Competitive state anxiety and self-confidence: Intensity and direction as relative predictors of

performance on a golf putting taskSEAN T. CHAMBERLAIN1 & BRUCE D. HALE

Presented by: Kayla Brown, Scott Galland, Gabriela Gonzalez-Torres, Alyssa Humphreys, and Kaitlin McClimon

Purpose

• Study intensity and direction of state anxiety (cognitive and somatic) in predicting putting performance

• Manipulate stressful situations and measure the reactions and performance of the athletes

• See the role of self-confidence in a precision task under pressure

Definitions

• Cognitive anxiety: thoughts related to worry

• Somatic anxiety: nervousness or tension

• State anxiety: how the athlete feels during competition

Methods

• 12 experienced male undergraduate golfers

• Age: 20-22

• Mean handicap: 11.75 (SD = 1.48)

• Mean Years of Experience: 8 (SD = 2.8)

Methods• CSAI-2D self report inventory (reliability: .79-.90)

• Measures state anxiety intensity and direction

• Three subscales: – Cognitive anxiety– Somatic anxiety– Self-confidence

• Intensity Scores– - 4 point scale (1 “not at all”, 4 “very much so”), scores

ranging from 9 to 36 per sub-scale

• Directional Scores– - 7 point scale (-3 “negatively”, 3 “positively”) scores ranging

from -27 to +27 per sub-scale

Methods

• Putting Task Procedure

- Synthetic putting green, hole 5 meters away

- 5 practice shots, 10 recorded shots (for all 3 procedures)

- Three separate procedures:- Alone with tester (low anxiety environment)

- Divided into 3 teams, cash prize for winning team (moderate anxiety)

- Individual head-to-head competition, for cash prize, all 12 participants present (high anxiety)CSAI-2D administered before each testing procedure

Results

• Anxiety direction is a better predictor of performance than anxiety intensity

• Cognitive anxiety intensity putting performance

• No linear relationship for somatic anxiety direction and putting performance

• Self-confidence intensity supported by linear relationship

• Elevated levels of somatic anxiety resulted in better performance was a surprising result

• Self-confidence may have been the biggest predictor of performance

Hypotheses

• Cognitive anxiety intensity will be negatively related to performance

-Supported

• Directional anxiety will predict performance better than anxiety intensity

-Supported (see somatic anxiety intensity in results)

• Self- Confidence will show a positive relationship with putting performance

-Supported

Study Variables

• Independent Variable• Golf Putting Task: 3 levels of anxiety-low,

medium, high

• Dependent Variables• Cognitive anxiety (intensity and direction)

• Somatic anxiety (intensity and direction)• Self-confidence (intensity and direction)

Relationship of Study

• Relational Study• Studies the connection between variables.

External Validity

• Sampling Strategy• Non-probability

• Convenience

• Generalizability• Population• Golfers vs. Athletes in

general • Individual vs. Team

sports

• Male vs. Female

• Setting• Synthetic putting mat

• Indoor/Outdoor

• Used personal putter

• Same golf balls

• Time• Length of task

Construct Validity

• Construct• Cause Constructs• Competitive state anxiety• Self-confidence

• Effect Construct• Performance on Putting Task• Five practice putts and ten recorded putts each session• Target was 5 meters from start of putt on 12x2 meter mat• Mean score of 10 putts was used for the score of each

session

Construct Validity• Construct– Anxiety and Self-confidence• Measured by the Competitive Sport Anxiety Inventory-

2D (CSAI-2D)– Measures cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-

confidence-face validity and content validity– Predictive validity-predicting performance based on scores– Relies on self-report– Only measures before putting task» Shows pre-performance state measure and not during-

performance measure» Self-confidence-high interpretation for performance

– Questionnaire affect anxiety? (long questionnaire/process)» Anxiety may increase as one is taking questionnaire

– Self-confidence may be higher at 3rd session because of repetitive tasks

Construct Validity• Construct– Putting Task• 5 meter length of putt-results differ if the length was shorter or longer?• Putting may improve due to improvement of awareness of anxiety and

self-confidence• Practice putts increase performances?• Repetition of task increase performances and self-confidence and

decrease anxiety?• Social threats– 1st session-none

– 2nd session-moderate evaluation apprehension (team competition)

– 3rd session-possible high evaluation apprehension (individual competition, other participants watching putts, and cash awards)

» Nervousness affect performance?

Internal Validity

• Design Notation– O X1 O2 O X2 O2 O X3 O2

• 12 experienced undergraduate male golfers from an English University

• Aged 20-22• Cause and Effect– Temporal precedence – Covariation

Internal Validity

• Only one group, so…• Single Group Threats are possible• History• Maturation• Testing• Instrumentation• Regression to the mean• Mortality

Internal Validity

• History– Does the team practice these conditions on a regular basis?

• But, results supported hypothesis- that as cognitive anxiety goes up, performance levels drop.

– Do these teams practice at a specific level of anxiety most of the time?• Could have caused the resulting U-shape relationship between somatic

anxiety and performance.

– Could the results be different with a group of females?• Females may be better at moderate anxiety levels but worse at higher. • Direction results could have definitely been affected by male-female

differences because females are more controlled by their emotions– so directions scored may have been more pronounced with a group of females.

Internal Validity

• Testing• Multiple measures could have affected ability

to perform task• but this group consisted of experienced male

golfers, so the testing threat is not likely to have an effect.

• Performance measures accounted for test-retest threats (15 putts, 5 practice, 10 recorded, average of ten)

** Testing threat not a huge problem

Internal Validity

• Other Possible Threats?• Regression- No pre-test• Mortality- No drop-outs• Instrumentation- Only used one

instrumentation method• Maturation- not longitudinal

• History threat causes biggest problems to internal validity