e f f i c a c y measure i t was important to examine the scoring of t h i s measure (e.g., l e v e l , strength) before i t was used i n the study proper. See Appendix A for r e s u l t s . Analysis of Data The r e l a t i o n s among the variables that describe coping effectiveness (appraisals, coping e f f o r t s , perceived performance) were examined using path analysis. In preparation for the path analysis the following proceduresq were followed. F i r s t , Chi-square analyses and ANOVAs were computed for the two groups (basketball, f i e l d hockey/soccer) on selected demographic variables to i d e n t i f y s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the groups that may e f f e c t the relationships i n the path model variables. Second, the LISREL VI program was used to conduct tests of equality of the covariance matrices of the two groups to determine i f the samples could be combined for further analyses. The models i n Figure 1 and 2 were then tested using path analysis (SPSS LISREL VI program). Path analysis provides a method for studying d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t e f f e c t s of variables hypothesized as causes of variables treated as e f f e c t s . This analysis provides estimates of path c o e f f i c i e n t s i n the model and an estimate of the Goodness-of-fit between the model and sample data. F i n a l l y , the models were modified based on the analysis of the o r i g i n a l t e s t . RESULTS Descriptive Statistics-Demographics The p a r t i c i p a n t s were female athletes, aged 16 to 28, from the sports of basketball (n=106, M age =18.7) and s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey (n=72, M age =20.4). Ninety-six percent of the basketball players and 97% of the s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey players were single, whereas the remaining athletes (4% basketball, 3% s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey) were married, divorced, or separated. A l l of the basketball players and 80% of the s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey players were f u l l time students. Eighteen percent of the basketball players and 26% of the s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey players had not completed grade 12, whereas 82% (basketball) and 72% (soc c e r / f i e l d hockey) were attending college or university. Twenty-six percent of the s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey players and 10% of the basketball players had a 4 or 5 year university degree and one s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey player had a post graduate degree. The number of years involved i n the chosen sport ranged from 1 to 17 (M=7.8, SD=2.6 for basketball; M=7.7, SD=4.3 for s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey). Five percent of the athletes from both sport groups had experience at the Olympic or National l e v e l . Forty-seven percent of the basketball players and 63% of the s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey players had experience at the Pr o v i n c i a l , University, or Senior A l e v e l , and 49% of the basketball players and 32% of the s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey players p a r t i c i p a t e d i n th e i r sport at the college or high school l e v e l . Seventy-nine percent of the basketball players and 67% of the s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey players indicated that sport was "very" important to them, whereas 21% of the basketball players and 32% of the s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey players indicated that sport was "moderately" to "quite" important to them. One f i e l d hockey player indicated that sport was only "somewhat" important to her. Ninety-two percent of the basketball players and 82% of the s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey players indicated that the research task was "moderately" or "very" challenging, whereas 9% (basketball) and 18% (soccer/field hockey) indicated that the task was "somewhat" challenging. See Table 1 for a summary of demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Chi-square tests and ANOVAs were computed for the two groups (basketball n=106; s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey n=72) to i d e n t i f y s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the groups that may a f f e c t the relationships among the model variables. Chi-square tests were used to test for differences i n the categorical variables, whereas ANOVAs were used to t e s t for differences between groups on the i n t e r v a l variables. See Appendix C for the s p e c i f i c variables used i n the analysis. The groups did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r on marital status, l e v e l of sport, the importance of sport, or the amount of challenge they f e l t i n the contests. However, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between groups fo r education (Chi-square (3,N=178)=13.59, E<.004). In general, s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey players were more heterogeneous than Demographic Characteristics of Female Athletes fn=178) Demographics Basketball (n=106) Soccer/Field Hockey (n=72) Age Years i n Sport M 18.7 7.8 SD 1.9 2.6 Percent M a r i t a l Status married/common law single divorced/separated/ F u l l Time Student F u l l / P a r t Time Work Educational Level less than grade 12 grade 12 completed college (2 or 3 yr.degree) u n i v e r s i t y (4 or 5 yr.degree) post univ e r s i t y degree Level of Sport Olympic National University P r o v i n c i a l Senior A College/High School Importance of Sport somewhat moderately quite very Challenge of the Task somewhat moderately very much so 2.8 96.2 0.9 100.0 17.9 59.4 12.2 10.4 4.7 34.9 11.3 49.1 2.8 17.9 79.2 8.5 51.9 39.6 M SD 20.4 3.2 7.7 4.3 Percent 2.8 97.2 79.2 22.3 26.4 37.5 8.3 26.4 1.4 2.8 2.8 38.9 8.3 15.3 31.9 1.4 5.6 26.4 66.7 18.1 43.1 38.9 basketball players with respect to education. A greater percent (26.4) had not completed grade 12 but a greater percent (27.8) had completed university (versus 17.9 and 10.4 for basketball). Two one-way ANOVAs were used to test for age differences and number of years playing the sport (experience) between the two groups. Results indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between groups for age, F(l,177)=18.31, E<.001. Basketball players were younger (M=18.7), whereas f i e l d hockey/soccer players were older (M=20.4). Results indicated a nonsignificant difference (F 1) between groups for experience. Both basketball players and f i e l d hockey/soccer players had a s i m i l a r number of years experience i n t h e i r sport (M=7.8; M=7.7). R e l i a b i l i t i e s of Scaled Variables R e l i a b i l i t i e s for the scaled variables range from .59 to .95. Only the r e l i a b i l i t i e s for the combined group (n=178) are reported here (see Table 2). Separate r e l i a b i l i t y tables for basketball players and s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey are reported i n Appendix D. S e l f - e f f i c a c y expectancy i n t e r n a l consistencies were .94 for Time 1 and .94 for Time 2, demonstrating a high degree of consistency for each scale. However, there i s not a standardized t e s t for s e l f -e f f i c a c y because expectancies are task s p e c i f i c and most studies do not use i d e n t i c a l tasks. For the control measure Means, Standard Deviations, and Internal Consistencies of Path Variables for Basketball. F i e l d Hockev. and Soccer Athletes fn=178) Variables Mean SD Internal Consistency Number of Items Scale Range Time 1 S e l f - e f f i c a c y 130.0 46.8 .94 2 1 - 100 Control 8.2 2.3 .71 3 0 4 Anxiety 15.9 5.0 .86 9 1 4 Time 2 S e l f - e f f i c a c y 135.4 49.4 .94 2 1 - 100 Control 8.1 2.5 .80 3 0 4 Anxiety 14.9 4.5 .85 9 1 4 Copina Time 1 Engage Coping 1.3^ .6 .81 11 0 3 Diseng Coping .6 .5 .73 7 0 3 Copina Time 2 Engage Coping 1.3 .6 .85 11 0 3 Diseng Coping .6 .5 .75 7 0 3 Performance Time 1 5.3 2.6 .94 2 1 5 Time 2 5.4 2.7 .95 2 1 5 Note. Engage=engagement coping, Diseng=disengagement coping, ^coping values are item means. r e l i a b i l i t i e s were .71 at Time 1 and .80 at Time 2. Hart and Cardozo (1986) report a r e l i a b i l i t y score of .77 for these 3 items plus an additional 3 items for 135 college students. R e l i a b i l i t i e s for somatic anxiety were .86 and .85. These r e l i a b i l i t i e s are s i m i l a r to those reported by Martens et a l . (1990) for male wrestlers and female c o l l e g i a t e v o l l e y b a l l players (.82). For engagement coping, r e l i a b i l i t i e s were .81 (time 1) and .85 (time 2), whereas disengagement coping r e l i a b i l i t i e s were .73 (Time 1) and .75 (Time 2) i n d i c a t i n g adequate r e l i a b i l i t y . Tobin et a l . (1989) reported r e l i a b i l i t i e s of .90 for engagement coping and .89 for disengagement coping for 398 u n i v e r s i t y students. However, each scale consisted of only 4 items. Performance r e l i a b i l i t i e s i n t h i s study were .95 (Time 1) and .95 (Time 2) indicating good r e l i a b i l i t y . Because t h i s measure was developed for t h i s study based on sing l e item questions from other studies, i t i s impossible to compare r e l i a b i l i t i e s to other studies. Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s — M o d e l Variables The means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis for the variables i n the path model are presented i n Table 3. As shown in the table, the two samples are s i m i l a r with the exception of the s e l f - e f f i c a c y scores, for which s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey players scored 8 points higher than basketball players at Time 1 and 20 points higher at Time 2. The greater increase i n s e l f - e f f i c a c y for s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey players may be attributed to the greater uncertainty D i s t r i b u t i o n Characteristics of Model Variables Basketball Soccer/Field Hockey (n=106) (n=72) Variables Mean SD Skew K Mean SD Skew K Time 1 Past Performance 3.1 1.3 -.29 -.86 2.9 1.1 -.29 -.86 S e l f - e f f i c a c y 126.8 48.5 -.27 -.99 134.8 44. 1 -.83 -.44 Control 8.4 2.5 -.55 -.27 7.9 2.1 -.29 .18 Anxiety 16.5 5.1 .86 .76 15.1 4.8 1.02 .62 Engagement 1.3 .6 .35 -.19 1.3 .6 . 04 -.80 Disengagement .7 .6 .91 .20 .7 .6 1.09 .63 Performance 5.2 2.6 .33 -1. 07 5.4 2.6 .47-•1.03 Time 2 S e l f - e f f i c a c y 127.3 53.2 -.22 -1.25 147.3 40.6 -1.04-•1.33 Control 8.0 2.8 -.24 -.68 8.3 2.2 -.08 -.52 Anxiety 15.6 4.8 .99 .67 13.9 3.7 .76 .86 Engagement 1.3 .6 .37 -.27 1.3 .6 .08 -.73 Disengagement .7 .6 1.04 1. 07 .5 .4 .75 -.20 Performance 5.2 2.7 .25 -1.31 5.6 2.7 . 19-•1.07 Note. Skew=skewness; K=kurtosis. (overconfidence) of the task. Because penalty shots are not practiced as often as basketball free-throws, there i s greater uncertainty of performance. However, once the athletes became fa m i l i a r with the task, during the f i r s t round of competition, they f e l t more confident that they could perform better i n the second round. For both groups the mean somatic anxiety scores (16.5 for basketball, 15.1 for s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey) are lower than anxiety scores recorded for female college athletes studied by Martens et a l . (1990) at precompetition. These researchers reported a mean score of 16.85 for female athletes across a number of d i f f e r e n t sports and a mean of 18.01 for female basketball players p r i o r to a game. I t was expected that somatic anxiety would not be as high p r i o r to a free-throw contest compared to a pregame si t u a t i o n . However, the pattern of somatic anxiety levels ( i . e . , lower anxiety before Time 2) was s i m i l a r to that reported by K a r t e r o l i o t i s and G i l l (1987) but d i f f e r e n t for findings from a study of males (cycling task) by Caruso, Dzewaltowski, G i l l , and McElroy (1990). The means for engagement and disengagement coping were s i m i l a r across groups for both Time 1 and Time 2. Most studies report that people use both engagement and disengagement coping (problem-, emotion-focused coping) when dealing with s t r e s s f u l events (Carver et a l . , 1989; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985) . Pooling of Samples The LISREL VI program was used to conduct tests of equality of the covariance matrices (for basketball and for f i e l d hockey/soccer) to determine i f the samples could be combined for further analyses. Combining the groups enhances the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the model to other samples. Ad d i t i o n a l l y , Joreskog (1971) suggests that i f the hypothesis of equal covariance matrices i s tenable, then, "every c h a r a c t e r i s t i c common to a l l groups can be obtained from the pooled covariance matrix and—there i s no need to analyze each group separately" (p. 419). Four covariance matrices were tested (Round 1 for both groups. Round 2 for both groups). Results of the tests of equality of covariances indicated that the 2 groups could be combined (for Round 1), Chi-square(28,N=178)=32.27, E>.26 and Goodness-of-fit Index (GFI)=.93. The r a t i o for Chi-square to degrees of freedom (Q) was 1.2:1. Some researchers suggest that Chi-square r a t i o s of 3 or less represent a good f i t while others suggest r a t i o s as high as 5 to 1 are representative of a good f i t (Bollen, 1989, p. 278). Round 2 re s u l t s indicated greater d i s s i m i l a r i t y between the matrices (Chi-square(28,N=178)=52.85, £<.003). However, pooling the two groups was deemed j u s t i f i a b l e on the basis of a Q of 1.9:1 and a GFI for Round 2 of .86. The Modification Index (MI) i d e n t i f i e d the major discrepancy between matrices for Round 2 as the s e l f - e f f i c a c y variance (MI=51.33). As shown i n Table 3, there i s a 13 point difference i n the standard deviations for basketball players (SD=53.2) and for s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey players (SD=40.6) at Time 2. I t seems that the s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey players (because the task was more novel for them) a l l thought they could do better a f t e r Round 1 and perhaps were u n r e a l i s t i c i n judging t h e i r confidence i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to perform the task. The four covariance and correlation matrices are presented i n Appendix E and the pooled (over the two samples) c o r r e l a t i o n matrices are given i n Table 4. The two matrices (Times 1 & 2) are presented within the same table, and expressed as correlations rather than covariances, for ease of interpretation. These matrices were used as data input for a l l subsequent analyses. A c o r r e l a t i o n matrix including demographic and path variables i s also i n Appendix E. Group Differences for Age and Level of Sport Many sport researchers studying s e l f - e f f i c a c y and anxiety address issues of gender difference but do not t e s t for age differences (Feltz, 1988; Taylor, 1987). Performance i n challenging situations may be influenced (especially for the i n i t i a l performance) by the athletes past experiences that are sometimes measured by age and s k i l l l e v e l . In the present study age and s k i l l l e v e l differences i n patterns of relat i o n s h i p s between the path variables are important to i d e n t i f y . Therefore, two MANOVAS (multivariate analysis of T a b l e 4 C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x ( P o o l e d N=178) V a r i a b l e s a t p e r s e l f l c o n t r o l a n x i e t y engage d i s e n g p e r l s e l f 2 c o n t r o 2 a n x i e t y engage? d i s e n g ? s a t p e r 1 00 s e l f 1 0 .07 1 00 c o n t r o l 0 14 0 51 1 .00 anx i e ty1 0 .03 0 .24 -0 .45 1 00 engage 0 .08 0 03 0 .03 0 20 1 .00 d i s e n g 0 .05 -0 07 -0 .25 0 34 0 .08 per 1 0 09 0 09 0 05 0 01 0 .32 s e 1 f 2 0 08 0 84 0 .43 - 0 . 26 0 04 c o n t r o 2 0 17 0 43 0 .63 -0 32 0 23 anx i e t y 2 -0 15 0 27 -0 .45 0. 73 0 . 13 engage? 0. 18 0. 05 -0 04 0. 16 0 .72 d i s e n g 2 - 0 . 03 - 0 . 17 -0 19 0. 40 0 27 p e r 2 0. 24 0. 08 0 04 - 0 . 13 0 .05 1 00 - 0 . 4 8 1.00 0 28 0 .37 1 .00 0 40 0 .47 0 .57 1 00 0 45 -0 , 18 -0 37 -0 53 1 .00 0. 18 0 09 0 .01 0 12 0 . 10 1 00 0. 62 - 0 . 23 -0 29 -0 26 0 53 0 20 1 .00 0. 11 0 28 0 12 0 16 -0 24 0 28 - 0 . 38 N o t e . s a t p e r = p e r f o r m a n c e s a t i s f a c t i o n ; se 1 f = s e 1 f - e f f i c a c y ; c o n t r o = c o n t r o 1 ; engage^engagement c o p i n g ; d i s e n g = d i s e n g a g e m e n t c o p i n g ; p e r = p e r f o r m a n c e ; 1=t1me 1; 2=time 2. variance) were used to test for differences between groups (older and younger; university l e v e l and college l e v e l of sport) on the dependent measures of s e l f - e f f i c a c y , anxiety, control, engagement and disengagement coping, and perceived performance. Sixty-eight older athletes (over age 19) and 110 younger athletes (19 and under) comprised the groups for the f i r s t analysis. Results for age differences i n Round 1 indicated that the ov e r a l l MANOVA was s i g n i f i c a n t , F(6,171)=2.35, E<.03. However, only the univariate t e s t for s e l f - e f f i c a c y was s i g n i f i c a n t , F(l,176)=11.72, E<.001. Athletes over age 19 were more s e l f - e f f i c a c i o u s (M=144.9) than athletes age 19 and under (M=120.9). The o v e r a l l MANOVA for Round 2 of the competition was also s i g n i f i c a n t , F=(6,171)=2.83, E<.01. Univariate tests were s i g n i f i c a n t for s e l f - e f f i c a c y , F(l,176)=14.96, E<.001, and anxiety, F(1,176)=3.90, p<.05. Players over age 19 were more s e l f -e f f i c a c i o u s (M=152.9) and less anxious (M=14.1) than younger players (Ms=124.6; 15.4), respectively. The second analysis tested mean differences between groups (university level—experienced, n=74; college l e v e l — less experienced, n=104) for the path variables. The o v e r a l l MANOVA for Round 1 of the competition was s i g n i f i c a n t , F(6,171)=3.22, g<.005. Univariate tests were s i g n i f i c a n t for s e l f - e f f i c a c y , F(1,176)=12.18, E<.001, control, F(l,176)=10.97, E<.001, and perceived performance, F(l,176)=3.92, E<.05. More experienced athletes were more s e l f - e f f i c a c i o u s , f e l t more in control, and perceived t h e i r performance as better than less experienced athletes. The o v e r a l l MANOVA for Round 2 of the competition was also s i g n i f i c a n t , F(6,176)=3.75, E<.002. Univariate tests were s i g n i f i c a n t for s e l f - e f f i c a c y , F(l,176)=16.38, E<.001, anxiety, F (1,176)=9.03, E<.003, and control, F(l,176)=11.49, E<.001. Experienced players were more s e l f -e f f i c a c i o u s , less anxious, and f e l t more i n control compared to less experienced players. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences for performance among the groups. The above findings indicated a number of differences i n the means, therefore the correlations were investigated as well. Examination of the correlation matrix (see Appendix C) indicated that the control appraisal r e l a t i o n s h i p with other variables seemed to be a function of age. For older athletes, control was negatively related (r=-.17) to performance at Time 1, whereas i t was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d (r=.17) for younger athletes. However, at Time 2 control was p o s i t i v e l y related to performance for older athletes (r=.36), but not related for younger athletes. Perhaps when control was measured p r i o r to Round 1, older athletes f e l t more i n control, did not r e a l i z e how challenging the task would be, and overestimated how well they would do. I t i s also important to note that more of the older athletes belonged to the s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey group where the task was not practiced as often as for the basketball groups. Similar findings were also evident for the relationship between engagement coping and control. For older athletes, engagement coping was negatively related to control (r=-.16) at Time 1 but p o s i t i v e l y related at Time 2 (r=.19). Because there were differences (age, experience) between the groups i n the strengths of the relationships among some variables i t was necessary to t e s t the equality of the covariance matrices for the four groups. If the older and younger (or college and university) matrices were d i f f e r e n t , then i t would be necessary to include age (experience) as variables i n the path models. Results indicated that for both age and l e v e l of sport the matrices were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . The Q was less than 2 and the GFI was greater than .90 i n a l l four covariance matrices. Therefore i t was not necessary to t r y to account for the d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e cts of age. The next step i n the analysis was to tes t the hypothesized model for the t o t a l group (n=178) for Round 1 and Round 2 of the competition (see Figure 1 and 2). Path Analysis Path analysis was used to examine the variables that describe coping effectiveness (appraisals, coping e f f o r t s , perceived performance). Path analysis allows the researcher to i d e n t i f y the d i r e c t and ind i r e c t e f f e c t s of variables hypothesized as causes of variables treated as e f f e c t s . The relationships among the variables were examined using the LISREL VI computer program (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1984). This analysis provided estimates of path c o e f f i c i e n t s i n the model and measures of Goodness-of-fit between the model and the sample data. The steps involved i n the analysis were comparing the c o r r e l a t i o n a l structure of the model provided by maximum l i k e l i h o o d to the sample data c o r r e l a t i o n matrix to determine the p l a u s i b i l i t y of the hypothesized model, and, i f t h e o r e t i c a l l y j u s t i f i e d , to modify the model minimally i n order to obtain a better f i t between the model and the sample. Table 5 contains the model f i t indices r e s u l t i n g from the path analyses performed on the t o t a l sample of athletes at Time 1 and at Time 2. Results for Time 1 (Round 1 of the competition) indicated a poor f i t t i n g model, Chi-square (8,N=178)=72.43, E<.001. The Q was 9.1:1 and the Root Mean Residual Square (RMSR) was .13 indicating that a number of the correlations cannot be reproduced with the hypothesized model. A number of the residuals were very large ( i . e . , > 3) and were related to the anxiety variable. The largest Modification Index was 37.05 indicating that the model would f i t better i f the path from anxiety to control were freed. This path addition i s j u s t i f i a b l e from a t h e o r e t i c a l perspective. A review of l i t e r a t u r e suggested that both control and s e l f - e f f i c a c y (secondary appraisals) were related to anxiety. Both Social Learning Theory and Stress and Coping Theory suggest that i t i s how people appraise t h e i r anxiety that determines what eff e c t anxiety w i l l have on them. For example, athletes who appraise t h e i r anxiety as p o s i t i v e w i l l f e e l more i n control and more s e l f - e f f i c a c i o u s Path Model F i t Indices fn=178) Model Chi-Square df S GFI RMSR Total Coeff. of Determination Time 1 Model 1 72.43 8 <.001 .90 .13 .37 . 02 Revised Model 30.85 7 <.001 .95 .07 .37 .03 Change^ 41.58 1 <.001 Time 2 Model 1 118.13 8 <.001 .87 .15 .33 .28 Revised Model 63.78 7 <.001 .91 .10 .33 .26 Change 54.35 1 <.001 Note. GFI=Goodness-of-fit Index; RMSR=Root Mean Square Residual s t a t i s t i c s from LISREL VI. Coeff.=coefficient. ^Chi-Square and df differences between t h i s model and the proceeding model, E<.001, indicates a s i g n i f i c a n t CHANGE i n the model. than those who appraise t h e i r anxiety as negative. Although i t was discussed t h e o r e t i c a l l y , i t was not expected that omitting the anxiety/control path would have a strong e f f e c t on the model f i t . Therefore, a revised model with a path from anxiety to control was tested. See Figure 3 for the revised model for Round 1. The revised model yielded a Chi-square (7,N=178)=30.85, E<.001, indicating a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement, Chi-square decrease=41.58, df decrease=l, E<.001, over the o r i g i n a l model. A large drop i n Chi-square between two models compared to differences i n degrees of freedom presented evidence to accept the revised model (D i l l o n & Goldstein, 1984). The Goodness-of-fit index was .95 i n d i c a t i n g an adequate f i t and the Q of 4.1:1 was acceptable. Although, two of the residuals related to anxiety were s t i l l greater than 2 suggesting that freeing other paths from anxiety would enhance the f i t of the model, no further changes were made. According to Bollen (1989) other data samples should be tested before decisions to change the model are made. However, a re s p e c i f i e d model i s introduced as a post hoc analysis i n order to gain further understanding of the variable relationships within t h i s data set. Results for Time 2 (Round 2 of the competition) indicated a poor f i t t i n g model, Chi-square(8,N=178)=118.13, P<.001, Q=14.1:l. Other inadequate Goodness-of-fit indicators were the RMSR of .15 and two residuals greater than 3. Both of these residuals were related to the anxiety 1—I Prior to Contest 5 Minutes Prior 5 Minutes After Contest Past Performance Control .01 -2$ • •51 hi Engagement Coping Self-Efficacy Anxiety .0 Disengagement Coping .35 -.49 Perceived Performance .04 .04 Figure 3. Revised Path Model Representing the Relationships Among Secondary Appraisals, Coping, and Perceived Performance in Round 1. v a r i a b l e . The largest Modification Index was 46.80 in d i c a t i n g that, similar to Time 1, the model would f i t better i f the path from anxiety to control were freed. The addition of t h i s path i s j u s t i f i e d because a review of the l i t e r a t u r e suggested that both control and s e l f - e f f i c a c y were re l a t e d to anxiety. In addition. Social Learning Theory and Stress and Coping Theory suggest that i t i s how anxiety i s appraised that determines the e f f e c t i t w i l l have on people. Therefore, a revised model that included a path from anxiety to control was tested. The revised model yielded a Chi-square(7,N=178)=63.78, E<.001, indicating a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement, Chi-square decrease=54.35, df decrease=l, E<.001, over the o r i g i n a l model. The Goodness-of-fit index was .91 i n d i c a t i n g an acceptable f i t , however, the Q r a t i o was s t i l l very large (Q=9.1:l), and two residuals related to anxiety remained greater than 2. Although freeing other parameters related to anxiety would decrease the Chi-square s i g n i f i c a n t l y , no further changes were made for the same reasons as stated for Time 1. The standardized path c o e f f i c i e n t s for the hypothesized paths are presented i n Figure 3 and 4. Test of Hypotheses The hypotheses (excluding the mediator rel a t i o n s h i p s i n Hypotheses 3 and 5) were tested by determining the si g n i f i c a n c e of the d i r e c t path c o e f f i c i e n t s . A d i r e c t e f f e c t i s the influence of one variable on another that i s not mediated by other variables i n the path (Bollen, 1989). CN Prior to Round 2 5 Minutes Prior 5 Minutes After Contest Round 1 Perceived Performance Engagement Coping .34 Disengagement Coping -.42 Perceived Performance .07 .17 Figure 4. Revised Patfi Model Representing tfie Relationships Among Secondary Appraisals, Coping, and Perceived Performance in Round 2. The d i r e c t e f f e c t i s the e f f e c t of one variable on another c o n t r o l l i n g for or p a r t i a l i n g out the rel a t i o n s h i p with other variables i n the model. T-values are calculated for a l l of the path c o e f f i c i e n t s i n the model to t e s t whether the path c o e f f i c i e n t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r s from zero ( t -values larger than 2 are considered s i g n i f i c a n t , E<.05). The zero-order correlations were used to aid i n the inte r p r e t a t i o n and are discussed only where they d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the path c o e f f i c i e n t s . Testing the mediator relationships requires the researcher to consider both the i n d i r e c t e f f e c t and the d i r e c t e f f e c t of the relationship between two variables. The i n d i r e c t e f f e c t i s the part of the variable's t o t a l e f f e c t that i s mediated by at least one intervening variable i n the model. The t o t a l e f f e c t (sum of the d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t effects) of one variable on another i s the part of t h e i r t o t a l association (the zero-order correlation) that i s not due to common causes, correlations among t h e i r causes, or to unanalyzed correlations (Alwin & Hauser, 1975). The i n d i r e c t e f f e c t s of the mediated variable (the sum of the products of the path c o e f f i c i e n t s from the predicted variable through the mediator variable) have to be large enough to influence the t o t a l e f f e c t s . For example, there should be a difference between the d i r e c t e f f e c t and the t o t a l e f f e c t . In addition, the mediating variable and the predicted variable must have a s i g n i f i c a n t path c o e f f i c i e n t . In the following section, the hypotheses and the r e s u l t s are reported for Round 1 (Time 1) and Round 2 (Time 2) of the competition. The hypotheses are s i m i l a r across both times, however, the relationships among the variables are reported separately. See Table 6 and Table 7 for a summary of the r e s u l t s of the tests of s p e c i f i c hypotheses. Hypothesis 1; Past performance measured p r i o r to Round 1 w i l l be (a) p o s i t i v e l y related to secondary appraisals ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control), and (b) negatively related to anxiety assessed 5 minutes p r i o r to Round 1 performance. Hypothesis 1 was only p a r t i a l l y supported for Round 1 of the competition. The path c o e f f i c i e n t (b=.16) from past performance to control was s i g n i f i c a n t (E<.05) in d i c a t i n g that better perceived past performance related p o s i t i v e l y to a higher l e v e l of control. For Round 2 of the competition, past performance was defined as the performance at Time 1. Performance (at Time 1) was p o s i t i v e l y related to s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control, and negatively related to anxiety i n Round 2, supporting Hypothesis 1. Although the c o e f f i c i e n t of .13 for the performance/self-efficacy path was not s i g n i f i c a n t at E<.05, the T-value of 1.93 i s associated with a E=.054. For the purposes of te s t i n g t h i s hypothesis, t h i s beta path was accepted as s i g n i f i c a n t (E<.054). The path c o e f f i c i e n t s from performance 1 to control (b=.38, E<.001) and anxiety (b=-.18, E<.01) were s i g n i f i c a n t , indicating that athletes who perceived t h e i r f i r s t performance as successful f e l t more in Time 1 Path Co e f f i c i e n t s and Zero-Order Correlations (n=178) Hypothesis Tested Direct T-Values^ Indirect Total r ^ Effects Effects E f f e c t s HvDothesis 1 Past Per/Control . 16 2.33 .14 Past Per/SE -.01 ns .07 Past Per/Anxiety .03 ns .03 Hypothesis 2 Control/Engage Cope .01 ns .03 SE/Engage Cope .02 ns .03 Control/Per 1 .05 SE/Per 1 .04 ns .09 Control/Diseng Cope -.28 3.33 _.25 SE/Diseng Cope .07 ns _,07 Hypothesis 3 Control/Per 1 (s e l f - e f f i c a c y ) -.16 2.51 .02 -.003 .05 Hypothesis 4 SE/Per 1 .04 ns .09 Past Per/Per 1 . 04 ns .08 Hypothesis 5 Anxiety/Per 1 (s e l f - e f f i c a c y ) .14 2.47 -.001 .147 .01 Note, d i r e c t effects=standardized c o e f f i c i e n t s ; r=zero-order correlations, SE=self-efficacy; Per=performance. ^=values > 2 are s i g n i f i c a n t at E<.05. "=r >.24 s i g n i f i c a n t at .001, r>.19 s i g n i f i c a n t at .01, r>.14 s i g n i f i c a n t at .05. Time 2 Path Coefficients and Zero-Order Co e f f i c i e n t s Hypothesis Tested Direct T-Values Indirect Total r Effects Effects E f f e c t s HvDothesis 1 Per 1/Control .38 6.60 .47 Per 1/SE^ .13 1.93 .37 Per l/Anxiety -.18 -2.47 -.18 Hypothesis 2 Control/Engage Cope .17 ns . 12 SE/Engage Cope -.09 ns .01 Control/Per 2 .18 SE/Per 2 -.07 ns .12 Control/Diseng Cope -.14 -.26 SE/Diseng Cope -.21 -2.38 -.29 Hypothesis 3 Control/Per 2 ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y ) -.02 ns -.03 .10 .18 Hypothesis 4 SE/Per 2 -.07 ns .12 Per 1/Per 2 . 17 2.51 .28 Hypothesis 5 Anxiety/Per 2 ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y ) -.06 ns .01 -.11 -.24 [ote. see comments on Table 6. The d i r e c t e f f e c t of Per 1/SE i s s i g n i f i c a n t at <.054. control and less anxious than athletes who perceived t h e i r performance as less successful. Although performance 1 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated (r=.37, p <.001) with s e l f -e f f i c a c y , the path c o e f f i c i e n t (b=.13) was not s i g n i f i c a n t at E<'05, suggesting that the self-efficacy/performance r e l a t i o n s h i p was considerably influenced by other factors ( i . e . , predominantly control). Hypothesis 2 ; Secondary appraisals ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y and con t r o l ) , assessed 5 minutes pr i o r to performance, w i l l be p o s i t i v e l y related to (a) engagement coping, (b) perceived performance, and (c) negatively related to disengagement coping, assessed a f t e r Round 1 (Round 2) performance. For Round 1 of the competition, part (a) and (b) of Hypothesis 2 were not supported. Neither control nor s e l f -e f f i c a c y were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to engagement coping or performance 1 (the relationship between control and performance 1 was the correlation since they were not linked by a d i r e c t path). Part (c) of Hypothesis 2 was p a r t i a l l y supported. Control showed a s i g n i f i c a n t negative (b=-.28) rel a t i o n s h i p to disengagement coping indicating that athletes who scored higher on control used less disengagement coping. For Round 2 of the competition, part (a) of Hypothesis 2 was not supported. Part (b) was p a r t i a l l y supported, control was p o s i t i v e l y related to performance 2 (r=.18, E<.05) indicating that athletes who f e l t more i n control perceived t h e i r performance with more s a t i s f a c t i o n than athletes who f e l t less in control. Part (c) of Hypothesis 2 was p a r t i a l l y supported for Round 2 of the competition. S e l f - e f f i c a c y (b=-.21) was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to disengagement coping. Athletes with higher scores for s e l f -e f f i c a c y used less disengagement coping. The path c o e f f i c i e n t (b=-.14) from control to disengagement coping was nonsignificant. However, the zero-order c o r r e l a t i o n (r=-.26) was s i g n i f i c a n t suggesting that the control/disengagement coping relationship was influenced by other factors ( i . e . , s e l f - e f f i c a c y ) . Hypothesis 3 : The control appraisal-performance r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l be mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y appraisals. To demonstrate mediation there must be a s i g n i f i c a n t d i r e c t e f f e c t between the predictor (control) and the mediating variable ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y ) and between the mediating variable ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y ) and the c r i t e r i o n variable (performance). To determine the d i r e c t e f f e c t of control on performance, i t was necessary to rerun the revised model with the control/performance path included. This hypothesis was not supported for Round 1. Although the c o n t r o l / s e l f - e f f i c a c y path was large (b=.51, E<.01), the self-efficacy/performance path was very small (b=.04). Thus the i n d i r e c t e f f e c t of control on performance, mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y , was only .02, considerably less than the d i r e c t e f f e c t of control (b=-.16) on performance. See Table 6 and Table 7 for d i r e c t , indirect, and t o t a l e f f e c t s . For Round 2 of the competition, Hypothesis 3 was also not supported. The c o n t r o l / s e l f - e f f i c a c y path was large (b=.46), however, the self-efficacy/performance path was very small (b=-.07). The in d i r e c t e f f e c t of control on performance, mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y (-.03) indicated a s l i g h t mediating e f f e c t of s e l f - e f f i c a c y on the control/performance relationship. The t o t a l e f f e c t s (.10) and the c o r r e l a t i o n between control and performance (r=.18, E< .05) indicated that other factors may influence the re l a t i o n s h i p between the two variables. Hypothesis 4: (For Round 1 of the competition) S e l f -e f f i c a c y appraisal w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y stronger predictor of performance than w i l l past performance. For Round 1 t h i s hypothesis was not supported. The path c o e f f i c i e n t s were i d e n t i c a l (bs=.04), and neither variable was a s i g n i f i c a n t predictor of performance 1. Hypothesis 4: (For Round 2 of the competition) Performance 1 w i l l be a stronger predictor of performance 2 than w i l l s e l f - e f f i c a c y appraisal. The c o r r e l a t i o n (r=.28, p<.001) and the path c o e f f i c i e n t (b=.17, E<.05) indicated that performance 1 was a s i g n i f i c a n t predictor of performance 2. S e l f - e f f i c a c y was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to performance 2 (r=.12, E>.05; b=-.07, E>.05). No d i r e c t test of s t a t i s t i c a l differences between the path c o e f f i c i e n t s was available. However, using the standard error of .07, the 95% confidence i n t e r v a l (CI) for the path c o e f f i c i e n t of performance 1 to performance 2 i s .03 < B < .31. Given that t h i s i n t e r v a l does not include the s e l f - e f f i c a c y to performance 2 path c o e f f i c i e n t (b=-.07), there i s strong evidence that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d ifference between the two path c o e f f i c i e n t s . Performance 1 i s a stronger predictor of performance 2 than i s s e l f -e f f i c a c y . Hypothesis 5: The anxiety-performance r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l be mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y appraisals. The hypothesis was not supported for Round 1. The a n x i e t y / s e l f - e f f i c a c y path c o e f f i c i e n t was very small (b=-.02) as was the s e l f -ef ficacy/performance path c o e f f i c i e n t (b=.04). The i n d i r e c t e f f e c t of anxiety on performance, mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y , was only -.001 considerably less than the d i r e c t e f f e c t of anxiety on performance (b=.14). For Round 2 the hypothesis was not supported. The a n x i e t y / s e l f - e f f i c a c y path was small (b=-.10) as was the self-efficacy/performance path (b=-.07). However, the i n d i r e c t e f f e c t of anxiety on performance, mediated by s e l f -e f f i c a c y , was .01 and the d i r e c t e f f e c t of anxiety on performance was (b=-.06) indicating that there appears to be a s l i g h t mediating e f f e c t of s e l f - e f f i c a c y on the anxiety/performance relationship, but since the path c o e f f i c i e n t from s e l f - e f f i c a c y to performance i s nonsignificant the hypothesis i s not supported. Trimmed Model I t i s sometimes useful to delete nonsignificant paths and examine the respe c i f i e d model against the f u l l model. In order to maintain a consistent model for both rounds, only paths that were not s i g n i f i c a n t at both times were deleted. The f i r s t path deleted from both models was the s e l f -ef f icacy /engagement coping path. The change i n Chi-square i n r e l a t i o n to the change (increase) i n degrees of freedom r a t i o was examined and indicated a reduction i n Q. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the Chi-square increase was nonsignificant and the GFI and RMSR were not changed. The Q (4.4) was reduced at Time 1 (3.9), but s t i l l high (from 9.1 to 8.1) for Time 2. Three more paths (control/engagement, s e l f -ef ficacy/perf ormance, self-efficacy/anxiety) were deleted i n a stepwise procedure. At each step the increase i n Chi-square was not s i g n i f i c a n t , thus r e s u l t i n g i n a model which provided an equally good f i t (as compared to the Revised model) to the data. This trimmed model i s deemed to be a superior model due to i t s greater parsimony ( i . e . , fewer paths, larger degrees of freedom). See Table 8 for the model f i t indices r e s u l t i n g from deletions of nonsignificant paths. Results of these path deletions indicated an improved model f i t (Q=2.9, Time 1; 6.4 for Time 2). See Figure 5 and 6 for path c o e f f i c i e n t s for the trimmed models. F i n a l Model - Nonsignificant Paths Deleted Paths Deleted Chi-Square df Q GFI RMSR Time 1 - Paths Deleted F i n a l Model 30.85 7 4.4 .95 . 07 SE/Engage Coping 30.88 8 3.9 .95 .07 Con/Engage Coping 31.02 9 3.5 .95 .07 SE/Performance 1 31.56 10 3.2 .95 .07 SE/Anxiety 31.61 11 2.9 .95 .07 Time 2 - Paths Deleted F i n a l Model 63.78 7 9.1 .91 .10 SE/Engage Coping 64.76 8 8.1 .91 .10 Con/Engage Coping 67.12 9 7.5 .91 .10 SE/Performance 2 68.16 10 6.8 .91 .10 SE/Anxiety 70.15 11 6.4 .90 . 10 Note. SE=self-efficacy; Con=control; Engage=engagement coping. o -J-Prior to Contest 5 Minutes Prior 5 Minutes After Contest Control -.2» Self-Efficacy .0 Engagement Coping .35 Perceived Performance -.50 Disengagement Coping .04 Figure 5. Trimmed Model For Coping Effectiveness witfi Nonsignificant Patfis Deleted ( Round 1 ) Prior to Round 2 5 Minutes Prior Round 1 Perceived Performance 5 Minutes After Contest Control -.1 \ \ Self-Efficacy -.2 Engagement Coping .34 Perceived Performance -.40^  Disengagement Coping .15 Figure 6. Trimmed Model for Coping Effectiveness with Nonsignificant Paths Deleted ( Round 2 ) DISCUSSION The r e s u l t s presented here indicate some support for a model of coping effectiveness for female athletes who pa r t i c i p a t e d i n 2 Rounds of a sport event ( b a s k e t b a l l — f r e e -throw contest; s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey—penalty shot contest) that was perceived as challenging. The hypothesized path model, which included components of coping effectiveness ( i . e . , appraisals of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control, coping e f f o r t s , perceived performance), indicated a poor f i t t i n g model for both Round 1 and Round 2 of the sport events. However, a revised model that freed the path between anxiety and control provided an acceptable f i t , and accounted for 37% of the variance i n perceived performance. The o v e r a l l pattern of relationships for variables i n the model of f e r s some support for the hypothesized model and t h e o r e t i c a l support for Bandura's theory of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and Lazarus and Folkman's appraisal/coping theory. In p a r t i c u l a r , athletes' l e v e l s of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control were related to t h e i r type of coping used. In addition, perceived performance i n the f i r s t round of the contest influenced appraisal i n the second round, which i n turn influenced coping. S p e c i f i c relationships are addressed l a t e r . F i r s t , the rationale for the revised model i s discussed. The decision to include a path from anxiety to control i n a revised model was made on th e o r e t i c a l grounds. L i t t (1988a) suggests that the secondary appraisals of s e l f -e f f i c a c y and control are separate appraisals that work i n conjunction with one another to determine coping behavior and that high l e v e l s of both s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control are related to lower lev e l s of anxiety. In t h i s study, both s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control had negative relationships with anxiety (Round 1, r=-.24, -.45; Round 2, r= -.37, -.53). Thus, the revised model was conceptually meaningful because both s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control were negatively related to anxiety and p o s i t i v e l y related to each other, as suggested by L i t t and by Bandura's (1977) theory. Round 1 Contrary to the hypothesized relationships i n Round 1 (see Figure 3), past performance did not influence either s e l f - e f f i c a c y or anxiety. This finding i s contrary to Feltz (1982) who found that for female athletes performing a back dive, past performance accomplishments d i r e c t l y influenced s e l f - e f f i c a c y (b=.28). In the present study, past performance ("how s a t i s f i e d do you f e e l with your performance i n your l a s t game?") was d i f f i c u l t for some athletes to rate because the season had just started and they had only played one or two games. Some of the games were important (league games), whereas others were not (exh i b i t i o n ) . Feltz (1982) measured past performance for a diving task using a factor score of years swimming, diving experience, and type of r i s k taking experience. To t r y to gain a better understanding of why there was no r e l a t i o n s h i p between past performance and the appraisal variables, the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix (see Appendix E) was inspected to determine i f years of experience (in basketball, f i e l d hockey, soccer) influenced appraisals more than past performance based on perceived success. Results indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between years of experience and s e l f - e f f i c a c y (r=.33, E<.001), and years of experience and control (r=.25, E<.001). In addition, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between anxiety and experience. This suggests that, for t h i s p a r t i c u l a r sample, past performance assessed by experience (number of years playing the sport) may be a better predictor of expectancy than past performance s a t i s f a c t i o n based on a game played early i n the season. In Round 1 of the contest, anxiety was negatively related to control, control was p o s i t i v e l y related to s e l f -e f f i c a c y and negatively related to disengagement coping, which i n turn was negatively related to perceived performance. As hypothesized athletes who f e l t i n greater control used less disengagement coping. In addition they perceived t h e i r performance as more satis f a c t o r y / s u c c e s s f u l than athletes with lower levels of control. Round 2 I t was hypothesized that the performance i n the i n i t i a l contest would influence appraisals for Round 2 of the contest. Findings indicated (see Figure 4) that performance i n Round 1 was p o s i t i v e l y related to control (b=.38), and s e l f - e f f i c a c y (b=.13), and negatively related to anxiety (b=-.18) i n Round 2. Athletes who perceived t h e i r f i r s t performance as more successful were more s e l f - e f f i c a c i o u s , f e l t more i n control, and were less anxious than athletes who perceived t h e i r performance as less successful. The re l a t i o n s h i p between past performance, s e l f - e f f i c a c y , control, and anxiety i s consistent with the r e s u l t s of Bandura and Wood (1989) and Feltz (1982). However, i n Bandura and Wood's study the relationship between past performance and s e l f - e f f i c a c y was s i g n i f i c a n t (b=.45, p <.05), whereas for the present study the path c o e f f i c i e n t approached sig n i f i c a n c e (b=.13, p <.06). However the s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n (r=.37, E<.001), i n the present study suggests that the past performance/self-efficacy r e l a t i o n s h i p may have been influenced by other factors ( i . e . , control) i n the model. Therefore, one difference between the present study and both Bandura and Wood's and Feltz's studies was the use of appraisals of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control and the inclus i o n of engagement and disengagement coping i n the model. Addi t i o n a l l y , the focus of Bandura and Wood's (1989) and Felt z ' s (1982) studies was the relationship between s e l f -e f f i c a c y and performance, whereas the focus i n t h i s study was the pattern of relationships among appraisals, coping, and perceived performance to determine coping effectiveness. Change From Round 1 to Round 2 Hypotheses for Round 1 and Round 2 indicated that s e l f -e f f i c a c y would predict perceived performance. S e l f - e f f i c a c y was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to subsequent perceived performance. The lack of a relationship between s e l f -e f f i c a c y and performance i s contrary to findings by other researchers (Bandura & Jourden, 1991; Bandura & Wood, 1989; Fe l t z , 1982; McAuley, 1985). There are three possible explanations for the lack of a self-efficacy/performance r e l a t i o n s h i p i n t h i s study: (a) performance was measured using perceived performance only, (b) other variables ( i . e . , control and coping) were included i n the model, and (c) only two rounds of competition were examined. Sexton and Tuckman (1991) found stronger relationships among s e l f - e f f i c a c y and task variables when they were studied over several time periods. In t h i s study, although s e l f - e f f i c a c y was not related to subsequent perceived performance (bs <.10), s e l f - e f f i c a c y was rel a t e d to subsequent objective performance (e.g., number of successful free-throws; Round 1, r=.28; Round 2, r=.25) supporting Bandura's (1986) theory that "enactive attainments provide the most i n f l u e n t i a l source of e f f i c a c y information" (p. 397). Although objective performance was col l e c t e d , i t was not hypothesized i n the model because c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s regarding the use of objective and subjective performance measures have been found. Some researchers have found s i g n i f i c a n t relationships with perceived rather than objective performance ( M i l l e r & McAuley, 1987; Stumpf et a l . , 1987) for basketball and interview tasks. M i l l e r and McAuley studied inexperienced basketball players and found no relationship between objective performance and s e l f - e f f i c a c y . However, t h i s f i n d i n g does not seem to hold for the experienced basketball players i n the present study. Taylor (1987) found that for female v a r s i t y athletes (n=21) competing i n individual and team sports, s e l f -confidence and somatic anxiety s i g n i f i c a n t l y predicted better team ranking (objective performance), whereas s e l f -confidence was not associated with coaches r a t i n g of the athletes' performance (subjective performance). Because of the d i f f e r e n t research findings reported for objective and subjective performance, a post hoc analysis was performed for the present study using number of baskets or goals scored (objective performance) during the contest. Results indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t d i r e c t e f f e c t of s e l f - e f f i c a c y (b =.24) on actual performance at Round 1. At Round 2 the c o r r e l a t i o n (r=.25) between s e l f - e f f i c a c y and actual performance was s i g n i f i c a n t , however, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between s e l f - e f f i c a c y and actual performance (b =.04) once the influence of other variables ( i . e . , coping) were controlled for. See Appendix F for a more det a i l e d description of t h i s analysis. The rela t i o n s h i p between s e l f - e f f i c a c y and perceived performance i s discussed by Bandura and Jourden (1991). These researchers suggest that for complex tasks requiring concentration and focused attention, " s e l f - s a t i s f a c t i o n with personal progress towards challenging standards provides a p o s i t i v e motivational orientation for performance accomplishments," (p. 949) whereas s e l f - d i s a t i s f a c t i o n focuses attention away from the task. Bandura and Jourden seem to be addressing coping, and, i n p a r t i c u l a r engagement and disengagement coping as used i n the present study. For example, perceived performance after Round 1 influenced s e l f - e f f i c a c y at Round 2 and i n turn s e l f - e f f i c a c y was negatively related to disengagement coping (b =-.21) at Round 2, but had no relationship with engagement coping. This f i n d i n g suggests that both high and low s e l f -e f f i c a c i o u s athletes are very focused on the task but that low s e l f - e f f i c a c i o u s athletes are also distracted from the task. In summary, perceived performance was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to s e l f - e f f i c a c y , however, s e l f - e f f i c a c y did not predict perceived performance but was a s i g n i f i c a n t predictor of actual performance. Therefore, future researchers may want to include both types of performance i n t h e i r analyses to better understand the r e l a t i o n s h i p among performance, s e l f - e f f i c a c y , and coping. Mediation E f f e c t s I hypothesized that s e l f - e f f i c a c y mediates the re l a t i o n s h i p between control and perceived performance. To determine a mediational relationship control must s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e to s e l f - e f f i c a c y and s e l f - e f f i c a c y must have a s i g n i f i c a n t relationship with performance (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Although the c o n t r o l / s e l f - e f f i c a c y r e l a t i o n s h i p was s i g n i f i c a n t for both rounds of competition (bs=.51. .46), the self-efficacy/performance r e l a t i o n s h i p was not s i g n i f i c a n t . Therefore, t h i s hypothesis was not supported i n the present study. One difference between t h i s study and studies that found that s e l f - e f f i c a c y mediated control and performance i s the way that appraisals were measured. Both Bandura and Wood (1989) and L i t t (1988a) manipulated either s e l f - e f f i c a c y or control i n the environment and tested the constructs separately. In the present study, appraisals were assessed on s e l f - r e p o r t questionnaires administered p r i o r to the task. However, d i f f e r e n t results were found when post hoc analyses using an objective measure of actual performance (points scored) was included in the model. Findings indicated that s e l f - e f f i c a c y mediated the re l a t i o n s h i p between control and actual performance for Round 1 of the competition. The i n d i r e c t e f f e c t of control on performance, mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y , was .12, higher than the d i r e c t e f f e c t (b=-.ll) of control on performance (see Table F-2). For Round 2 of the competition s e l f - e f f i c a c y did not mediate the control/performance relationship. See Appendix F for the re s u l t s of t h i s post hoc analysis. Coping Relationships Although not hypothesized, an important finding i s that both engagement and disengagement coping were related to perceived performance, but only disengagement coping was related to appraisal. At Round 1 the relationships between engagement and disengagement coping and perceived performance were s i g n i f i c a n t (bs=.35. -.49, re s p e c t i v e l y ) . S i m i l a r l y f o r Round 2 the relationships between performance and engagement/disengagement coping were s i g n i f i c a n t (bs=.34, -.42, respectively). This i s contrary to other studies where researchers have not found s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between coping and performance (Bolger, 1990; Stumpf et a l . , 1987). Bolger found that neither emotion- nor problem-focused coping subscales were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to exam performance. She suggested that lack of any rel a t i o n s h i p may have been due to the way coping was measured and when i t was measured. Bolger used 6 subscales from the Ways of Coping Scale (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; 1985) and suggested that many items may have been i r r e l e v a n t for coping with the stressor (exam) i n her study. Coping was measured 10 days p r i o r to the exam and 17 days a f t e r the exam, Bolger suggested that d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s may have emerged i f measures were administered closer to the exam. In addition, Stumpf et a l . found that emotion-focused coping was rela t e d to perceived performance but not to actual performance (job interview). In the present study engagement and disengagement coping cannot be equated with problem- and emotion-focused coping because they are higher order factors of these scales and therefore contain items from each scale. However, these scales seem to be consistently related to performance, whether performance i s measured subjectively (perceived) or o b j e c t i v e l y (actual). The s p e c i f i c relationships found between s e l f - e f f i c a c y and engagement and disengagement coping suggests that further research i s warranted i n t h i s area. For Round 1 of the competition there was no relationship between s e l f -e f f i c a c y and coping (bs < .08). However, there was a moderate rela t i o n s h i p (b=.51) between s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control appraisal, and i n turn control was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r elated to disengagement coping (b=-.28). The lack of r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - e f f i c a c y and disengagement coping may be due to the influence of control as well as other variables i n the model. For Round 2 of the competition, s e l f - e f f i c a c y was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to disengagement coping (b=-.21) ind i c a t i n g that athletes with higher lev e l s of s e l f - e f f i c a c y used less disengagement coping and therefore were able to be more task focused. Stumpf et a l . (1987) also found the r e l a t i o n s h i p between emotion-focused coping and s e l f -e f f i c a c y to be s i g n i f i c a n t . Therefore, future researchers should explore the relationship between disengagement coping and other variables such as s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control that are thought to influence performance. The present study o f f e r s some support for the assessment of coping using higher-order factors (engagement, disengagement coping) relevant to the s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n to explain the r e l a t i o n s h i p between coping and perceived performance. Conclusions and Implications In summary, t h i s i s one of the few studies that has attempted to explore the relationships among appraisals, coping, and performance over time. Contrary to other studies s e l f - e f f i c a c y was not a s i g n i f i c a n t predictor of perceived performance nor did s e l f - e f f i c a c y mediate the control/performance or anxiety/performance r e l a t i o n s h i p (Feltz, 1982; L i t t , 1988a, 1988b). However, the hypothesis that the f i r s t performance would influence appraisal and coping at the second round of competition, was p a r t i a l l y supported, successful perceived performance at Round 1 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control appraisals at Round 2, and these appraisals were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to disengagement coping but not engagement coping at Round 2. In addition, as expected secondary appraisals of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control were related to coping strategies, which i n turn, were related to performance i n sport events perceived as challenging. I t i s important to emphasize that more engagement coping, compared with disengagement coping, was used by the athletes but only disengagement coping was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to secondary appraisals. Perhaps a l l athletes are trained to focus on the task (engagement coping) and are aware of the types of coping necessary for better performance but some athletes are unable to block out s e l f - c r i t i c i s m and use more wishful thinking (disengagement coping). For example, athletes i n t h i s study who experienced higher levels of anxiety and lower l e v e l s of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control used more disengagement coping. Counsellors who work with athletes should be aware of the athletes appraisals of the competition and how they cope during the competition. This means addressing both p o s i t i v e and negative thoughts, feelings, and actions. Only a few performance intervention studies include i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of p o s i t i v e self-statements or pos i t i v e imagery and attempt to ascertain whether the athletes had been able, as a r e s u l t of the intervention, to reduce negative thoughts and feelings (Larsson et a l . , 1988; Smith & Ascough, 1985). As indicated i n t h i s study, a l l athletes used engagement coping strategies but only those who were less confident and perceived t h e i r performance as less successful used more disengagement coping. Therefore two possible areas to focus interventions are coping and s e l f - e f f i c a c y enhancement. For example, s e l f - e f f i c a c y enhancement may be a large component of coaching since mastery of an event w i l l lead to enhanced s e l f - e f f i c a c y . Coping self-statements i d e n t i f y i n g both p o s i t i v e and negative thoughts and feelings i n order to decrease disengagement coping may be more d i f f i c u l t to teach. However, cognitive interventions such as stress inoculation (Meichenbaum, 1985) may be p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t i v e because the program f a c i l i t a t e s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of and attempts to modify negative self-statements. Limitations The design of my study allowed for a test of both Bandura's (1977) and Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) theories i n a very s p e c i f i c event over time. Although one of the li m i t a t i o n s may be that a l l measures were se l f - r e p o r t , d i f f i c u l t i e s with r e c a l l were circumvented because the measures were given very close to the event. Bandura (1986) suggests that one should not only be concerned with temporal factors but also with the meaning of the s i t u a t i o n . In t h i s study, the contests were experienced as challenging and important by the athletes but were l i k e l y not perceived to be as challenging as an actual game performance. Future researchers may want to assess challenging contests that are more representative of game situations. Other l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study include the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sample. The choice of experienced versus novice athletes perhaps limited the influence of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and performance i n the model. Athletes with a wider range of a b i l i t i e s would not have put a lower l i m i t on s e l f - e f f i c a c y or performance. For example, i n the basketball task many players did not perceive t h e i r performance as successful even i f they scored 6 or 7 out of 8 baskets. A more heterogeneous group may have i d e n t i f i e d the relat i o n s h i p s i n the model more c l e a r l y . However, using college and u n i v e r s i t y athletes and three sport tasks allows for greater g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y beyond one sport. It i s possible that stronger support for a model of coping effectiveness would have emerged i f the events were studied over 3 or 4, rather than 2 rounds of competition. Performance i n the f i r s t round influenced the second round of competition, and t h i s pattern may increase over time. The penalty shot contest was a more novel s i t u a t i o n than the basketball free-throw as evidenced by the f i e l d hockey/soccer players overconfidence that they would perform much better i n the second round of competition. Some of the f i e l d hockey players asked the research assistants for more opportunities to perform so that they could improve t h e i r scores. Studying athletes over 3 or 4 rounds of competitions would have allowed for i n t r a i n d i v i d u a l analyses to determine the rel a t i o n s h i p s of appraisal and coping for performances perceived as successful and to i d e n t i f y differences i n appraisal and coping for performances by the same athlete perceived as unsuccessful. For example. Sexton and Tuckman (1991) found that over three stages of an event (math performance) they had a much clearer understanding of s e l f -e f f i c a c y and outcome expectations. The recursive path analysis used i n t h i s research l i m i t s the p o s s i b i l i t y of studying reciprocal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . For example i t i s possible that coping and performance a f f e c t s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control appraisals, however, i n t h i s study only the performance variable c a r r i e s over to the second model. I t i s also possible that variables within each time period ( i . e . , Round 1) of the model a f f e c t each other. Perhaps control a f f e c t s s e l f - e f f i c a c y as well as s e l f -e f f i c a c y a f f e c t i n g control. Researchers may want to investigate the re c i p r o c a l effects of variables such as s e l f - e f f i c a c y and control to gain a better idea of how these variables r e l a t e to each other for s p e c i f i c s t r e s s f u l events. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study indicate a need to investigate challenging events as they change over time. There i s some suggestion from t h i s research that appraisals change as a r e s u l t of perceived performance. The model of coping effectiveness i n t h i s study suggests that the rel a t i o n s h i p among s e l f - e f f i c a c y , control, and disengagement coping may be an important factor to consider when studying sport events perceived as challenging. Replicating t h i s study with other athletes over more competitions may add to knowledge about coping effectiveness and to a better understanding of how Lazarus' appraisal and coping theory integrates with Bandura's s e l f - e f f i c a c y theory to better understand performance. In addition, intervention studies based on enhancing s e l f - e f f i c a c y or changing coping, i n p a r t i c u l a r focusing on disengagement coping, may lead to a better understanding of coping effectiveness for athletes. References Anshel (1990). Toward a vali d a t i o n of a model for coping with acute stress i n sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology. 21, 58-83. Aldwin, C. M., & Revenson, T. (1987). Does coping help? A reexamination of the r e l a t i o n between coping and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psvcholoav. 53, 337-348. Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). The decomposition of ef f e c t s i n path analysis. American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 40, 37-47. Bandura, A. (1977). S e l f - e f f i c a c y : Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review. 84/ 191-215. Bandura, A. (1978) . Reflections on s e l f - e f f i c a c y . Advances i n Behavioral Research and Therapy. 1, 237-261. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A s o c i a l cognitive theory. Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Bandura, A. (1988). S e l f - e f f i c a c y conception of anxiety. Anxiety Research. 1, 77-98. Bandura, A., & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of s e l f -e f f i c a c y theory of behavioral change. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1, 287-310. Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. (1977). Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 35, 125-139. Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., Hardy, A. B., & Howells, G. N. (1980). Tests of the generality of s e l f - e f f i c a c y theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 4, 39-66. Bandura, A., & Jourden, F. J. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of s o c i a l comparison on complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Soci a l Psychology. 60. 941-951. Bandura, A., Reese, L., & Adams, N. E. (1982). Microanalysis of action and fear arousal as a function of d i f f e r e n t i a l l e v e l s of perceived s e l f - e f f i c a c y . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 43. 5-12. Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Eff e c t of perceived c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y and performance standards on s e l f -regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 56. 805-814. Barling, J . , & Abel, M. (1983). S e l f - e f f i c a c y b e l i e f s and tennis performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 7, 265-274. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable d i s t i n c t i o n i n s o c i a l psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and s t a t i s t i c a l considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51. 1173-1182. Belloc, N. B., & Breslow, L. (1972). Relationship of physical health status and health practice. Preventive Medicine. 1, 409-421. Bezjak, J . E., & Lee, J. W. (1990). Relationship of s e l f -e f f i c a c y and locus of control constructs i n predicting college students' physical f i t n e s s bahaviors. Perceptual and Motor s k i l l s . 71, 499-508. B i l l i n g s , A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981). Role of coping responses and s o c i a l resources i n attenuating the stress of l i f e events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 4, 139-157. Bolger, N. (1990). Coping as a personality process: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59, 525-537. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Model notation, covariances, and path analysis. In K. A. Bollen (Ed.), Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Borkovec, T. D. (1976). Physiological and cognitive processes i n the regulation of anxiety. In G. E. Schwartz & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n ; Advances i n research (pp. 261-312). New York: Plenum. Brody, J . G. (1988). Responses to c o l l e c t i v e r i s k : Appraisal and coping among workers exposed to occupational health hazards. American Journal of Community Psychology. 16, 645-663. Burton, D. (1988). Do anxious swimmers swim slower? Reexamining the elusive anxiety-performance r e l a t i o n s h i p . Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 10. 45-61. Caruso, C. M., Dzewaltowski, D. A., G i l l , D. L., & McElroy, M.A. (1990). Psychological and physiological changes i n competitive state anxiety during noncompetition and competitive success and f a i l u r e . Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 12., 6-20. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., Se Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A t h e o r e t i c a l l y based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 56. 267-283. Chaplin, J. P. (1985). Dictionary of psychology. New York: D e l l Publishing. C o l l i n s , D. L., Baum, A., & Singer, R. E. (1983). Coping with chronic stress at three mile island: Psychological and biochemical evidence. Health Psychology. 2, 149-166. Condiotte, M. M., & Lichtenstein, E. (1981). S e l f - e f f i c a c y and relapse i n smoking cessation programs. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 49, 648-658. Crocker, P. R. E., & Bouffard, M. (in press). Coping and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n physical a c t i v i t y by individuals with physical d i s a b i l i t i e s . Canadian Association for Health. Physical Education and Recreation Journal. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., Rickels, K., Uhlenhuth, E. H., & Covi, L. (1974). The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A se l f - r e p o r t symptom inventory. Behavioral Science. 19, 1-15. D i l l o n , W. R., & Goldstein, M. (1984). Multivariate analysis: Methods and applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Endler, N. S., & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A c r i t i c a l evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 58. 844-854. Ewart, C. K., Taylor, C. B., Reese, L. B., & Debusk, R. F. (1984). Effects of early postmyocarial i n f a r c t i o n exercise t e s t i n g on self-perception and subsequent physical a c t i v i t y . American Journal of Cardiology. 51, 1076-1080. Felton, B. J., & Revenson, T. A. (1984). Coping with chronic i l l n e s s : A study of i l l n e s s c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y and the influence of coping strategies on psychological adjustment. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology. 52. 343-353. Felton, B. J., Revenson, T. A., & Hinrichsen, G. A. (1984). Stress and coping in the explanation of psychological adjustment among chronically i l l adults. S o c i a l Science and Medicine. 18, 889-898. F e l t z , D. L. (1982). Path analysis of the causal elements i n Bandura's theory of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and an anxiety- based model of avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and S o c i a l Psychology. 42., 764-781. F e l t z , D. L. (1988). Gender differences in the causal elements of s e l f - e f f i c a c y on a high avoidance motor task. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology^ 10, 151-166. F e l t z , D. L., & Albrecht, R. R. (1986). Psychological implications of competitive running. In M. R. Weiss & D. Gould (Eds.), Sport for children and youths (pp. 225-235). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. F e l t z , D. L., Landers, D. M., & Raeder, U. (1979). Enhancing s e l f - e f f i c a c y in high-avoidance motor tasks: A comparison of modeling techniques. Journal of Sport Psychology. 1, 112-122. F e l t z , D. L., & Mugno, D. A. (1983). A r e p l i c a t i o n of the path analysis of the causal elements i n Bandura's theory of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and the influence of autonomic perception. Journal of Sport Psychology. 5, 263-277. F e l t z , D. L., & Riessinger, C. A. (1990). Ef f e c t s of i n vivo emotive imagery and performance feedlDack on s e l f - e f f i c a c y and muscular endurance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 12, 132-143. Fleishman, J. A. (1984). Personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and coping patterns. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 25, 229-244. Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping processes: A t h e o r e t i c a l approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 46. 839-852. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping i n a middle aged community sample. Journal of Health and S o c i a l Behavior. 2. 219-239. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If i t changes i t must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 48. 150-170. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between coping and emotion: Implication for theory and research. Social Science Medicine. 36. 309-317. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C , DeLongis, A., & Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a s t r e s s f u l encounter: Cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50. 992-1003. Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Gruen, R. J., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Appraisal, coping, health status, and psychological symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50. 571-579. Forsythe, C. J., & Compas, B. E. (1987). Interaction of cognitive appraisals of s t r e s s f u l coping events and coping: Testing the goodness of f i t hypothesis. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 11. 473-485. Gould, D., Petlichkoff, L., & Weinberg, R. S. (1984). Antecedents of, temporal changes i n , and rela t i o n s h i p s between CSAI 2 suncomponents. Journal of Sport Psychology. 6, 33-42. Gould, D., Weiss, M., & Weinberg, R. S. (1981). Psychological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of successful and nonsuccessful Big Ten wrestlers. Journal of Sport Psychology. 3., 69-81. Hart, K. E. (in press). Coping with anger-provoking si t u a t i o n s : Adolescent coping i n r e l a t i o n to anger r e a c t i v i t y . Journal of Adolescent Research. Hart, K. E., & Cardozo, S. R. (1988, March). Convergent and divergent v a l i d i t y evidence for a new measure of threatening and challenging stress appraisals. Paper presented at the convention of the Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA. Highlen, P. A., & Bennett, B. B. (1979). Psychological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of successful and nonsuccessful e l i t e wrestlers: An exploratory study. Journal of Sport Psvchologv. 1, 123-137. Huband, D., & McKelvie, J. S. (1986). Pre and post game state anxiety i n team athletes high and low i n competitive t r a i t anxiety. International Journal of Sport Psvchologv. 17, 191-198. Joreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis i n several populations. Psychometrika. 36, 409-426. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI: Analysis of li n e a r s t r u c t u r a l relationships bv maximum l i k e l i h o o d , instrumental variables, and least methods (Computer program). Mooresville, IN: S c i e n t i f i c Software. K a r t e r o l i o t i s , C., & G i l l , D. L. (1987). Temporal changes i n ph y s i o l o g i c a l and psychological components of state anxiety. Journal of Sport Psychology. 9, 261-274. Kazdin, A. E. (1980). Research i n c l i n i c a l psychology. New York: Harper & Row. Kerr, J . (1987). Structural phenomenology, arousal and performance. Journal of Human Movement Studies. 13. 211-229. K i l l e n , J.D., MacCoby, N., & Taylor, C. B. (1984). Nicotine gum and s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n t r a i n i n g i n smoking relapse prevention. Behavior Therapy. 15. 234-248. Larsson, G., Cook, C., & Starrin, B. (1988). A time and cost e f f i c i e n t stress inoculation t r a i n i n g program for athletes: A study of junior golfers. Scandanavian Journal of Sports Science. 10. 23-28. Lay, C. H., Edwards, J. M., Parker, J. D. A., & Endler, N. S. (1989). An assessment of appraisal, anxiety, coping, and procrastination during an examination period. European Journal of Personality^ 3, 195-208. Lazarus, R. S. (1985). The costs and benefits of denial. In A. Monat & R. S. Lazarus (Eds.), Stress and coping: An anthology (pp. 154-173). New York: Columbia University Press. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and and coping. New York: Springer. Lee, C. (1982). S e l f - e f f i c a c y as a predictor of performance i n competitive gymnastics. Journal of Sport Psychology. 4, 405-409. L i t t , M. D. (1988a). Cognitive mediators of s t r e s s f u l experience: S e l f - e f f i c a c y and perceived contr o l . Cognitive Therapy and Research. 12, 241-260. L i t t , M. D. (1988b). S e l f - e f f i c a c y and perceived control: Cognitive mediators of pain tolerance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 54. 149-160. Long, B. C. (1990) . Relationships between coping strategies, sex typed t r a i t s , and environmental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : A comparison of male and female managers. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 37, 185-194. Mahoney, M. J., & Avener, M. (1977). Psychology of the e l i t e athlete. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1, 135-141. Martens, M. J., Burton, D., Vealey, R. S., Bump, L. A., & Smith, D. E. (1982, May). Cognitive and somatic dimensions of competitive anxiety (CSAI-2). Paper presented at North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical A c t i v i t y (NASPSPA) Maryland, College Park, MD. Martens, R. , Burton, D., Vealey, R. S., Bump, L. A., & Smith, D. E. (1990). Development and v a l i d a t i o n of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). In R. Martens, R. S. Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive anxiety (pp. 117-190). Champaign, IL: Human Ki n e t i c s . Martens, M. J., Vealey, R. S., & Burton, D. (1990). Competitive anxiety i n sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kin e t i c s . M a t t l i n , J . , Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (1990). S i t u a t i o n a l determinants of coping and coping effectiveness. Journal of Health and Soc i a l Behavior. 31, 103-122. Maynard, I. W., & Howe, B. L. (1987). Interrelations of t r a i t and state anxiety with game performance of rugby players. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s . 64. 599-602. McAuley, E. (1984). State anxiety: Antecedent or r e s u l t of sport performance. Journal of Sport Behavior. 8, 71-77. McAuley, E. (1985). Modeling and s e l f - e f f i c a c y : A t e s t of Bandura's model. Journal of Sport Psychology. 7, 283-295. McAuley, E., & G i l l , D. (1983). R e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the physical s e l f - e f f i c a c y scale i n a competitive sport s e t t i n g . Journal of Sport Psychology. 5, 410-418. McCrae, R. R. (1984). Situational determinants of coping responses: Loss, threat, and challenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 46, 919-928. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness i n an adult sample. Journal of Personality 54. 385-405. McKelvie, S. J., & V a l l i a n t , P. M., & Asu, M. E. (1985). Physical t r a i n i n g and personality factors as predictors of marathon time and tr a i n i n g injury. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s . 60/ 551-566. Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Stress inoculation t r a i n i n g . New York: Pergamon. Menaghan, E. G. (1983). Individual coping e f f o r t s and family studies: Conceptual and methodological issues. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychosocial stress; Trends i n theory and research (pp. 113-134). New York; Academic Press. M i l l e r , J . T., & McAuley, E. (1987). Effects of a goal s e t t i n g t r a i n i n g program on basketball free-throw s e l f -e f f i c a c y and performance. The Sport Psychologist. 1, 103-113. Murphy, S. M., & Woolfolk, R. L. (1987). The ef f e c t s of cognitive interventions on competitive anxiety and performance on a fine motor s k i l l acuracy task. International Journal of Sport Psychology^ 18, 152-186. Nideffer, R. M. (1981). Test of attentional and interpersonal s t y l e . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 34. 393-404. Parkes, K.R. (1986). Coping i n s t r e s s f u l episodes: The r o l e of i n d i v i d u a l differences, environmental factors, and s i t u a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology. 51. 1277-1292. Peacock, E. J., & Wong, P. T. P. (1990). The Stress Appraisal Measure (SAM): A multidimensional approach to cognitive appraisal. Stress Medicine. 6, 227-236. Pea r l i n , L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 19, 2-21. Rescorla, R. A., & Soloman, R. L. (1967). Two-process learning theory: Relationships between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning. Psychological Review. 74, 141-182. Robinson, D. W., & Howe, B. L. (1989). Appraisal v a r i a b l e / a f f e c t relationships i n youth sport: A t e s t of Weiner's a t t r i b u t i o n a l model. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 11, 431-443. Rotter, J . B. (1980). Interpersonal t r u s t , trustworthiness, and g u l l i b i l i t y . American Psychologist. 35, 1-7. Sarason, I. G. (1978). The Test Anxiety Scale: Concept and research. In C. D. Spielberger & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (vol. 5, pp. 193-216) . Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Scheier, M. F., Weintraub, J. K., & Carver, C. S. (1986). Coping with stress: Divergent strategies of optimists and pessimists. Journal of Personality and Soc i a l Psychology, 51, 1257-1264. Sexton, T. L., & Tuckman, B. W. (1991). S e l f - b e l i e f s and behavior: The role of s e l f - e f f i c a c y and outcome expectation over time. Personality and Individual Differences. 12. 725-736. S i l v a , J . M., Schultz, B., Haslam, R., & Murray, D. (1981). A psychophysiological assessment of e l i t e wrestlers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 52, 348-558. Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1987). Patterns of appraisal and emotion related to taking an exam. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 52, 475-488. Smith, R. E. (1984). Theoretical and treatment approaches to anxiety reduction. In J. M. S i l v a & R. S. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 157-170). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Smith, R. E. (1989). Effects of coping t r a i n i n g on generalized s e l f - e f f i c a c y and locus of contro l . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 56. 228-233. Smith, R. E., & Ascough, J. C. (1985). Induced a f f e c t i n stress management tr a i n i n g . In S. Burchfield (Ed.), Stress; Psychological and physiological interactions (pp. 359-378). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Schutz, R. W. (1990). Measurement and correlates of sport s p e c i f i c cognitive and somatic t r a i t anxiety: The sport anxiety scale. Anxiety Research. 2, 263-280. Sonstroem, R. J., & Bernardo, P. (1982). I n t r a i n d i v i d u a l pregame state anxiety and basketball performance; A reexamination of the inverted-U curve. Journal of Sport Psychology. 4, 235-245. Steptoe, A. (1989). The significance of personal control i n health and disease. In A. Steptoe & A. Appels (Eds.), Stress, personal control and health (pp. 309-318). Brussels: John Wiley & Sons. Stone, A. A., Greenberg, M.A., Kennedy-Moore, E., & Newman, M. G. (1991). Self-reported, s i t u a t i o n - s p e c i f i c coping questionnaires: What are they measuring? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 61, 648-658. Stone, A. A., & Neale, J. M. (1984). A new measure of daily-coping: Development and preliminary r e s u l t s . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 46. 892-906. Stumpf, S. A., Brief, A. P., & Hartman, K. (1987), S e l f -expectations and coping with career-related events. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 31^ 91-108. Suis, J . , & Fletcher, B. (1985). The r e l a t i v e e f f i c a c y of avoidant and nonavoidant coping strategies: a meta-analysis. Health Psychology. 4, 249-288, Suis, J . M., & M i l l e r , R. L. (Eds.).(1977). Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Suinn, R. M. (1987). Behavioral approaches to st r e s s -management i n sport. In R. J. May, & M. J. Asken (Eds.), Sport psychology: The psychological health of the athlete (pp. 59-75). New York: PMA Publishing Corp. Taylor, J . (1987). Predicting a t h l e t i c performance with self-confidence and somatic and cognitive anxiety as a function of motor and physiological requirements i n s i x sports. Journal of Personality. 55, 140-153. Taylor, J . (1989). The effects of personal and competitive s e l f - e f f i c a c y and d i f f e r e n t i a l outcome feedback on subsequent s e l f - e f f i c a c y and performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 13, 67-79. Tobin, D. L., Holroyd, K. A., Reynolds, R. V., & Wigal, J. K. (1989). The h i e r a r c h i a l factor structure of the coping strategies inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 343-361. Turner, J . A., Clancy, S., & V i t a l i a n o , P. P. (1987), Relationships of stress, appraisal and coping, to chronic low back pain. Behavior. Research and Therapy. 25. 281-288. Vingerhoets, J. J., & Van Heck, G. L. (1990). Gender, coping, and psychosomatic symptoms. Psychological Medicine. 20, 125-135. V i t a l i a n o , P. P., Russo, J., & Maiuro, R. D. (1987). Locus of control, type of stressor, and appraisal within a cognitive-phenomenological model of stress. Journal of Research i n Personality. 21. 224-237. Wagner, H. M. , Compas, B. E., & Howell, D. C. (1988). Daily and major l i f e events: A test of an integrative model of psychosocial stress. American Journal of Community Psychology. 16, 189-205. Weinberg, R. S. (1978). The effects of success and f a i l u r e on the patterning of neuromuscular energy. Journal of Motor Behavior. 10, 53-61. Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An empirical t e s t of Bandura's s e l f - e f f i c a c y theory. Journal of Sport Psychology. 1, 320-331. Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., Yukelson, D., & Jackson, A. (1981). E f f e c t of preexisting and manipulated s e l f -e f f i c a c y on a competitive muscular endurance task. Journal of Sport Psychology. 3, 345-354. Whelan, J . P., Epkins, C. C , & Meyers, A. W. (1990). Arousal interventions for a t h l e t i c performance: Influence of mental preparation and competitive experience. Anxiety Research. 2, 293-307. Wine, J . (1971). Test anxiety and d i r e c t i o n of attention. Psychological B u l l e t i n . 76. 92-104. Woolfolk, R. L., & Lehrer, P. M. (1984). P r i n c i p l e s and prac t i c e of stress management. New York: G u i l f o r d Press. Yan Lan, L., & G i l l , D. L. (1984). The relationships among s e l f - e f f i c a c y , stress responses, and a cognitive feedback manipulation. Journal of Sport Psychology. 6, 227-238. APPENDIX A Information for Coaches P i l o t Study Report Testing Procedures Schema for Testing Procedures Protocol for the Contests Informed Consent The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Faculty of Education Department of Counselling Psychology 5780 Toronto Road Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1L2 Dear Coach: I am requesting your involvement i n a research project c a r r i e d out by myself (a Doctoral student at U.B.C.) and supervised by Dr. Bonnie Long, Department of Counselling Psychology. In order to understand how women experience competition we are int e r e s t e d i n your support for our project. At present the research has been c a r r i e d out with over 200 female soccer, basketball and f i e l d hockey players from colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s i n B.C. The research involves asking athletes to complete a questionnaire p r i o r to a competition and a f t e r they have completed the competition. The competition w i l l be a penalty-shot contest held during one of your p r a c t i s e s . Research assistants w i l l administer questionnaires and run the contest. The time involved w i l l be approximately 35 minutes. A l l questionnaires w i l l be c o n f i d e n t i a l . There w i l l be small prizes for the winning team. As you probably know there i s very l i t t l e research on how athletes handle competition. I am hoping that t h i s type of research w i l l be useful for coaches and sport counsellors and w i l l also add to the l i m i t e d research i n t h i s area. Thank-you very much for reading my l e t t e r . I w i l l contact you the week of May 21 (or you can contact me at 8 2 2 - 5 3 4 5 ) . I f p o s s i b l e we would l i k e to do our research with your team within the next 10 days. Please see the next page for the s p e c i f i c format. Sincerely, Supervisor : Dr. Bonnie Long 822-4756 Colleen Haney 822-5345 Example of proposed .format for Penalty-Shot Competition P r i o r to the contest Research Assistants w i l l b r i e f l y explain the research and the competition. There w i l l be 2 rounds of competition. Questionnaires w i l l be administered before the contest, a f t e r round 1 and a f t e r round 2. For each round of competition each player w i l l shoot 5 shots (1 at a time) u n t i l a l l players at that goal have attempted 5 shots. Players w i l l be randomly assigned to 4 teams (depending on the number of pl a y e r s ) . Two teams w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e at each goal. Small prizes w i l l be awarded to the winning team members. P i l o t S tudy R e p o r t The i n i t i a l p i l o t s t u d y i n v e s t i g a t e d whe the r a t h l e t e s p e r c e i v e d t h e f r e e - t h r o w c o n t e s t and p e n a l t y sho t c o n t e s t as c h a l l e n g i n g and i m p o r t a n t , and d e t e r m i n e d s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a f o r d a t a i n c l u d e d i n t h e a n a l y s i s f o r t h e a c t u a l s t u d y . A d d i t i o n a l l y , p r o c e d u r e s t o be u s e d i n t h e a c t u a l s t u d y were t e s t e d . S p e c i f i c r e s u l t s f o r t h e C o p i n g P i l o t a r e r e p o r t e d i n A p p e n d i x C . C h a l l e n g e L a z a r u s and Fo lkman (1984) s t a t e t h a t " i f t h e p e r s o n has s o m e t h i n g a t s t a k e i n t h e outcome, t h e p r i m a r y a p p r a i s a l w i l l be t h a t t h e e n c o u n t e r does pose a p o t e n t i a l t h r e a t , harm o r c h a l l e n g e , d e p e n d i n g on t h e c o p i n g r e s o u r c e s and o p t i o n s ( s e c o n d a r y a p p r a i s a l ) " (p. 3 1 5 ) . C h a l l e n g i n g a p p r a i s a l s f o c u s on t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r g a i n i n t h e s i t u a t i o n and a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by p o s i t i v e e m o t i o n s s u c h as h o p e f u l n e s s , e a g e r n e s s , and c o n f i d e n c e . However, t h r e a t and c h a l l e n g e a r e n o t e x c l u s i v e o f e a c h o t h e r and i n most s i t u a t i o n s p e o p l e e x p e r i e n c e a c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h r e a t and c h a l l e n g e e m o t i o n s (Fo lkman & L a z a r u s , 1 9 8 5 ) . P i l o t r e s u l t s f o r c h a l l e n g e a p p r a i s a l s i n d i c a t e d t h a t 92% o f t h e b a s k e t b a l l p l a y e r s (n=13) and 87% o f t h e f i e l d hockey p l a y e r s (n=31) s c o r e d e q u a l t o o r g r e a t e r t h a n 2 ( "somewhat" t o " a g r e a t d e a l " ) on a t ' l e a s t one c h a l l e n g e e m o t i o n . The p e r c e n t a g e o f p l a y e r s s c o r i n g "somewhat " t o " a g r e a t d e a l " on s p e c i f i c c h a l l e n g e i t e m s we re : c o n f i d e n c e -100% b a s k e t b a l l , 87 .1% f i e l d h o c k e y ; h o p e f u l - 8 4 . 6 % basketball, 77.4% f i e l d hockey; eager-79.2% basketball, 64.5% f i e l d hockey. Results indicate that these events were not perceived as a threat. Almost 100% of the players indicated "not at a l l " or "a l i t t l e " for threat items worried and f e a r f u l . For the threat item anxious-7% basketball and 29% of f i e l d hockey players indicated "quite a b i t " to "a great deal". The c o r r e l a t i o n s for challenge and threat are low (r=.17, basketball; r=.36, f i e l d hockey). This i s s i m i l a r to Folkman and Lazarus' (1985) study where challenge emotions were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to threat emotions. However, unlike the Folkman study t h i s p i l o t found that the contests were much more of a challenge than a threat. This finding was expected due to the differences i n s i t u a t i o n s (exam vs free-throw contest). However, i t i s important to note that i n the Folkman study a score of 1 or greater on threat or challenge items determined whether the event was considered a threat or a challenge. For example, an i n d i v i d u a l with a score of 1 for threat emotions and a score of 1 for challenge emotions would be considered to have experienced both emotions. Means and standard deviations for i n d i v i d u a l emotions were not reported i n the Folkman study. Importance A challenging s i t u a t i o n must have some importance to the i n d i v i d u a l i n order to be considered " s t r e s s f u l " (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). In response to the primary appraisal importance (stakes),-this performance " i s one of importance to me" was scored as applying "somewhat" to "a great deal" by 92 .3% of the basketball and 83.9% of the f i e l d hockey players. This performance "matters a great deal to me" was scored "somewhat" to "a great deal" by 76.9% of basketball and 74 .2% of f i e l d hockey players. These items were moderately r e l a t e d to challenge (r=.54 to r = . 6 7 ) . Because these items are rel a t e d p o s i t i v e l y to challenge, these items were used i n the actual study to determine how important the athletes perceive the event to be. Challenge and Importance One of the objectives of the p i l o t study was to e s t a b l i s h c r i t e r i a based on challenge and importance to determine which data were included i n the analysis for the actual study. Therefore, a cross tabulation analysis of challenge and importance for i n d i v i d u a l athletes was performed. Results indicated that 3 basketball players and 6 f i e l d hockey players viewed the contest as having " l i t t l e " or "no" importance (although they perceived the event as challenging). A d d i t i o n a l l y , 2 f i e l d hockey players reported the event as having " l i t t l e " challenge. Therefore, for the actual study, only data that indicated the s i t u a t i o n as having some importance (>1) and viewing the s i t u a t i o n as challenging (>3) was included in the anal y s i s . Carver et a l . (1989) used s i m i l a r c r i t e r i a for importance appraisals for students reporting on how they coped with examination or re l a t i o n s h i p s i t u a t i o n s . Testing of the Procedures A l l procedures and questionnaires were tested duri the p i l o t study. Some minor changes were made to the proto c o l . See attached schema and protocol for s p e c i f i c procedures for basketball and f i e l d hockey. Testing Procedures BASKETBALL/FIELD HOCKEY/SOCCER RESEARCH ASSISTANT GUIDELINES (a) One research assistant (RA) w i l l meet with 10-12 players for the i n i t i a l questionnaires. (b) Two other RA's w i l l run the contest and administer a questionnaire a f t e r Round 1 (5-6 athletes) and a f t e r Round 2 for study. (a) Research assistant meeting for i n i t i a l questionnaires. Procedures: Meet with p a r t i c i p a n t s approximately 10 players at a time. Introduce s e l f and PURPOSE of the r e s e a r c h — t o study how athletes experience competition. Very few studies on how women react to competition. Plan w i l l be to study 200 ath l e t e s . Explain CONFIDENTIALITY—information w i l l not be given to anyone connected with your sport. Only the researcher and supervisor w i l l have access to questionnaires. This i s a volunteer project and we require your permission to p a r t i c i p a t e . Go over informed consent b r i e f l y . We w i l l ask you to complete short questionnaires before and a f t e r you shoot. Any questions? Explain the competition-For example, each player w i l l have 5 penalty shots per round at the goal (8 at the basket for free-throws), 3 or 4 scores w i l l be added together for a team t o t a l to determine the winner of the contest. Hand the athletes the set of questionnaires and ask them to please f i l l out the informed consent and information questionnaire f i r s t . Ask them to be as honest as possible and to not dwell on any questions. Enclose i n the envelope provided. Name or i n i t i a l s on envelope. C o l l e c t envelopes (do not give to anyone) except me. Send players to appropriate goals/baskets. (b) Researchers on the f i e l d / f l o o r . Procedures: Introduce s e l f . One researcher review task ask i f any questions. Mention that a f t e r task they w i l l compete the questionnaires. Researcher 1 reviews task, organizes players to shoot (1 shot a l t e r n a t e l y for f i e l d hockey) commands s t r i k e r , keeper, whistle. For BB hands players b a l l as i n a game ( b a l l always goes to RA before the shooter gets i t ) . Researcher 2 records shots check >^  i f i n X i f missed. Researcher 2 - a f t e r shooting i s completed hand out the questionnaires and ask players to answer as quickly as possible (no right wrong answers, don't dwell on questions). Ask them please not to communicate with each other when doing the questionnaires. (Questionnaires for next round w i l l be marked ROUND 2). C o l l e c t questionnaires. Researcher 1 set up for Round 2 and begin. Researcher 2 records shots. A f t e r shots are completed take the group away from goal/basket to complete f i n a l questionnaires. F i n a l l y , thank a l l players for p a r t i c i p a t i n g and debrief. Ask players how they f e l t about completing the questionnaires. T e l l them any comments would be h e l p f u l . Researcher 1 c i r c l e winning team; t a l l y scores at side; do not give to players u n t i l they are completely f i n i s h e d the questionnaires. I w i l l c o l l e c t these from you. Schema for Testing Procedures for the Basketball Free-Throw Contest and Soccer/Field Hockey Penalty Shot Contests Time (Prior To Round 1 of the Competitions) 15 minutes Research task explained. Informed Consent administered and Demographic Information c o l l e c t e d . 5 minutes Primary Appraisals, Secondary Appraisals, and Anxiety Questionnaires administered. Time (After Round 1) Immediately Coping C h e c k l i s t and Perceived Performance Questionnaire administered. Time (Prior To Round 2 of the Competitions) 5 minutes Primary Appraisals, Secondary Appraisals, and Anxiety Questionnaires Administered. Questionnaires. Time (After Round 2) Immediately Coping Checklist and Perceived Performance Questionnaires Administered. Protocol for Basketball, F i e l d Hockey and Soccer Contests Coaches (and/or tournament organizers) were contacted by the in v e s t i g a t o r by l e t t e r i n v i t i n g t h e i r athletes to v o l u n t a r i l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n a research study on how women experience competition. A l l p a r t i c i p a n t s met with a research assistant (RA) 15 minutes before the contest. For competitions that took place during team p r a c t i c e s players were randomly assigned by the investigator to teams (e.g., coaches were asked to i d e n t i f y players by t h e i r f i r s t name s t a r t i n g with f i r s t s t r i n g p l a y e r s — e v e r y f o r t h player was assigned to a d i f f e r e n t team). For competitions that took place during a tournament teams entered as many athletes as they wished and the athletes were randomly assigned to teams (assignment was i d e n t i c a l to that of team p r a c t i c e s — w i t h the exception of one team where the manager i d e n t i f i e d p l a y e r s ) . Teams consisted of from 4 to 6 players. Research assistants tested a maximum of 6 players at one time. The day of the competition, the research assistant took the team members to the basket or goal they were competing at. Researchers then (a) presented the ra t i o n a l e of the study to the group, (b) discussed c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y — n o access of information to coach or anyone associated with the sport, (c) discussed the importance of answering the questions honestly—no right or wrong, and (d) discussed informed consent—volunteer project. P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked i f they had any questions. The researcher explained the format of t h e c o m p e t i t i o n ( e . g . , f o r b a s k e t b a l l ; e a ch a t h l e t e w i l l shoo t 2 c o n s e c u t i v e s h o t s u n t i l a l l have c o m p l e t e d 8 s h o t s ) . Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ( i n f o r m e d c o n s e n t , p r i m a r y a p p r a i s a l ( s t a k e s ) , p r i m a r y a p p r a i s a l ( e m o t i o n s ) , s e c o n d a r y a p p r a i s a l ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y and c o n t r o l ) and an a n x i e t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e were a d m i n i s t e r e d t o t h e a t h l e t e s . When a l l a t h l e t e s had c o m p l e t e d t h e s e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t h e c o m p e t i t i o n b e g a n . D u r i n g t h e c o m p e t i t i o n . t h e r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t r e c o r d e d i n d i v i d u a l s c o r e s f o r e a ch p l a y e r . When p l a y e r s c o m p l e t e d 8 s h o t s (5 f o r f i e l d h o c k e y , s o c c e r ) a s e c o n d s e t o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ( p e r f o rmance and c op ing ) were a d m i n i s t e r e d and c o l l e c t e d by t h e r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t . P l a y e r s were t h e n a s k e d t o f o c u s on t h e n e x t p a r t o f t h e c o m p e t i t i o n and t h e n t h e p r i m a r y and s e c o n d a r y a p p r a i s a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and an a n x i e t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Round 2 s h o o t i n g t h e n b e g a n . When a l l p l a y e r s had c o m p l e t e d a s e c o n d s e t o f 8 (5) s h o t s t h e r e s e a r c h e r a d m i n i s t e r e d p o s t c o m p e t i t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ( p e r f o r m a n c e , c o p i n g , d e m o g r a p h i c ) , A l l p a r t i c i p a n t s were t h a n k e d , d e b r i e f e d , and any q u e s t i o n s a n s w e r e d . P r i z e s were awarded when a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s had c o m p l e t e d t h e c o n t e s t . INFORMED CONSENT T i t l e of the study: Coping effectiveness: the f i t among cognitive appraisals, coping e f f o r t s , and perceived performance for female athletes. Date: Purpose of the study: This i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s being conducted to gain a better understanding of how athletes experience competition. Procedure : As a p a r t i c i p a n t you w i l l be asked to do the following: 1 . P a r t i c i p a t e i n a contest with other a t h l e t e s . A l l athletes w i l l p a r t i c i p a t e i n teams and compete against other teams. 2 . Do paper and p e n c i l questionnaires before you compete i n two rounds of competition and a f t e r each round of competition. The questionnaires w i l l take IJO - 1 5 minutes to complete. This i s to c e r t i f y that I, , agree to v o l u n t a r i l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n on competition. I understand that I do not have to p a r t i c i p a t e and that I am free to withdraw my consent and may terminate my p a r t i c i p a t i o n at any time, and t h i s w i l l not jeopardize my opportunity to p a r t i c i p a t e i n any other programs sponsored by the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. Data that are c o l l e c t e d w i l l remain c o n f i d e n t i a l with regard to my i d e n t i t y - P articipants w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d by number only and a l l questionnaires w i l l be i n a locked f i l e cabinet. Only the investigator and her supervisor w i l l have access to the f i l e s . . I w i l l have a chance to ask any questions I want about t h i s research project. Questions I ask w i l l be answered to my s a t i s f a c t i o n . I w i l l receive a copy of t h i s consent form. Date: Participants signature Faculty Supervisor: Dr. B. Long Investigator's Signature Colleen Haney, MPE, Doctoral Candidate i n Counselling Psychology 2 2 8 - 5 3 4 5 (day) Dept. of Counselling Psychology 8 2 2 - 4 7 5 6 APPENDIX B Demographic Questionnaire Screening Questionnaires Primary Appraisal (stakes) Primary Appraisal (emotions) Predictor Measures Secondary Appraisals ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y , control) State Anxiety Coping Checklist Perceived Performance DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE: F o r p u r p o s e s o f s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o n l y , p l e a s e answer t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s a b o u t y o u r s e l f . Your answers w i l l r e m a i n anonymous and s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . However , t h i s b i o g r a p h i c a l d a t a i s c r u c i a l t o t h e s t u d y . Answer t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s by CIRCLING t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e i n s t r u c t e d . 1. Number o f y e a r s t h a t you have p l a y e d t h i s s p o r t . 2 . H i g h e s t l e v e l a t w h i c h you have p l a y e d : O l y m p i c 1 N a t i o n a l 2 U n i v e r s i t y 3 S e n i o r A 4 P r o v i n c i a l 5 S e n i o r B 6 C o l l e g e / H i g h S c h o o l 8 O t h e r ( P l e a s e s p e c i f y : . . . ? 3 . What o t h e r s p o r t s do you p a r t i c i p a t e i n ? S p o r t L e v e l Number o f Y e a r s B a s k e t b a l l F i e l d Hockey S o c c e r S o f t b a l l T e n n i s V o l l e y b a l l O t h e r ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y ) 4 . How i m p o r t a n t i s i n v o l v e m e n t i n s p o r t t o you? ( c i r c l e ) 1 2 3 4 5 no t a t a l l somewhat m o d e r a t e l y q u i t e v e r y 5. Related sport involvement and years (e.g., coaching v o l l e y b a l l community - 5 years) 6. What i s your age? years 7. Are you: married/common law 1 separated/divorced 2 singl e 3 8. Are you presently: (e.g., from Sept. to April) A f u l l time student 1 Working f u l l time 2 Working part time 3 Unemployed 4 9. I f working what i s your job t i t l e ? 10. What i s the highest educational l e v e l you have attained? Less than grade 12 1 Grade 12 completed 2 College (2 or 3 yr. degree) 3 U n i v e r s i t y (4 or 5 yr. degree) 4 Post-un i v e r s i t y degree 5 PLEASE THINK ABOUT YOUR LAST GAME. 11. How s a t i s f i e d do you f e e l with your performance i n the game? (please c i r c l e ) 1 2 3 4 5 not at a l l somewhat moderately quite very 12. How s a t i s f i e d do you f e e l as a member of t h i s team? 1 2 3 4 5 not at a l l somewhat moderately quite very PRIMARY APPRAISAL (STAKES) THE PURPOSE OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE IS TO GAIN A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW FEMALE ATHLETES EXPERIENCE COMPETITION. In a n t i c i p a t i o n of the penalty shot contest please answer the following questions. My shooting performance; not at somewhat moderately a l l so very much so 1. Is one of importance to me. 0 1 2 3 2. Matters a great deal deal to me. 0 1 2 3 This shooting competition; 3. Is challenging for me. 0 1 2 3 PRIMARY APPRAISAL (EMOTIONS) Be l ow i s a l i s t o f words d e s c r i b i n g d i f f e r e n t e m o t i o n s . C i r c l e t h e c h o i c e w h i c h b e s t d e s c r i b e s how you f e e l r i g h t now. n o t a t a l l a l i t t l e somewhat q u i t e a b i t a g r e a t d e a l w o r r i e d 0 1 2 3 4 c o n f i d e n t 0 1 2 3 4 a n g r y 0 1 2 3 4 e x h i l a r a t e d 0 1 2 3 4 f e a r f u l 0 1 2 3 4 h o p e f u l 0 1 2 3 4 s a d 0 1 2 3 4 p l e a s e d 0 1 2 3 4 a n x i o u s 0 1 , 2 3 4 e a g e r 0 1 2 3 4 d i s a p p o i n t e d 0 1 2 3 4 g u i l t y 0 1 2 3 4 h a p p i n e s s 0 1 2 3 4 r e l i e f 0 1 2 3 4 d i s g u s t e d 0 1 2 3 4 SECONDARY APPRAISALS (SELF-EFFICACY/CONTROL) F IELD HOCKEY/SOCCER On a s c a l e o f 10 t o 100 how c o n f i d e n t a r e you t h a t you can s u c c e s s f u l l y c o m p l e t e : 2 s h o t s out o f 5 10 100 w r i t e t h e number out o f 100 3 s h o t s out o f 5 10 100 w r i t e t h e number ou t o f 100 4 s h o t s out o f 5 10 100 w r i t e t h e number ou t o f 100 F o r t h i s c o n t e s t : ( p l e a s e c i r c l e ) 1. I f e e l i n c o n t r o l o f t h e s i t u a t i o n . 0 1 2 3 4 n o t a t a l l somewhat v e r y much so 2 . I f e e l i n c o n t r o l o f my e m o t i o n s . 0 1 2 3 4 n o t a t a l l somewhat v e r y much so 3 . I f e e l i n c o n t r o l o f my s h o o t i n g . 0 1 2 3 4 n o t a t a l l somewhat v e r y much so STATE ANXIETY MEASURE ATHLETE SELF-EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE DIRECTIONS: A number o f s t a t e m e n t s w h i c h a t h l e t e s have us ed t o d e s c r i b e t h e i r f e e l i n g s b e f o r e c o m p e t i t i o n a r e g i v e n b e l o w . Read ea ch s t a t e m e n t and t h e n c i r c l e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e number t o t h e r i g h t o f t h e s t a t e m e n t t o i n d i c a t e HOW YOU ARE FEEL ING RIGHT NOW—at t h i s moment. There a r e no r i g h t o r wrong a n s w e r s . DO NOT spend t o o much t i m e on one s t a t e m e n t , b u t choose t h e answer w h i c h d e s c r i b e s y ou r f e e l i n g s RIGHT NOW. NOT MODERATELY VERY AT ALL SOMEWHAT SO MUCH SO 1. I f e e l n e r v o u s . 1 2 3 4 2 . I f e e l j i t t e r y . 3 . My body f e e l s t e n s e . 4 . I f e e l t e n s e i n my s t o m a c h . 1 5 . My body f e e l s r e l a x e d . 6. My h e a r t i s r a c i n g . 7 . I f e e l my s tomach s i n k i n g . 1 8. My hands a r e clammy, 9 . My body f e e l s t i g h t 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 COPING CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS: Be l ow i s a l i s t o f ways i n w h i c h a t h l e t e s can r e s p o n d t o c o m p e t i t i v e e v e n t s . T h i n k abou t t h e c o n t e s t you have j u s t competed i n . Read ea ch s t a t e m e n t c a r e f u l l y and i n d i c a t e , by c i r c l i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e number, t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h you u s e d i t i n t h e c o n t e s t . PLEASE RATE EACH STRATEGY ( c i r c l e ) . D i d no t Used Used Used a a p p l y Somewhat Q u i t e G r e a t a b i t D e a l 1. I changed o r grew as a 0 1 2 3 p e r s o n i n a good way. 2 . I j u s t c o n c e n t r a t e d on 0 1 2 3 what I had t o do n e x t — t h e n e x t s t e p . 3 . I t r i e d no t t o a c t t o o 0 1 2 3 h a s t i l y . 4 . I c r i t i c i z e d o r l e c t u r e d 0 1 2 3 ' m y s e l f . 5 . I p u t a s i d e o t h e r 0 1 2 3 a c t i v i t i e s i n o r d e r t o c o n c e n t r a t e on t h i s . 6. I made a p r o m i s e t o m y s e l f 0 1 2 3 t h a t t h i n g s w o u l d be d i f f e r e n t n e x t t i m e . 7 . I t r i e d t o f o r g e t t h e who l e 0 1 2 3 t h i n g . 8 . I a v o i d e d b e i n g w i t h p e o p l e 0 1 2 3 i n g e n e r a l . 9 . I k e p t m y s e l f f rom g e t t i n g 0 1 2 3 d i s t r a c t e d by o t h e r t h o u g h t s o r a c t i v i t i e s . 10 . I w i s h e d t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n 0 1 2 3 w o u l d go away o r somehow be o v e r w i t h . PLEASE RATE EACH STRATEGY D i d n o t Used Used Used a a p p l y Somewhat Q u i t e G r e a t a b i t D e a l 1 1 . I s t o o d my g r o u n d and 0 1 2 3 f o u g h t f o r what I w a n t e d . 1 2 . I drew on my p a s t 0 1 2 3 e x p e r i e n c e s ; I was i n a s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n b e f o r e . 1 3 . I knew what h a d t o be 0 1 2 3 done , so I d o u b l e d my e f f o r t s t o make t h i n g s w o r k . 14 . I f o c u s e d on d e a l i n g 0 1 2 3 w i t h t h i s p r o b l e m , and i f n e c e s s a r y l e t o t h e r t h i n g s s l i d e a l i t t l e . 1 5 . I r e a l i z e d I b r o u g h t 0 1 2 3 t h e p r o b l e m on m y s e l f . 1 6 . I t r i e d t o keep my 0 1 2 3 f e e l i n g s f r om i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h o t h e r t h i n g s t o o much. 1 7 . I hoped a m i r a c l e w o u l d 0 1 2 3 h a p p e n . 1 8 . I t r i e d h a r d t o p r e v e n t 0 1 2 3 o t h e r t h i n g s f rom i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h my e f f o r t s a t d e a l i n g w i t h t h i s . 1 9 . I went o v e r i n my m ind 0 1 2 3 what I w o u l d s a y . 2 0 . I r e f u s e d t o b e l i e v e t h a t 0 1 2 3 i t had h a p p e n e d . PLEASE INDICATE ANY OTHER STRATEGIES YOU USED THAT WERE NOT LISTED ABOVE ( t h i n g s you d i d o r s a i d t o y o u r s e l f ) . PERCEIVED SHOOTING PERFORMANCE HOW SUCCESSFUL DO YOU FEEL YOU WERE IN THE SHOOTING PERFORMANCE JUST COMPLETED? 1 2 3 4 5 not at a l l somewhat moderately quite very HOW SATISFIED DO YOU FEEL WITH YOUR SHOOTING PERFORMANCE? 1 2 3 4 5 not at a l l somewhat moderately quite very APPENDIX C Reworded Coping Items Coping items from Carver et a l . (1989). Revised Coping Checklist Frequency Tabulations for Groups on Demographic Variables C o r r e l a t i o n Matrices for Age and Level of Sport COPING ITEMS THAT WERE REWORDED 192 O r i g i n a l Wording R e w o r d i n g I e x p r e s s e d anger t o t h e p e r s o n ( s ) who c a u s e d t h e pr o b l e m . I e x p r e s s e d anger t o someone. T r i e d not t o a c t t o o h a s t i l y o r f o l l o w my f i r s t hunch. I t r i e d not to a c t t o o h a s t i l y . I t h o u g h t about how a p e r s o n I would a d m i r e would h a n d l e t h e s i t u a t i o n and used i t as a model. I t h o u g h t about how a p e r s o n I admire would h a n d l e t h i s s i t u a t i o n . I a s k e d a r e l a t i v e o r f r i e n d I r e s p e c t e d f o r a d v i c e . I asked a p l a y e r I r e s p e c t e d f o r a d v i c e . Went o v e r i n my mind what I would say o r do. I went o v e r i n my mind what I would do. I went o v e r i n my mind what I would s a y . COPING ITEMS FROM CARVER ET AL. (1989) S u h s c a l e — S u p p r e s s i o n o f c o m p e t i n g a c t i v i t i e s . I put a s i d e o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s i n o r d e r t o c o n c e n t r a t e on t h i s . I f o c u s on d e a l i n g w i t h t h i s p r o b l e m , and i f n e c e s s a r y l e t o t h e r t h i n g s s l i d e a l i t t l e . I keep m y s e l f from g e t t i n g d i s t r a c t e d by o t h e r t h o u g h t s or a c t i v i t i e s . I t r y h a r d t o p r e v e n t o t h e r t h i n g s f r o m i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h my e f f o r t s a t d e a l i n g w i t h t h i s . S l e p t more t h a n u s u a l . I got p r o f e s s i o n a l h e l p . T r i e d t o make m y s e l f f e e l b e t t e r by e a t i n g , d r i n k i n g , s m o k i n g , u s i n g d r u g s or m e d i c a t i o n , and so f o r t h . Found new f a i t h . T r i e d to get t h e p e r s o n r e s p o n s i b l e t o change h i s or her mind. ITEMS DELETED R e v i s e d C o p i n g C h e c k l i s t The 5 0 - i t e m c h e c k l i s t was a d m i n i s t e r e d t o 106 f ema l e a t h l e t e s (44 f i e l d h o c k e y p l a y e r s , 48 b a s k e t b a l l p l a y e r s and 14 s o c c e r p l a y e r s ) r a n g i n g i n age f rom 16 t o 41 (M=20.9, SD=4 .5 ) . P a r t i c i p a n t s were a s k e d t o t h i n k abou t t h e c o n t e s t t h e y j u s t p a r t i c i p a t e d i n , and t o i n d i c a t e t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e y u s e d e a c h s t r a t e g y i n t h e c o n t e s t . N i n e t y p e r c e n t o f t h e a t h l e t e s were s i n g l e , 5% m a r r i e d o r common law and 5% s e p a r a t e d o r d i v o r c e d . T w e n t y - f o u r p e r c e n t o f t h e a t h l e t e s h a d u n i v e r s i t y o r p o s t g r a d u a t e d e g r e e s , 71% were a t t e n d i n g c o l l e g e o r u n i v e r s i t y , and 5% had l e s s t h a n g r a d e 12 . A t h l e t e s were i n v o l v e d i n t h e i r s p o r t f o r a mean o f 8 .5 y e a r s . T h e i r h i g h e s t l e v e l o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n was O l y m p i c (2%); N a t i o n a l (23%); U n i v e r s i t y (25%); S e n i o r A (6%); P r o v i n c i a l (16%) and C o l l e g e (28%).. I n o r d e r t o examine t h e f a c t o r i a l v a l i d i t y o f t h e two t h e o r e t i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d t y p e s o f c o p i n g , engagement and d i s engagemen t c o p i n g , a c o n f i r m a t o r y f a c t o r a n a l y s i s (CFA) u s i n g L I S R E L V I ( J o r e s k o g & Sorbom, 1984) was p e r f o r m e d . T a b l e C-1 c o n t a i n s t h e mode l f i t i n d i c e s r e s u l t i n g f rom t h e CFA p e r f o r m e d on t h e new l y c o n s t r u c t e d 5 0 - i t e m 2 - f a c t o r m o d e l . The d a t a were n o t c o n g r u e n t w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l 2 -f a c t o r , 5 0 - i t e m s t r u c t u r e . The g o o d n e s s - o f - f i t i n d e x (GFI) o f .56 i s v e r y l o w . The r o o t mean r e s i d u a l (RMSR) o f .12 i n d i c a t e s t h a t a number o f i n t e r i t e m c o r r e l a t i o n s c a n n o t be r e p r o d u c e d w i t h t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d m o d e l . T h e r e f o r e , a l l i t e m s C^QQriness of F i t Inriif!t»s far Coping Items (n=lQ6) Number of Items Chi Square GFI RMSR a Coefficient (Chi-Square, Determination df,p) 1. 50 Items 2192.28 1171 .56 .12 2. 35 Items 1001.15 559 .66 .12 (1191.13, 615) 3. 29 Items 670.77 376 .70 .11 .70 (330.38, 183) 4. 24 Items 416.58 251 .76 .11 .75 (254.19, 125) 5. 22 Items 317.05 208 .79 .10 .31 (99.53, 43) 6. 20 Items 255.16 169 .82 .10 .59 (61.89, 39) 7. 18 Items 188.52 134 .84 .08 .77 (66.64, 35) 8. 17 Items 161.67 118 .36 .09 .81 (26.85, 16) ÈIflia. GFI»Goodness-of-fit Index; RMSR=Root Mean Square Residual sta t i s t i c s from LISREL VI. a Chi-Square and slf differences between this model and the preceeding model/ B<.001 indicates a significant CHANGE in the model. * Indicates a nonsignificant difference between models. l o a d i n g < .20 and h a v i n g n o n s i g n i f i c a n t t - t e s t s were d e l e t e d (12 o f t h e 34 engagement c o p i n g i t e m s , 3 o f t h e 16 d i s engagemen t c o p i n g i t e m s ) . When t e s t e d w i t h a CFA t h e r e v i s e d 3 5 - i t e m s t r u c t u r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement o v e r t h e o r i g i n a l 5 0 - i t e m s t r u c t u r e ( C h i - s q u a r e d e c r e a s e = 1 1 9 1 . 1 3 , d f d e c r e a s e = 6 1 5 , £ < . 001 ) . However , t h e i m p r o v e d v e r s i o n s t i l l c o n t a i n e d s i x i t e m s (4 engagement , 2 d i s engagemen t ) l o a d i n g < . 3 0 . T h e r e f o r e , t h e s e 6 i t e m s were d e l e t e d and a 2 9 - i t e m , 2 - f a c t o r mode l was t e s t e d . T h i s mode l showed a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n f i t o v e r t h e 3 5 - i t e m mode l ( C h i - s q u a r e d e c r e a s e = 3 3 0 . 3 8 , d f d e c r e a s e = 1 8 3 , £ < .001) f o r m a t . However , t h e g o o d n e s s - o f - f i t was s t i l l p o o r ( . 70 ) , t h e RMSR (.11) was l a r g e , a n d , a number o f r e s i d u a l s were v e r y l a r g e (> . 2 0 ) . T h e r e f o r e , 3 i t e m s (2 engagement , 1 d i s engagemen t ) w i t h a p a t t e r n o f r e s i d u a l s >.20 and 2 o f t h e l o w e s t l o a d i n g i t e m s (1 engagement , 1 d i s engagement ) were d e l e t e d f o r t h e n e x t CPA . The r e s u l t a n t 2 - f a c t o r , 2 4 - i t e m i n v e n t o r y was t h e n t e s t e d v i a CFA and showed a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement o v e r t h e 2 9 - i t e m s t r u c t u r e ( C h i - s q u a r e d e c r e a s e = 2 5 4 . 1 9 , d f d e c r e a s e = 125 , £ < . 0 0 1 ) . The g o o d n e s s - o f - f i t i n d e x was . 76 i n d i c a t i n g a p o o r f i t . However , t h e r e were s t i l l 2 i t e m s (engagement) t h a t showed p a t t e r n s o f r e s i d u a l s > . 2 0 . The n e x t s t e p d e l e t e d t h e s e 2 i t e m s . The r e s u l t a n t 2 2 - i t e m i n v e n t o r y i n d i c a t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r f i t ( C h i -s q u a r e d e c r e a s e =99 .53 , d f d e c r e a s e = 43 , £ < .001) however , t h e r e were s t i l l 2 i t e m s (1 engagement , 1 d i s engagement ) t h a t had h i g h p a t t e r n s o f r e s i d u a l s (> . 2 5 ) . A l t h o u g h , b o t h of these items loaded over .38 they seemed to be responsible for the higher r e s i d u a l s . Therefore, two items were deleted and a 2-factor, 20-item revised model was v a l i d a t e d with CFA. There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the 22-item model and the 20-item model. The goodness-of-fit was .82 and the RMSR (.10). It was thought that an even better f i t t i n g model would be obtained by d e l e t i n g 2 more items since 1 item loaded < .34 and another item seemed responsible for r e s i d u a l s > .20. Therefore, one low loading item (disengagement < .34) and another item (engagement residuals > .20) were deleted. The resultant 18-item inventory was a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement over the 20-item inventory (Chi-square decrease=66.64, df =35, £ < .001). The goodness of f i t was .84 and the RMSR (.08). This was the f i n a l version of the c h e c k l i s t . A l l but 2 items loaded above .40 and only one r e s i d u a l was > .20. Attempts to further reduce the item l i s t r e s u l t e d i n a nonsignificant model change. The items are presented i n Table C-2. Item analysis supported the above factor structure and indicated moderate i n t e r n a l consistency for each factor (Cronbach's alpha engagement=.81; disengagement=.73). It was concluded that the revised 18-item inventory was i n t e r n a l l y consistent and had a much better 2-factor factor structure than the "revised" 50-item inventory. Refer to Table C-3. Goodness of Fit Indices for Copina Items (n=lQ6) Number of Items Deleted Maximum Loading Residual Items Deleted > .20 1. 50 Items Eng.(8) Dis.(3) <.20 1,15,31,37, 2,23,35 (t-test non-sig.) 39,45,46,48 13,29,32,50 Eng. 2. 35 Items Eng.(4) 17,21,22, 34 Dis.(2) 7,38 < .30 3. 29 Items Eng.(3) 8,9,33 Dis.(2) 40,41 < .36 Eng.(2) 8,9,41 Dis. >.20 (1) 4. 24 Items Eng.(2) 16,25 Dis . (0) < .36 Eng.(2) 16,25 > Dis. .20 (0) 5. 22 Items Eng.(1) 6 Dis 14 . (1) (6) <.37 (14) .48 Eng.(1) 6,14 >. Dis. 20 (1) 6. 20 Items Eng.(1) 42 Dis 24 . (1) (24)<.34 Eng.(1) 42 >.20 Dis. (0) 7. 13 Items Eng.(1) 3 Dis . (0) (3) .34 Eng.(0) Dis. (0) i l f i t a . Eng. «Engagement Coping; Dis. =Disengagenient Coping. Factor Loadings and Items for the Coping Strategies Factor Loading Item Engagement Coping .74 I put aside other a c t i v i t i e s in order to concentrate on this. .63 I went over in my mind what I would do. .63 I kept myself from getting distracted by other thoughts or a c t i v i t i e s . .59 I knew what had to be done, so I doubled my efforts to make things work. .57 I stood my ground and fought for what I wanted. .56 I t r i e d hard to prevent other things from interfering with my efforts at dealing with this. .55 I just concentrated on what I had to do next-the next step. .43 I t r i e d not to act too hastily. .41 I drew on my past experiences; I was in a similar position before. .40 I focused on dealing with this problem, and i f necessary let other things slide a l i t t l e . .35 I changed or grew as a person in a good way. Disengagement Coping .69 I wished that the situation would go away or somehow be over with. .68 I refused to believe that i t had happened. .52 I made a promise to myself that things would be different next time. .51 I c r i t i c i z e d or lectured myself. .48 I avoided being with people in general. .45 I hoped a miracle would happen. .38 I realized I brought the problem on myself. Freauenev Tabulations of Demographic Variables Basketball Field Hockey/Soccer n-106) (û»72) Variables Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Level g£ SDOCt Olympic/National 5 5 4 6 University/Senior A 37 35 39 54 Provincial 12 11 6 8 College/High School 52 49 23 32 imcQrtance <st SD<?rt. Moderately/Quite 22 21 24 33 Very Important 84 79 48 67 Challenge ?£ SpQct Somewhat 9 8 13 18 Moderately 55 52 31 43 Very Much So 42 40 28 39 Education Level Less than grade 12 19 18 19 26 Grade 12 completed 63 60 27 38 College (2 or 3 yr) 13 12 6 S University/Post 11 10 20 28 graduate degree Correlation Matrix for Round 1 (Younaer Athletes n=llQ) Variable pastper self-eff control anxiety engage diseng perl pastper 1.00 self-eff 0.04 1.00 control 0.11 0.53 1.00 anxiety 0.01 -0.24 -0.41 1.00 engage 0.14 -0.03 0.14 0.22 1.00 diseng -0.04 -0.12 -0.24 , 0.34 0.03 perl 0.08 0.11 0.17 0.01 0.31 Correlation Matrix f o r Round 1 (older athletes n^dS) Variable pastper self-eff control anxiety engage diseng perl pastper 1.00 self-eff -0.00 1.00 control 0.19 0.44 1.00 anxiety 0.08 -0.26 -0.53 1.00 engage -0.03 0.17 -0.16 0.17 1.00 diseng 0.01 0.08 -0.23 0.34 0.14 perl 0.08 0.02 -0.17 0.02 0.35 liatâ- pastper=past perfonnance; self-eff=self-efficacy; engage» engagement coping; di'seng»disengagement coping; perl =performance 1. Correlation Matrix for Round 2 (vounaer athletes n=llQ) Variable per 1 s e l f - e f f control anxiety engage diseng per 2 per 1 1.00 s e l f - e f f 0.43 1.00 control 0.47 0.58 1.00 anxiety -0.20 -0.37 -0.52 1.00 engage 0.03 -0.08 0.07 0.15 1.00 diseng -0.23 -0.29 -0.23 0.55 0.17 1.00 per 2 0.23 0.11 0.08 -0.17 0.30 -0.42 1.00 Correlation Matrix for Round 2 (older athletes n=68) Variable per 1 s e l f - e f f control anxiety engage diseng per2 per 1 1.00 s e l f - e f f 0.22 1.00 control 0.46 0.53 1.00 anxiety -0.13 -0.28 -0.54 1.00 engage 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.03 1.00 diseng -0.25 -0.17 -0.32 0.47 0.30 1.00 per2 0.35 0.13 • 0.36 -0.37 0.25 -0.27 1.00 Note. per=performance; s e l f - e f f = s e l f - e f f i c a c y ; engage=engagement coping; diseng=disengagement coping. APPENDIX D R e l i a b i l i t y T a b l e s T a b l e D - 1 I n t e r n a l C o n s i s t e n c i e s o f P a t h V a r i a b l e s ( S o c c e r / F i e l d Hockey) T a b l e D-2 I n t e r n a l C o n s i s t e n c i e s o f P a t h V a r i a b l e s ( B a s k e t b a l l ) Means. Standard Deviations, and R e l i a b i l i t i e s of Path Variables B a s k e t b a l l (n= 106) Varia b l e s Mç^n 22. I n t e r n a l Consistency Scale Range Time 1 S e l f - e f f i c a c y 1 126.8 48.5 .90 1 - 100 Time 2 S e l f - e f f i c a c y 2 127.3 53.2 .90 Control : Control Time 1 8.4 2.5 .73 0 - 4 Control Time 2 8.0 2.8 .85 Anxiety: Time 1 16.4 5.0 .86 1 - 4 Anxiety: Time 2 15.6 4.8 .86 Copinq: Tjmç 1 Engagement Coping 1.3 .6 .79 0 - 3 Disengage Coping .7 .6 .72 Copina: Time 2 Engagement Coping 1.3 .6 .85 Disengage Coping .7 .6 .80 Pecfprmance: Time 1 5.2 2.6 .94 1 - 5 Time 2 5.2 2.7 .95 Means, stgnd&Fd pevjatjops. snci ReligblUtieg of Path varigbigs Soccer/Field Hockey (n=72) Va r i a b l e s Mesn Inte r n a l Consistency Scale Range Time 1 S e l f - e f f i c a c y 1 134.8 44.1 .94 1 - 100 Time 2. S e l f - e f f i c a c y 2 147 .3 40.6 .93 Co n t r o l : Control Time 1 7.9 2.1 .68 0 - 4 Control Time 2 8.3 2.2 .70 Anxiety: Time 1 15.1 4.8 .87 1 - 4 Anxiety: Time 2 13.9 3.7 .81 Copinq: Timç 1 Engagement Coping 1.3 .6 .80 0 - 3 Disengage Coping ,7 .6 .74 Coping: Time I Engagement Coping 1.3 .6 .86 Disengage Coping .5 .4 .59 Performance; Time 1 5.4 2.6 .94 1 - 5 Time 2 5.6 2.7 .95 APPENDIX E C o v a r i a n c e and C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i c e s T a b l e E -1 (Round 1 B a s k e t b a l l ) T a b l e E-2 (Round 2 B a s k e t b a l l ) T a b l e E -3 (Round 1 S o c c e r / F i e l d Hockey) Tab l e E-4 (Round 2 S o c c e r / F i e l d Hockey) Tab l e E - 5 (Round 1 & 2 A l l V a r i a b l e s ) Covariance Matrix for Round 1 (Bas lcPtha in Variable pastper s e l f - e f f control anxiety engage diseng per 1 pastper 1.70 s e l f - e f f 0.18 5.89 control 0.36 3.17 6.03 anxiety -0.02 -0.14 -0.24 0.04 engage 0.11 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.33 diseng -0.06 -0.13 -0.39 0.04 0.00 0.30 per 1 0.26 0.68 1.14 -0.07 0.46 -0.85 6.78 Cpcrelatiçn Variable pastper s e l f - e f f control anxiety engage diseng per 1 pastper 1.00 s e l f - e f f 0.06 1.00 control 0.11 0.53 1.00 anxiety -0.07 -0.28 -0.48 1.00 engage 0.15 0.01 0.14 0.11 1.00 diseng -0.09 -0.10 -0.29 0.34 0.01 1.00 per 1 0.08 0.11 0.18 -0.13 0.31 •0.60 1 .00 Note. pastper=past performance; s e l f - e f f = s e l f - e f f i c a c y ; engage» engagement coping; diseng=disengagement coping; per 1=performance 1. Covariance Matrix for Round 2 (Basketball) Variable per 1 self-eff control anxiety engage diseng per 2 per 1 6.78 self-eff 2.50 7.07 control 3.40 4.17 7.66 anxiety -0.12 -0.21 -0.29 0.04 engage 0.06 0.03 0.24 0.01 0.37 diseng -0.39 -0.37 -0.43 0.06 0.06 per 2 1.50 0.58 1.19 -0.14 0.41 Cqcgelatjgn Matrix Variable per 1 self-eff control anxiety engage diseng per 2 per 1 1.00 self-eff 0.36 1.00 control 0.47 0.57 1.00 anxiety -0.24 -0.40 -0.54 1.00 engage 0.04 0.02 0.14 0.04 1.00 diseng -0.25 -0.23 -0.26 0.52 0.16 per 2 0.21 0.08 0.16 -0.26 0.25 Note, per 1=performance 1; self-eff=self-efficacy; engage=engagement coping; diseng=disengagement coping; per 2=performance 2. Variable pastper self-eff control anxiety engage diseng per 1 pastper 1.25 self-eff 0.27 4.86 control 0.43 2.43 4.53 anxiety 0.04 -0.07 -0.20 0.04 engage -0.04 0.09 -0.24 0.04 0.31 diseng 0.02 -0.04 -0.21 0.04 0.06 0.30 per 1 0.33 0.38 -0.86 0.12 0.49 -0.41 6.71 Variable pastper self-eff control anxiety engage diseng per 1 pastper 1.00 self-eff 0.11 1.00 control 0.18 0.52 1.00 anxiety 0.16 -0.17 -0.47 1.00 engage -0.06 0.07 -0.20 0.32 1.00 diseng 0.04 -0.04 -0.18 0.34 0.18 1.00 per 1 0.12 0.07 -0.16 0.23 0.34 -0.29 1.00 Note. pastper=past performance; self-eff=self-efficacy; engage» engagement coping; diseng=disengagement coping; per l=perfoinnance 1 Covariance Matrix for Round 2 (Soccer/Field Hockey) Variable per 1 self-•eff control anxiety engage diseng per 2 per 1 6.71 s e l f - e f f 2.04 4.13 control 2.64 2.63 4.77 anxiety -0.03 -0.08 -0.18 0.03 engage 0.28 -0 .03 0.10 0.02 0.37 diseng -0 .25 -0.30 -0.23 0.03 0.07 0.15 per 2 2.56 0.84 1.24 -0.08 0.54 •0.23 7.09 Correlation Matrix Variable per 1 s e l f - e f f control anxiety engage diseng per 2 per 1 1.00 s e l f - e f f 0.39 1.00 control 0.47 0.59 1.00 anxiety -0 .07 -0 .23 -0.52 1.00 engage 0.18 -0.02 0.07 0.23 1.00 diseng -0.22 -0.39 -0.28 0.52 0.31 1.00 per 2 0.37 0.16 0.21 -0.18 0.33 •0.23 1.00 N<?te. per l=performance 1; s e l f - e f f = s e l f - e f f i c a c y ; engage = engagement coping; diseng=disengagement coping; per 2=performance 2. C o r r e l a t i o n M a t r i x f o r A l l V a r i a b l e s (n=178) V a r i a b l e y r s import age c h a l q c h a l l l i m p o r t i p a s t p e r s e l f l c o n t r o l a n x i e t y engage d i s e n g p e r l p o i n t cha112 impor t? y r s 1 .00 import 0 .25 1 ,00 age 0 . 39 0 , 11 1 ,00 cha 1q 0 .03 0 ,07 0, 03 c h a l l 1 0 18 0 , 16 0. , 12 import 1 0. 10 0 , 18 -0 ,01 p a s t p e r 0 .20 0 .07 0 22 s e U I 0 .33 0 , 19 0 29 c o n t r o 1 0 .25 0 .25 0 ,05 anx i e t y -0 .04 -0 .08 0 ,02 engage -0 .04 0 .09 -0 ,05 d i s e n g -0 .06 0 .03 -0 00 per 1 0 .08 -0 .00 0 ,05 p o i n t 0 .23 0 , 17 0 ,07 c h a l l S 0 . 12 0 . 10 0 , 11 i m p o r t a 0 ,06 0 , 18 0 ,04 s e l f S 0 .29 0 ,07 0. ,31 c o n t r o l s 0 .21 0 , 14 0. 15 anx i e t y 2 - 0 , . 10 -0 ,07 - 0 , 08 engage? - 0 , 06 0 , 19 0. 07 d i s e n g 2 -0 11 -0 ,04 -0 06 p e r 2 -0 05 0 ,08 0 04 p o i n t s 0, ,04 0, , 16 -0 03 1 00 0, 17 1 ,00 0 30 0 , 17 1 .00 - 0 . 07 0 , 12 0 .04 1 ,00 -0 08 0 . 34 0 . 15 0 07 -0 08 0 ,29 0 . 16 0 , 14 0 , 18 -0 .01 0 .07 0 ,03 0, ,21 0 .30 0 . 15 0 ,08 0 , 10 0 .02 -0 .05 -0 ,04 0 04 0 .08 0 .01 0 ,09 0 ,02 0 . 12 0 .25 0 , 10 0 , 18 0 .65 0 .08 0 ,05 0 ,27 0 . 16 0 .74 0 ,00 -0 10 0 .28 0 .06 0 ,08 0 ,01 0 ,31 0 .09 0 , 17 0 , 12 -0 .08 0 .06 -0 , 15 0 23 0 .28 0 .13 0 , 18 0 09 0 .08 0 .00 -0 ,03 -0 09 0 .06 -0 .01 0 ,25 0, ,08 0 . 15 0 .20 0 , 15 1 .00 0 ,51 1 ,00 -0 .24 -0 ,45 1 00 0 ,03 0 ,03 0 ,20 1 , ,00 -0 .07 -0 ,25 0 34 0 .08 0 ,09 0 ,05 0 ,01 0 ,32 0 .28 0 , 15 -0 00 0 .24 0 , 12 0 , 12 0, , 13 0 ,45 0 . 14 0 ,09 0 13 0 .24 0 ,84 0 ,43 -0 ,26 0 ,04 0 ,43 0 ,63 -0 32 0 ,23 -0 ,27 -0 45 0 73 0 , 13 0 ,05 -0 ,04 0 16 0 ,72 -0 , 17 -0 , 19 0 ,40 0 ,27 0 ,08 0 ,04 -0 13 0 ,05 0 ,25 0 18 -0 09 0 , 11 1 .00 -0 48 1 , 00 •0 34 0 70 1 ,00 -0 ,04 0, 36 0 ,24 1 00 -0 ,03 0 , 14 0 ,28 0 ,20 1 , 00 -0 28 0 37 0 ,41 0 19 0. 08 -0 ,40 0 ,47 0 ,35 0 ,37 0 11 0 ,45 -0 18 -0 ,06 0 01 0 13 0 , 18 0 ,09 0 ,08 0, ,33 0 . 16 0 ,62 - 0 , ,23 -0 , 15 0 13 0, ,06 -0 , 11 0 28 0 ,25 0 ,06 -0 01 -0 ,07 0, ,22 0 44 0, 07 0, ,20 V a r i a b l e s e 1 f 2 c o n t r o ) 2 a n x i e t y 2 engage? d i s e n g 2 s e 1 f 2 1.00 c o n t r o 1 2 0 ,57 1 ,00 anx i e t y 2 - 0 . 37 -0 ,53 1 , 00 engage2 0, 01 0 , 12 0, 10 1 00 d i s e n g 2 - 0 , 29 -0 ,26 0, 53 0 .20 1 ,00 p e r 2 0. 12 0 , 18 - 0 . 24 0 28 - 0 . 37 po i n t 2 0, 25 0 ,20 - 0 . 15 0 .27 - 0 , 22 N o t e . y r s = y e a r s in s p o r t ; import = i m p o r t a n c e o f s p o r t ; c h a 1 q = c h a l l e n g e q u e s t i o n ; cha 1 I=cha l l e n g e ( e m o t i o n s ) ; impor t= impor tance of t a s k ; p a s t p e r = p a s t p e r f o r m a n c e ; se I f=se 1 f - e f f i c a c y ; engage=engagement c o p i n g ; d isengage=disengagement c o p i n g ; p e r = p e r f o r m a n c e ; p o i n t = a c t u a l s c o r e a t t a i n e d . APPENDIX F Path Analysis Using Actual Score as Performance Measure P a t h A n a l y s i s U s i n g A c t u a l Pe r f o rmance Sco r e A p o s t hoc p a t h a n a l y s i s was us ed t o r eexamine t h e v a r i a b l e s t h a t d e s c r i b e c o p i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s ( a p p r a i s a l s , c o p i n g e f f o r t s , per fo rmance ) u s i n g a c t u a l pe r f o rmance r a t h e r t h a n p e r c e i v e d p e r f o r m a n c e . A c t u a l pe r f o rmance was used because c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t s e l f - e f f i c a c y was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o a c t u a l p e r f o rmance ( r= .28 . Time 1; r = . 2 5 . Time 2) bu t no t s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o p e r c e i v e d pe r f o rmance ( r= .09 . Time 1; r = . 1 2 . Time 2 ) . A l t h o u g h s p o r t r e s e a r c h has m ixed f i n d i n g s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e use o f a c t u a l and p e r c e i v e d p e r f o r m a n c e , Bandura (1986) s u g g e s t s t h a t p e r f o rmance a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s have t h e s t r o n g e s t r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h s e l f - e f f i c a c y . In my s t u d y , I h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t s e l f -e f f i c a c y was a m e d i a t o r o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o n t r o l (and a n x i e t y ) and p e r f o r m a n c e . However, t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s c o u l d no t be e x p l o r e d a d e q u a t e l y because s e l f - e f f i c a c y was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o p e r c e i v e d p e r f o r m a n c e . T h e r e f o r e , t h e purpose o f t h i s a n a l y s i s was t o examine t h e p o s s i b l e m e d i a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e s o f s e l f - e f f i c a c y and a c t u a l p e r f o r m a n c e . The f i r s t s t e p was t o t e s t t h e r e v i s e d model u s i n g a c t u a l pe r f o rmance r a t h e r t h a n p e r c e i v e d p e r f o r m a n c e . The second s t e p was t o e x p l o r e s p e c i f i c m e d i a t o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . U s i n g t h e a c t u a l pe r f o rmance s c o r e ( the number o f s u c c e s s f u l s h o t s out o f 8 f o r b a s k e t b a l l , 5 f o r s o c c e r / f i e l d hockey i n each round) r a t h e r t h a n t h e p e r c e i v e d pe r f o rmance s c o r e t h e r e v i s e d model y i e l d e d a C h i - s q u a r e ( 7 , N = 1 7 8 ) = 2 8 . 3 8 , p<.001, suggesting an e q u a l l y good f i t compared w i t h the p e r c e i v e d performance model. See Table F-1. The. Goodness-of-f i t index was .96 i n d i c a t i n g an adequate f i t and the Q of 4.1:1 was deemed ac c e p t a b l e . R e s u l t s f o r Time 2 (Round 2 of the competition) y i e l d e d a Chi-square(7,N=178)=61.03, p<.001, a l s o suggesting an e q u a l l y good f i t w i t h the p e r c e i v e d performance model. The G o o d n e s s - o f - f i t index was .91 i n d i c a t i n g an acceptable f i t . The s t a n d a r d i z e d path c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the hypothesized paths are presented i n F i g u r e 7 and 8. In both Time 1 and Time 2 models the primary d i f f e r e n c e s between p e r c e i v e d performance and a c t u a l performance were the r e l a t i o n s h i p s concerning s e l f - e f f i c a c y . Test of Hypotheses ( f o r mediator r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) T e s t i n g the mediator r e l a t i o n s h i p s r e q u i r e s an examination of both the i n d i r e c t e f f e c t and the d i r e c t e f f e c t of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between two v a r i a b l e s . Hypothesis 3: The c o n t r o l appraisal-performance r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l be mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y a p p r a i s a l s . This hypothesis was supported f o r Round 1. The c o n t r o l / s e l f - e f f i c a c y path was l a r g e (b=.51, p<.01), the s e l f - e f f i c a c y / p e r f o r m a n c e path c o e f f i c i e n t was s i g n i f i c a n t (b =.24). Thus, the i n d i r e c t e f f e c t of c o n t r o l on performance, mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y , was (.12), higher than the d i r e c t e f f e c t of c o n t r o l on performance ( b = - . l l ) . This f i n d i n g provides evidence f o r s e l f - e f f i c a c y as a mediator of the control/performance r e l a t i o n s h i p i n Round 1 P a t h Mode l F i t I n d i c e s (n=178) Mode l C h i - S q u a r e d f £ GFI RMSR R^ T o t a l Coe f f , o f D e t e r m i n a t i o n Time 1 R e v i s e d ( P e r c . Per ) 30 .85 7 <.001 .95 .07 .37 .02 R e v i s e d ( A c t u a l Per ) 28 .38 7 <.001 .96 .07 .27 .03 Time 2 R e v i s e d ( P e r c . Per ) 63 .75 7 <.001 .91 .10 .33 .26 R e v i s e d ( A c t u a l Per ) 61 .03 7 <.001 .91 .09 .31 .32 N o t e . G F I = G o o d n e s s - o f - f i t I ndex ; RMSR= Root Mean Square R e s i d u a l s t a t i s t i c s from L ISREL V I ; P e r c . P e r = p e r c e i v e d p e r f o r m a n c e . in 1—I Prior to Contest Past Performance 5 Minutes Prior Anxiety .01 Control 3Z Self-Efficacy -.2\ .0 5 Minutes After Contest Engagement Coping Disengagement Coping .24 .05 .25 -.34 Actual Performance Figure 7. Revised Path Model Representing the Relationships Among Secondary Appraisals, Coping, and Actual Performance in Round 1. T 1 CN Prior to Round 2 5 Minutes Prior 5 Minutes After Contest Round 1 Actual Performance .17 Control ir i -.14 Engagement Coping Self-Efficacy Anxiety Disengagement Coping .29 -.22 Actual Performance .04 .37 Figure 8. Revised Path Model Representing the Relationships Among Secondary Appraisals, Coping, and Actual Performance in Round 2. o f t h e c o m p e t i t i o n . See T a b l e F -2 f o r d i r e c t , i n d i r e c t , and t o t a l e f f e c t s . F o r Round 2 o f t h e c o m p e t i t i o n , h y p o t h e s i s 3 was no t s u p p o r t e d . The c o n t r o l / s e l f - e f f i c a c y p a t h was l a r g e (b=.41, p< .001 ) , however , t h e s e l f - e f f i c a c y / p e r f o r m a n c e p a t h was v e r y s m a l l (b= .04 ) . The c o r r e l a t i o n between s e l f - e f f i c a c y and pe r f o rmance ( r= .25 , p< .001 ) , was s i g n i f i c a n t s u g g e s t i n g t h a t c o p i n g may i n f l u e n c e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f -e f f i c a c y and p e r f o r m a n c e . The i n d i r e c t e f f e c t o f c o n t r o l on p e r f o r m a n c e , m e d i a t e d by s e l f - e f f i c a c y , was .02 i n d i c a t i n g v i r t u a l l y no m e d i a t i n g e f f e c t o f s e l f - e f f i c a c y on t h e c o n t r o l / p e r f o r m a n c e r e l a t i o n s h i p . The t o t a l e f f e c t s (.10) and t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between c o n t r o l and a c t u a l p e r f o rmance ( r= .15 , £< .05) i n d i c a t e d t h a t o t h e r f a c t o r s may i n f l u e n c e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e two v a r i a b l e s . H y p o t h e s i s 4 ; (For Round 1 o f t h e c o m p e t i t i o n ) The s e l f - e f f i c a c y a p p r a i s a l w i l l be a s i g n i f i c a n t l y s t r o n g e r p r e d i c t o r o f a c t u a l pe r f o rmance t h a n w i l l p a s t p e r f o r m a n c e . The c o r r e l a t i o n ( r= .28 , £<.001) and t h e p a t h c o e f f i c i e n t (b=.24, £<.001) i n d i c a t e d t h a t s e l f - e f f i c a c y was a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r o f a c t u a l p e r f o r m a n c e . P a s t p e r f o rmance was no t s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o a c t u a l pe r f o rmance ( r= .10 ; b = . 0 5 ) . No d i r e c t t e s t o f s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e p a t h c o e f f i c i e n t s was a v a i l a b l e . However, u s i n g t h e s t a n d a r d e r r o r o f . 0 7 , t h e 95% c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l (CI) f o r t h e p a t h c o e f f i c i e n t o f s e l f - e f f i c a c y t o a c t u a l p e r f o rmance i s (.10 < B < . 3 8 ) . G i v e n t h a t t h i s P a t h C o e f f i c i e n t s and Z e r o - O r d e r C o r r e l a t i o n s (n=178) H y p o t h e s i s T e s t e d D i r e c t T - V a l u e s ^ I n d i r e c t T o t a l r ^ E f f e c t s E f f e c t s E f f e c t s Time 1 H y p o t h e s i s 3 C o n t r o l / P e r f o r m a n c e 1 - . 1 1 ns .12 - . 1 0 .15 ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y ) H y p o t h e s i s 4 S E / P e r f ormance 1 .24 3.64 .28 P a s t P e r/Pe r f o rmance 1 .05 ns .10 H y p o t h e s i s 5 A n x i e t y / P e r f o r m a n c e 1 . .14 2 .38 - . 0 0 1 .10 - . 0 1 ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y ) Time 2 H y p o t h e s i s 3 C o n t r o l / P e r f o r m a n c e 2 - . 0 7 ns .02 .10 .20 ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y ) H y p o t h e s i s 4 S E / P e r f ormance 2 .04 ns .25 P e r 1/Per formance 2 .37 5 .33 .44 H y p o t h e s i s 5 A n x i e t y / P e r f o r m a n c e 2 .06 ns - . 0 1 - . 0 6 - . 1 5 ( s e l f - e f f i c a c y ) N o t e . D i r e c t E f f e c t s = s t a n d a r d i z e d c o e f f i c i e n t s ; r = z e r o - o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n s ; Pe r=pe r f o rmance ; S E = s e l f - e f f i c a c y . ^ v a l u e s > 2 a r e s i g n i f i c a n t a t £< .05 . ^r>.24 s i g n i f i c a n t a t . 0 0 1 , r> .19 s i g n i f i c a n t a t . 0 1 , r>.14 s i g n i f i c a n t a t . 0 5 . i n t e r v a l does not include the past performance to actual performance path c o e f f i c i e n t (b=.05), there i s strong evidence that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the two path c o e f f i c i e n t s . S e l f - e f f i c a c y i s a stronger predictor of actual performance than i s past performance. Hypothesis 4; (For Round 2 of the competition) Performance 1 w i l l be a stronger predictor of performance 2 than w i l l s e l f -e f f i c a c y appraisal. For Round 2 t h i s hypothesis was supported. The performance 1 to performance 2 path c o e f f i c i e n t (b=.37, E<.001) was s i g n i f i c a n t and s e l f - e f f i c a c y was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to performance 2 (b=.04, E >.10). However, the c o r r e l a t i o n between s e l f - e f f i c a c y and performance was s i g n i f i c a n t (r=.25, p<.001) in d i c a t i n g that other factors may influence the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two variables. Hypothesis 5; The anxiety-performance r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l be mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y appraisals. This hypothesis was not supported for Round 1. The an x i e t y / s e l f - e f f i c a c y path c o e f f i c i e n t was very small (b=-.02), however the self-efficacy/performance path (b=.24) was s i g n i f i c a n t . The i n d i r e c t e f f e c t of anxiety on performance, mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y , was only -.001, considerably less than the d i r e c t e f f e c t of anxiety on performance (b=.14). For Round 2 the hypothesis was not supported. The an x i e t y / s e l f - e f f i c a c y path c o e f f i c i e n t was not s i g n i f i c a n t (b=-.14) and the self-efficacy/performance path was very small (b=.04). The i n d i r e c t e f f e c t of anxiety on performance, mediated by s e l f - e f f i c a c y , was -.01 and the d i r e c t e f f e c t of anxiety on performance was -.06. In summary, i t was expected that using actual performance i n the model rather than perceived performance, would give a d d i t i o n a l information on s e l f - e f f i c a c y as a mediator of the control/performance relationship. However, s e l f - e f f i c a c y was a mediator of the control/performance relationship only for Round 1 of the competition. In Round 2 of the competition the mediational r e l a t i o n s h i p was not found. Future studies should t r y to c l a r i f y the mediational r o l e of s e l f - e f f i c a c y . One fin d i n g that was supported using actual performance but not perceived performance was that s e l f - e f f i c a c y was a stronger predictor than past performance of actual performance for Round 1 of the competition. In addition, the f i r s t performance was s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to the second performance, whereas s e l f -e f f i c a c y was not. Both of these findings support t h e o r e t i c a l notions suggested by Bandura (1986) indicating changes i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - e f f i c a c y and performance as an event unfolds over time. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054148/manifest

Comment

Related Items