Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
JOURNAL OF SPORT PSYCHOLOGY,1984, 6, 289-304 Antecedents Of, Temporal Changes In, And Relationships Between CSAI-2 Subcomponents Daniel Gould and Linda Petlichkoff University of Illinois Robert S. Weinberg North Texas State University Two studies were conducted to examine antecedents of, relationships between, and temporal changes in the cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and the self-confidence components of the Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, and Smith (1983) newly developed Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). In addition, the prediction that cognitive and somatic anxiety should differentially influence performance was examined. In Study 1, 37 elite intercollegiatewrestlers were administered the CSAI-2 immediately before two different competitions, whereas in Study 2,63 female high school volleyball players completed the CSAI-2 on five different occasions (1 week, 48 hrs, 24 hrs, 2 hrs, and 20 min) prior to a major tournament. The results were analyzed using multiple regression, multivariate multiple regression, univariate and multivariate analyses of variance, and general linear model trend analysis techniques. The findigs supported the scale development work of Martens and his colleagues by verifying that the CSAI-2 assesses three separate components of state anxiety. A number of other important find i g s also emerged. First, the prediction was confirmed that somatic anxiety increases during the time leading to competition, while cognitive anxiety and confidence remain constant. Second, CSAI-2 subscales were found to have different antscedents, although the precise predictions of Martens and his colleagues were not supported. Third, the prediction that cognitive anxiety would be a more powerful predictor of performance than somatic anxiety was only partially supported. Fourth, the prediction that precompetitive anxiety differences between experienced and inexperienced athletes initially found by Fenz (1975) result from somatic anxiety changes was not supported. It was concluded that the CSAI-2 shows much promise as a multidimensional sportspecific state anxiety inventory, although more research is needed to determine how and why specific antecedent factors influence various CSAI-2 components and to examine the predicted relationships between CSAI-2 components and performance. Requests for reprints should be sent to Daniel Gould, Department of Physical Education, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801. Much of this research was conducted while the first two authors were on the staff of the Department of Physical Education, Dance and Leisure Studies at Kansas State University. 290 GOULD, PETLICHKOFF, AND WEINBERG The examination of state anxiety, including factors associated with state anxiety (Martens & Gill, 1976; Scanlan & Passer, 1979) and the state anxiety-motor performance relationship (Carron & Morford, 1968; Martens & Landers, 1970) has been one of the most extensively studied areas in sport psychology. Despite this long research history, however, many relationships in the area remain only partially understood and theoretical tests are incomplete. A primary factor limiting the development of anxiety theory and research has been the lack of uniformly acceptable state anxiety assessment instruments (Martens, 1977; Martens & Landers, 1970). Specifically, previous measures of state anxiety have been criticized for their failure to assess independent anxiety components and for their lack of situational specific content. Recently, state anxiety has been theoretically redefined as a multidimensional construct by psychologists (Liebert & Morris, 1967; Schwartz, Davidson, & Goleman, 1978) and sport psychologists (Landers, 1980; Martens et al., 1983) alike, and new multidimensional assessment instruments have been advocated. In response to this need, Martens and his associates have developed a new sport-specific multidimensional state anxiety inventory: The Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). The CSAI-2 is based on the theoretical developments of Spielberger, Gorsuch, and Lushene (1970) and is derived in part from the original Competitive State Anxiety Inventory constructed by Martens (1977). It is also highly congruent with contemporary anxiety research and theory (Davidson & Schwartz, 1976; Liebert & Morris, 1967; Schwartz et al. 1978), as it is a multidimensionalmeasure that separately assesses cognitive (worry) and somatic (heightened physiological arousal) state anxiety components. Finally, the CSAI-2 is convenient because it is a paper and pencil test comprised of 27 4-point Liert-type scale items. Extensive preliminary evidence conducted by Martens et al. (1983) revealed that the CSAI-2 indeed did measure separate somatic and cognitive state anxiety components which, as predicted, were only moderately correlated. ' In addition, factor analyses revealed the emergence of a third component, self-confidence. Specifically, while self-confidence was found to be negatively correlated with both the cognitive and somatic subcomponents, these correlations were only moderate. Therefore, self-confidencewas viewed as a separate CSAI-2 component and it was concluded that CSAI-2 assesses three independent (only moderately correlated) subscales: cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence. Not only has the CSAI-2 been shown to assess cognitive state anxiety, somatic state anxiety, and self-confidence, but it has been found to have good internal consistency (reliability) and construct validity (Martens et al., 1983). Specifically, Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from .70 to .90, revealing that the internal consistency of the various components was adequate, whereas concurrent validity was established by supporting predicted relationships between the CSAI-2 subscales and a variety of trait (e.g., Martens' Sport Competition Anxiety Test, 1977; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene's Trait Anxiety Inventory, 1970) and state (e.g., Zuckerman's Affect Adjective Checklist, 1960; Schwartz 'Martens et al. (1983) argue that in a strict theoretical sense CSAI-2 subcomponents should be so qualitatively different that they are orthogonal. However, most athletes would find it difficult to have high cognitive anxiety without experiencing some somatic anxiety. Therefore, these investigatorsconcluded that it is unrealistic to view CSAI-2 subcomponents as totally independent, but subscale intercorrelations should be of low to moderate magnitude, sharing less than 50% common variance. CSAI-2 SUBCOMPONENTS 29 1 et al.'s Cognitive-Somatic Anxiety Questionnaire, 1978) anxiety measures. CSAI-2 subscales were also found to be unbiased by the effects of social desirability. Martens and his colleagues (1983) argue that the CSAI-2 subscales are not only statistically independent but must be viewed separately because they are elicited by different antecedent conditions. They indicate, for example, that somatic anxiety is considered to be a reflexive response to various environmental stimuli (e.g., playing field, game irnportance) associated with the onset of an evaluative event. In contrast, the degree of cognitive state anxiety elicited by an athlete is dependent on his or her perceived ability, which is primarily generated from previous competitive experiencealthough situational factors largely independent of past experience (e.g., opponent ability) may influence it as well. Thus, performance expectancies prior to competition should be more highly correlated with cognitive than somatic anxiety. Additional evidence supporting the independence of cognitive and somatic anxiety focuses on changes in temporal patterns in these states as the time of competition approaches. For example, evidence in both the sport psychology (Martens et al., 1983) and the psychology (Morris & Fulmer, 1976; Smith & Moms, 1976) literature reveals that somatic anxiety steadily increases prior to competition or evaluation, whereas cognitive anxiety shows little temporal fluctuation, changing only with the expectation of success. The separate assessment of cognitive and somatic anxiety components is especially important since they are thought to influence performance differently. For example, Martens and his colleagues (1983) indicate that "somatic anxiety is likely to reach its peak at the onset of competition and dissipate once the contest begins." Thus, somatic anxiety should influence performance less than cognitive anxiety, "unless the somatic anxiety becomes so great that attention is diverted from the task to these internal states" (Martens et al., 1983). Similarly, Morris and Engle (1981) have concluded that cognitive anxiety, as compared to somatic anxiety, is more strongly related to performance, while Wine (1971, 1980) has found that cognitive anxiety disrupts a performer's attentional mechanisms and, in turn, performance. Based on previous theorizing and research, then, cognitive and somatic anxiety should differentially influence performance. In summary, the CSAI-2 appears to be a promising instrument for assessing separate state anxiety components from both a theoretical and empirical perspective. Before this instrument is widely used, however, further validation research is needed. For example, many of the initial results of Martens and his colleagues should be replicated. In addition, predictions not tested by these investigators, such as the hypothesized differing antecedent conditions for the various CSAI-2 subcomponents, must also be examined. The present study was designed to replicate and test various predictions and hypothesized relationships between CSAI-2 subscales. Specifically, two field studies were conducted. The first involved 37 elite intercollegiate wrestlers who were administered the CSAI-2 immediately before two different competitions. To test the independence of CSAI-2 subcomponents, intercorrelations between subscales were examined. In addition, the relationships between such antecedents as Martens' (1977) Sport Competition Anxiety Test (SCAT), perceived ability, wrestling success/failure, past experience, and CSAI-2 subcomponents were investigated to determine if the various subcomponentshave differing antecedents. Finally, the predicted relationships between CSAI-2 subcomponents and performance were examined. In Study 2, female high school varsity volleyball players were administered the CSAI-2 on five different occasions prior to competition. As in Study 1, correlations between subcomponent scores were examined. Moreover, the prediction 292 GOULD, PETLICHKOFF, AND WEINBERG was tested that somatic anxiety, as opposed to cognitive anxiety, would display greater increases prior to competition. STUDY 1 Method Procedure and Sample In October of 1982, 40 intercollegiate wrestlers, representing four of the top 10 ranked NCAA Division I teams in 1981, participated in the U.S.A. Wrestling Hall of Fame Classic. 2 After receiving informed consents from the wrestlers and their coaches, all participants were administered a demographic and background questionnaire the night before this double dual meet competition. In addition, all competitors were asked to complete the CSAI-2 twice, 10 minutes prior to each individual's two wrestling matches on the following day. Complete information was obtained for 37 of the 40 wrestlers. Questionnaires The demographic and background questionnaire was comprised of a series of questions assessing past wrestling experience (e.g., age began wrestling, years of intercollegiate varsity experience), past success (e.g., intercollegiate record, awards won), Martens' (1977) SCAT (a sport-specific measure of trait anxiety), a sources-of-stress questionnaire developed by Gould, Horn, and Spreeman (1983), Form E of the CSAI-2, and selected subscales of Nideffer's (1976) Test of Attentional and Interpersonal Style. This questionnaire was administered to the wrestlers in a group the night before competition. For brevity, only the results of the demographic-background, CSAI-2, and SCAT sections of the questionnaire will be discussed in this manuscript. Form E of the CSAI-2 was again administered to each wrestler on the following day, 10 minutes prior to each match wrestled in this double dual meet competition. On all occasions the wrestler was taken to a quiet section of the warm-up area where he completed the inventory in the presence of the e~perimenter.~ ZTheauthors would like to thank Steve Combs and Tim Johnson of U.S.A. Wrestling for their s u p port and assistance in conducting Study 1, and Gerald Fitzpatrick and Deb Gould for their assistance in the data collection. Sincere appreciation is also extended to the coaches and athletes who volunteered to participate in both studies. 3While all 40 wrestlers participating in the Hall of Fame Classic volunteered to take part in the investigation, complete data was obtained for only 37 of the 40 subjects. One subject missed the meeting in which the background questionnaire was administered, one voluntarily withdrew from the experiment because he was too nervous to complete the first precompetitive CSAI-2, and a third wrestler was eliminated when the experimenters saw that he was completing but not reading one of the prematch CSAI-2 questionnaires. 4Martens et al. (1983) indicate that while Form E is less sensitive to social desirability than earlier versions of the scale, antisocial desirability instructions should be given. These procedures were followed in the present investigation. CSAI-2 SUBCOMPONENTS Results Sample Characteristics The 37 wrestlers ranged in age from 18 to 22, with the mean age being 20 years (SD = 1.3). Ten of the wrestlers represented the University of North Carolina, nine represented Oklahoma University, nine represented Oklahoma State University, and nine represented San Jose State University. The sample comprised 10 freshman, 8 sophomores, 11juniors, and 6 seniors. As would be expected, most of the wrestlers had extensive wrestling experience (M years involved = 8.7, SD = 2.7), and on the average had begun wrestling competitively at age 11 (M = 11.1 years, SD = 2.6). Moreover, those wrestlers who had wrestled intercollegiately the previous year (N = 27) were very successful (M wins = 19.9, SD = 8.7; Mlosses = 6.5, SD = 3.5). Correlations Between CSAI-2 Subcomponents To test the prediction that the CSAI-2 measures two independent anxiety dimensions (cognitive and somatic anxiety), as well as self-confidence, correlations between subscale scores were calculated. Table 1 contains the correlations between subscale scores taken the night before competition, before Match 1, before Match 2, and averaged over all three assessment intervals. In addition, this table contains the mean intercorrelations of CSAI-2 subscales obtained by Martens et al. (1983). Inspection of Table 1 reveals that these correlations were similar to or, in the case of the somatic-to-confidence correlation, lower than those found by Martens and his colleagues. That is, the predicted moderate correlation between cognitive and somatic anxiety (r = + .52) was obtained, as well as the predicted moderate negative correlations between confidence and cognitive anxiety (r = - .48) and confidence and somatic anxiety (r = -.40). Antecedents of CSAI-2 Subcomponents To examine the relationships between prematch CSAI-2 subscale scores and the potential antecedent factors of trait anxiety (SCAT), perceived wrestling ability (an 11-point Table 1 lntercorrelations Between CSAI-2 Subcomponent Scores lntercorrelations Time of Assessment Cognitive and somatic Night before competition Prematch 1 Prematch 2 M Martens et al. (1983) (3 samples) All correlations significant @ < .05) .44 .61 .50 .52 .50 Cognitive and confidence Somatic and confidence GOULD, PETLICHKOFF, AND WEINBERG Table 2 Standardized Regression Coefficients Match 1 CSAI-2 Subscales Criterion (CSAI-2 subscales) Predictors SCAT Years experience Perceived ability Cognitive anxiety Somatic anxiety Confidence .32* -.51** - .02 Likert scale rating of perceived wrestling ability), years wrestling experience, and previous match outcome, a series of multivariate multiple regression, univariate multiple regression, and canonical correlation analyses were employed. In all cases the CSAI-2 subscale scores served as the criterion variables and the various antecedents as predictors. Match 1 Results. A significant multivariate relationship was found to exist between the predictor variables of SCAT, years experience and perceived ability, and the three CSAI-2 subscale criterion measures, F (9, 75) = 4.98, p < .001. Moreover, an inspection of the univariate multiple regression F tests for each criterion measure revealed that the predictor variables were significantly related to all three of the CSAI-2 subscale scores (cognitive anxiety, F (3, 33) = 8.87, p < .001; somatic anxiety, F (3, 33) = 4.94, p < .006; confidence, F (3, 33) = 6.38, p < .002). Finally, an examination of the standardized regression coefficients contained in Table 2 reveals that SCAT was highly related to both cognitive and somatic anxiety, years experience was highly related to cognitive anxiety, and perceived ability was highly related to confidence. Canonical correlation analysis was also used to examine the relationship between linear combinations of the predictor and criterion variables. Two canonical variates were found to be significant (Rcl = .6907, p < .001; Rc2 = .6072, p < .004),accounting for 48 and 37% of the variance, respectively. However, since the redundancy index has been shown to provide a more accurate assessment of the strength of association between data sets (Karpman, 1981; Weiss, 1972), a redundancy index was calculated for each canonical variate. These indices showed that the first canonical variate accounted for 30% of the variance, while the second variate accounted for 7% of the variance. To further understand the contributions of the specific predictor and criterion variables to the significant canonical correlations, the canonical loadings were examined. These loadings are contained in Table 3 and reveal that for the first canonical variate, the criterion variables of cognitive and somatic anxiety and the predictor variable, years experience, contributed most to the canonical correlation. An inspection of the loadings 51n the case of all regression analyses, correlations between predictor variables were examined to ensure that multicollinearity could be ruled out as an explanation for nonsignificant findings. 6Standardizedregression coefficients were not used to assess the contribution of each predictor and criterion variable to the canonical correlation because it has been shown (Weiss, 1972) that the canonical loadings provide a more accurate assessment of these relationships. CSAI-2 SUBCOMPONENTS Table 3 Canonical Loadings: Match 1 CSAI-2 Subscales and Predictor Variables Canonical correlation 1 loadings Canonical correlation 2 loadings CSAI-2 subscales Cognitive anxiety Somatic anxiety Confidence Predictors SCAT Years experience Perceived ability .93 .79 - .65 .66 - .81 - .59 for the second variate reveals that the criterion variable, confidence, and the predictor variable, perceived ability, contributed most to the canonical relationship. Thus, the magnitude and signs of these loadings show that, as would be predicted, greater years of experience were negatively related to heightened cognitive and somatic anxiety, while perceived ability and confidence were positively related Match 2 Results. The multivariate multiple regression for Match 2 revealed that a significant relationship existed between the predictor variables of SCAT, years of experience, perceived ability, and Match 1 outcome (won-loss coded as a dummy variable) and the CSAI-2 subscale score criterion measures, F (12,79) = 2.61, p < .006. However, the univariate multiple regression F tests conducted on each criterion measure revealed that only Match 2 cognitive anxiety was significantly related to the predictor variables, F (4, 32) = 6.02, p < .001. Inspection of the standardized regression coefficients also showed that years experience (-.43) and SCAT (- .31) contributed significantly more ( p < .05) to the regression equation than perceived ability (- .11) and Match 1 outcome (.08). The Match 2 canonical correlation results revealed that one significant canonical variate emerged (Rc = .6784, p < .001, Rc2 = 46%), with the redundancy index indicating that this relationship accounted for 20% of the variance. The canonical loadings for both the predictor and criterion variables are contained in Table 4 and show that the criterion variable of cognitive anxiety contributed most to the significant canonical correlation, followed by somatic anxiety, with confidence contributing least. For the predictor variables, years experience and SCAT were the greatest contributors to the relationship. Additionally, the signs of the loadings revealed that years experience was negatively related to cognitive and somatic anxiety while SCAT was positively related to these CSAI-2 subscales. In summary, when the results of the multivariate multiple regression, univariate multiple regression, and canonical correlation analyses for both matches are considered, several patterns of findings emerge. First, no single antecedent variable was strongly related to all three CSAI-2 subcomponents. Second, years experience was the strongest predictor of cognitive anxiety for both matches. Third, SCAT was moderately related to somatic anxiety in Match 1 but was moderately related to cognitive anxiety for both Matches 1 and 2. Fourth, perceived ability was highly related to Match 1 confidence but showed little relationship to cognitive and somatic anxiety. Fifth, little relationshipwas found between match outcome and any of the Match 2 CSAI-2 subscale scores. Finally, the various GOULD,PETLICHKOFF, AND WEINBERG Table 4 Canonical Loadings: Match 2 CSAI-2 Subscales and Predictor Variables Canonical loadings CSAI-2 subscales Cognitive anxiety Somatic anxiety Confidence Predictors SCAT Years experience Perceived ability Match 1 outcome antecedents were more strongly related to Match 1 CSAI-2 subcomponents than Match 2 CSAI-2 subcomponents. CSAI-2 Pe$omuznce Relationship To test the prediction that cognitive anxiety rather than somatic anxiety would show a stronger relationship to performance, a series of multivariate multiple regression, univariate multiple regression, and canonical correlation analyses were conducted for both Match 1 and 2. In all cases, CSAI-2 subscale scores were used as predictor variables and performance measures were used as criterion variables. Performance measures included match outcome (won-loss) and the number of points scored in the first period of each match. 'It should be noted that the number of points scored in the first period was selected as a performance measure in an effort to provide a performance assessment as close to the time of CSAI-2 assessment (5 to 10 rnin.prior to competition) as possible. This is important since precompetitive state anxiety may be more strongly related to immediate performance, as compared to later match performance. Match 1Results. A multivariate multiple regression analysis was conducted using match outcome and points scored in Period 1 as criterion variables and the three CSAI-2 prematch 1 subscale scores as predictor variables. The results revealed that no significant multivariate relationship existed. Thus, no significant relationship was found between cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, confidence, and performance. Match 2 Results. The multivariate multiple regression analysis conducted on the Match 2 performance measures was marginally significant, F (6, 64) = 2.01, p < .08. T h e total points scored in period one of Match 1 ranged from 0 to 10, and in period one of Match 2 from 0 to 9. However, because f d or pin (the ultimate goal in wrestling) ends the match and eliminates the further scoring of points, the system used for calculating the number of points scored in period one dependent variable had to be devised to ensure that the wrestlers scoring pins were awarded the highest point values. Therefore, 3 points were added to the highest number of points scored in the period if a wrestler pinned his opponent in the first minute of the period, 2 points if he pinned his opponent in the second minute of the period, and 1 point if he pinned his opponent in the third minute of the period. Thus, a wrestler pinning his opponent in the third minute of the period in Match 1 was awarded 13 total points, a wrestler pinning his opponent in the second minute, 12 points, and a wrestler pinning his opponent in the third minute, 11 points. CSAI-2 SUBCOMPONENTS 297 Moreover, the follow-up univariate F tests conducted on the match outcome and points scored in Period 1 criterion measures indicated that only the match outcome regression equation was significant, F (3, 33) = 3.04, p < .04. Inspection of the Match 2 outcome standardized regression coefficients also showed that cognitive anxiety (.53)was the only significant @ < .01) predictor of match outcome while somatic anxiety (-. 12) and confidence (.03) contributed little to the relationship. As was the case with the multivariate multiple regression analysis, the canonical correlation analysis was only marginally significant, Rc = .4663, p < .08, R c ~= 22%. Moreover, the redundancy index for the one marginally significant canonical correlation showed that only 13 % of the variance was explained. Table 5 contains the canonical loadings for this analysis, and an inspection of these loadings reveals that match outcome and cognitive anxiety contributed most to the relationship. In summary, no significant relationship existed between prematch CSAI-2 subscale scores and Match 1 performance. For Match 2, however, a marginally significant relationship existed, with cognitive anxiety and match outcome contributing most to the relationship. STUDY 2 Method Procedure and Sample To test the hypothesized independence of CSAI-2 subcomponents and the prediction that precompetitive state anxiety increases prior to competition as a result of changes in somatic, as opposed to cognitive, anxiety, 63 Michigan female high school varsity volleyball players voluntarily completed the CSAI-2 on five different occasions prior to a major tournament. The testing occasions occurred 1 week prior to competition, 48 hours prior to competition, 24 hours prior to competition, 2 hours prior to competition, and 20 minutes prior to competition. In addition, all subjects completed a brief demographic and background questionnaireat the first testing session. Finally, in all cases subjects completed the questionnaires in groups under standardized testing conditions. Table 5 Canonical Loadings: Match 2 Performance - Canonical loadings - Performance Match outcome Points scored period 1 Predictors Cognitive anxiety Somatic anxiety Confidence 298 GOULD, PETLICHKOFF, AND WEINBERG Questionnaires The demographic and background questionnaire consisted of a series of questions focusing on the subject's age, year in school, previous volleyball experience, and previous volleyball success (both team and individual). Moreover, as in the previous experiment, Form E of Martens et al. (1983) CSAI-2 was utilized. Results Sample Characteristics The 63 subjects ranged in age from 14 to 18, having a mean age of 16.4 years (SD = .78). Most had begun playing volleyball between the ages of 12 and 13, although some had begun as early as age 8 and others as late as age 16. In addition, the subjects averaged 4.3 years (SD = 1.6) of competitive volleyball experience with the sample consisting of 31 seniors, 25 juniors, 6 sophomores, and 1 freshman. Approximately 50% of the subjects indicated that they had started in more than 50% of the games of the last season, and also indicated that on the average they had participated in 77% of all games played. Finally, most of the subjects' teams had been successful, averaging 14 wins (SD = 6.9) and 5 losses (SD = 7.9) during the season. Correlations Between CSAZ-2 Subcomponents To test the prediction that the CSAI-2 measures two independent anxiety components, as well as self-confidence, intercorrelations between subscale scores were calculated. Specifically, Table 6 contains the intercorrelations taken at the five different precompetitive testing occasions, the correlations averaged over all time intervals, and the Martens et al. (1983) intercorrelations. As can be seen in Table 6, these intercorrelations are similar to those of Martens and his colleagues, as well as those obtained in Study 1. Thus, since the CSAI-2 subcomponents were only moderately correlated, support was again found for their independence. Temporal Changes in CSAI-2 Subcomponents In the initial validation studies of the CSAI-2, Martens and his colleagues (1983) supported previous psychological research by finding that somatic anxiety increased as the time of competition approached, while cognitive anxiety and confidence remained stable. The generality of these findings was tested in this investigation by conducting a one-way repeated measures MANOVA on three CSAI-2 subscale scores using the five assessment times (1 wk, 48 hrs, 24 hrs, 2 hrs, and 20 min) as levels of the independent variable. The results revealed that a significant multivariate effect emerged, F (12, 651) = 4.56, p < .W1. Subsequent, univariate repeated measures ANOVAs conducted on the five successive assessments for each CSAI-2 subscale score also showed that, as predicted, only the somatic anxiety subcomponent significantly increased as the time of competition approached, F (4, 248) = 12.69, p < .MI. 8The authors would like to thank Linda Bump of the University of Illinois for her assistance in this phase of the data analysis. CSAI-2 SUBCOMPONENTS Table 6 lntercorrelations Between CSAI-2 Subcomponents Scores lntercorrelations Cognitive and somatic Time of assessment 1 week 48 hours 24 hours 2 hours 20 minutes M Martens et al. (1983) findings Cognitive and confidence Somatic and confidence - .52 - .58 - .35 .41 .58 .46 .47 .50 .48 .50 - .57 - .49 - .55 - .54 - .51 - .46 - .39 - .44 - .46 - .42 .52 All correlations significant (p < .05) A foIlow-up general linear model trend analysis using the reduced mean square error as the criterion for best fit revealed that this increase in somatic anxiety was best explained by a cubic trend (M 1 wk = 15.09, M 48 hrs = 15.02, M 24 hrs = 14.49, M 2 hrs = 16.24, M 20 min = 18.32). That is, somatic anxiety initially decreased, then increased prior to competition (see Figure 1). Thus, the prediction that somatic anxiety increases prior to competition, while cognitive anxiety and confidence remain stable, was supported. 28 25 -A- 24 23 e~ 1 Y) 20 5 16 3: " - r - - -A / -. .........-.. ........-. .........-.. .......* - confidence cognitive auciety somatic anxiety 12 TIME BEFORE COMPETITION Figure 1 - Precompetitive temporal changes in CSAI-2 subcomponent scores. 300 GOULD, PETLICHKOFF, AND WEINBERG Temporal Changes in CSAI-2 Subcomponents in Experienced Versus Inexperienced Players Since Fenz (1975) initially found that experienced parachutists differed from inexperienced parachutists in preperformance state anxiety, a number of investigators have attempted to replicate his findiingswith other samples of athletes. Unfortunately, the results of these studies have been contradictory: Some investigators have found support for these differences (Mahoney & Avener, 1977), while others have not (Gould et al., 1983; Highlen & Bennett, 1979). It has recently been hypothesized (Gould et al. 1983) that the lack of support for the initial Fenz (1975) finding may have resulted from the fact that nonvalidated unidimensiond, as opposed to validated multidimensional, measures of anxiety have been used and that the predicted differences may only occur with somatic anxiety. Therefore, to test the prediction that inexperienced athletes will demonstrate a linear increase in somatic state anxiety prior to competition, while experienced athletes will demonstrate an inverted-V pattern (an increase followed by a decrease), a 2 x 5 (experience - inexperience by precompetitive time of assessment) repeated measure MANOVA was utilized, with the CSAI-2 subcomponentscores serving as dependent variables. Inexperienced players were operationally defined as those with 1 to 3 years volleyball experience (N = 21), while experienced players were defined as those with 5 to 9 years experience (N = 27). The results revealed that no significant experience or experience by time main or interaction effects occurred. Thus, no support was found for the predicted experience versus inexperienced pattern of anxiety differences for either the cognitive or somatic components. DISCUSSION The Multidimensional Nature of the CSAI-2 The primary reason for developing the CSAI-2 was to construct a sport-specific multidimensional measure of state anxiety which assesses independent anxiety dimensions. The CSAI-2 appears to have accomplished its stated purpose, as the intercorrelations found between CSAI-2 subscales in both Study 1 and 2 of this investigation demonstrate strong support for the recent scale development studies of Martens and his colleagues (1983). Specifically, similar moderate positive correlations were obtained between cognitive and somatic anxiety, as well as moderate negative correlations between confidenceand cognitive anxiety and confidence and somatic anxiety. In fact, the only discrepancy in the findings was the lower cognitive-to-somatic anxiety wrrelation (r = - .41)found in the present investigation, as compared to that of Martens et al. (1983) (r = - .52). However, this lower correlation only further supports the notion of independence since it reflects even less common variance between subscales. In summary, the intercorrelational findings support the conception that the CSAI-2 is a multidimensional anxiety measure with independent subscales which only share between 16 and 29% common variance. The temporal changes in CSAI-2 subcomponents found in Study 2 also support the notion that independent anxiety subcomponents are being assessed. That is, if state anxiety is unidimensional in nature, all three CSAI-2 subscales should show a similar pattern of fluctuation prior to competition. As in the Martens et al. (1983) study, as well as other studies using different multidimensional state anxiety measures (Morris & Engle, CSAI-2 SUBCOMPONENTS 301 1981; Morris & Fulmer, 1976; Smith & Morris, 1976), the results of this investigation revealed that only the somatic anxiety subcomponent showed a significant increase as the time of competition approached. A critical question not answered in this investigation is why somatic anxiety increases as the time of competition approaches, while cognitive anxiety and confidence remain stable. Borkovec (1976) contends that these findings result from a conditioned somatic anxiety response, stemming from somatic anxiety increases that have been conditioned over time to specific environmental stimuli such as the pregame locker room setting or the playing field itself. In contrast, cognitive anxiety and confidence are hypothesized to be linked to changes in performance expectancies, which typically are not expected to change until competitionactually begins. An important question for future investigators, then, is to explain why CSAI-2 subscales show different patterns of temporal change prior to competition. While not fully explained, the temporal patterns of anxiety findings are important in that they further reflect the utility of viewing anxiety as a multidimensional construct. It is possible, for example, that one reason the anxiety-performancerelationship has been so difficult to understand is because athletes who perform poorly may do so because of changes in only one anxiety component (e.g., cognitive anxiety). However, when unidimensional measures are employed, any precompetitive cognitive anxiety or confidence changes may be masked by the normal increase in somatic anxiety. Thus, specific changes in each anxiety subcomponent must be examined in order to fully understand the anxietyperformance relationship. Antecedents of the CSAI-2 While the intercorrelation and temporal change results strongly support the work of Martens and his colleagues (1983), the findings testing the hypotheses that CSAI-2 subcomponents are elicited by different antecedents were not clearly supported. Specifically, no support was found for the prediction that SCAT, because it has more items judged to be somatic in nature, would be a better predictor of somatic anxiety than cognitive anxiety or confidence. In contrast, SCAT was found to be a significant predictor of cognitive anxiety for both Match 1 and 2, while it was only a significant predictor of Match 1 somatic anxiety and was not found to be related to confidence in either match. Performance expectancies were also hypothesized to be more highly predictive of cognitive, as compared to somatic, anxiety, but both the perceived ability rating and Match 1 outcome antecedents were not found to be significant predictors of either anxiety component. However, it can only be assumed that previous experience and Match 1 outcome are true measures of performance expectancies. That is, since the quality of past experience as well as the subject's perception of Match 1 outcome were not directly assessed, it is possible that these were inaccurate measures of wrestler expectancies. For example, losing to a top ranked wrestler by only a point or two might be perceived as a successful performance by a wrestler of lesser ability. Future investigators should therefore reexamine these relationships using direct measures of expectancies. In a more general sense, while the specific hypotheses made by Martens et al. (1983) regarding various antecedents of CSAI-2 subcomponentswere not supported, the present results did show that the various antecedent factors do influence CSAI-2 dimensions in different ways. That is, while significantrelationshipswere found between various 302 GOULD, PETLICHKOFF, AND WEINBERG antecedents and CSAI-2 subscale scores, no single antecedent was strongly related to all three subcomponents. For example, the years experience and SCAT predictors showed little relationship to the confidence subcomponent, but were related to both the cognitive and somatic anxiety subcomponents. The perceived ability antecedent, on the other hand, was strongly related to the CSAI-2 confidence subcomponent but showed little relationship to the cognitive and somatic anxiety subcomponents. Thus, support was found for the general prediction that the various CSAI-2 subdimensionshave different antecedents, although the precise predictions of Martens and his colleagues were not supported. Clearly, more research pertaining to the antecedents of CSAI-2 dimensions is needed. Moreover, future studies should examine antecedent conditions which are specifically predicted to affect each CSAI-2 subscale differently. Performance and the CSAI-2 The results of those analyses examining the predicted relationships between CSAI-2 levels and performance were contradictory. On one hand, no support was found for the predictions when Match 1 performance was examined. On the other hand, however, the prediction that cognitive anxiety would be a more powerful predictor of performance than somatic anxiety received some support in that match outcome and cognitive anxiety were found to contribute most to this marginally (p < .O8) significant relationship. The lack of consistent support for the predicted CSAI-2 performance relationships may have resulted for several reasons. First, the CSAI-2 may be similar to previous state anxiety inventories in that it is not consistently a powerful predictor of athlete performance. Or second, it is possible that the predicted CSAI-2 performance relationships were not demonstrated because of the way in which the CSAI-2 was used and performance assessed. Sonstroem and Bernardo (1982), for example, found that absolute levels of state anxiety have little relationship to performance. Consistent relationships were found only when variations around the subjects' own optimal levels of state anxiety were examined. Thus, based on the Sonstroem and Bernardo (1982) findings, it appears more appropriate to examine intraindividual relationships between CSAI-2 levels and performance. It was not possible to examine this in the present study since a minimum of three state anxiety and performance measures is needed for such an analysis. Consequently, it is recommended that when the relationships between CSAI-2 components and performance are examined in future investigations, intraindividual tests be designed and implemented. It is also important to recognize that while the CSAI-2 performance findings did not support the hypothesized relationships, they are in many ways similar to those found by Martens and his colleagues (1983). Specifically, these investigators found no relationship between precompetitive CSAI-2 subscale scores and initial performance (score on the first nine holes) in junior golfers. However, precompetitive cognitive and somatic subscale scores were found to be significantly related to later match performance (score on the last nine holes). There is no clear explanation for these findings, although the consistency of these delayed relationships warrants further examination. Athlete Experience and the CSAI-2 Gould, Horn, and Spreeman (1983) have suggested that anxiety differences between experienced and inexperienced athletes found by previous investigators (e.g., Fenz, CSAI-2 SUBCOMPONENTS 303 1975) result from changes in somatic anxiety. Although it was not a primary purpose of this investigation, this relationship was examined. No significant between-group anxiety differences were found when experienced and inexperienced high school volleyball players were examined. It should be recognized, however, that the lack of between-group differences in Study 2 may have resulted from the fact that in previous studies, the athletes had a wider range of experience than those in the present investigation. This explanation seems especially credible in light of the strong experience related differences found in CSAI-2 subscale scores by Martens and his colleagues (1983) when athletes with a wider range of experience were used. Moreover, Fenz (1975) utilized sport parachutists as subjects in his investigation and suggested that the anxiety differences he obtained may be specific to sports in which the concern over life itself is of particular importance. Summary In conclusion, the results of this investigation support the scale development work of Martens and his colleagues by verifying that the CSAI-2 assesses three separate components of state anxiety. Second, the results confirmed the prediction that somatic anxiety increases during the time leading to competition, while cognitive anxiety and confidence remain constant. Third, only marginal support was found for the prediction that cognitive anxiety should be a more powerful predictor of performance than somatic anxiety. Finally, while it was shown that CSAI-2 subcomponents are not equally influenced by the same antecedent factors, the precise prediction Martens and his colleagues (1983) made about differing relationships between CSAI-2 subscales and various antecedents were not supported. Consequently, more research is needed to determine how and why specific antecedent factors influence various CSAI-2 components, and to test the hypothesized relationships between CSAI-2 components and performance. References Borkovec, T.D. (1976). Physiological and cognitive processes in the regulation of anxiety. In G. Schwartz & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self regulation:Advances in research (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum. Carron, A.V., & Morford, W.R. (1968). Anxiety, stress, and motor learning. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 27, 507-5 11. Davidson, R.J., & Schwartz, G.E. (1976). The psychobiology of relaxation and related states: A multiprocess theory. In D.I. Mostofsky (Ed.) Behavior control and rnod$cation of physiological activity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Fenz, W.D. (1975). Coping mechanisms and performance under stress. In D.M. Landers (Ed.), Psychology of sport and motor behavior IZ. University Park, PA: Penn State HPER Series No. 10. Gould, D., Horn, T., & Spreemann, J. (1983). Competitive anxiety in junior elite wrestlers. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5 , 58-71. Highlen, P.S., & Bennett, B.B. (1979). Psychologicd characteristics of successful and nonsuccessful elite wrestlers: An exploratory study. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1 , 123-137. Karpman, M.B. (1981). Redundancy in canonical analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 52, 291-292. Landers, D.M. (1980). The arousd-performance relationship revisited. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 77-90. 304 GOULD, PETLICHKOFF, AND WEINBERG Liebert, R.M., & Morris, L.W. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: A distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20, 975-978. Mahoney, M.S., & Avener, M. (1977). Psychology of the elite athlete: An exploratory study. Cognitive lhzrapy and Research, 1, 135-141. Martens, R. (1977). Sport competition anxiety test. Champaign, Il: Human Kinetics. Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R., Smith, D., & Bump, L. (1983). i%e development of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). Unpublished manuscript. Martens, R., & Gill, D.L. (1976). State anxiety among successful and unsuccessful competitors who differ in competitive trait anxiety. Research Quarterly, 47, 698-700. Martens, R., & Landers, D.M. (1970). Motor performance under stress: A test of the invertedU hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 29-37, Moms, L.W., & Engle, W.G. (1981). Assessing various coping strategies and their effects on test performance and anxiety. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 165-171. Moms, L.W., & Fulmer, R.S. (1976). Test anxiety (worry and emotionality) changes during academic testing as a function of feedback and test importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 817-824. Nideffer, R.M. (1976). Test of attentional and interpersonal style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 394-404. Scanlan, T.K., & Passer, M.W. (1979). Sources of competitive stress in young female athletes. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 151-159. Schwartz, G.E., Davidson, R.J., & Goleman, D. (1978). Patterning of cognitive and somatic processes in the self-regulationof anxiety: Effects of meditation versus exercise. Psychosomatic Medicine, 40, 321-328. Smith, C.A., & Moms, L.W. (1976). Effects of stimulative and sedative music on two components of test anxiety. Psychological Reports, 38, 1187-1193. Sonstroem, R.J., & Bemardo, P. (1982). Intraindividualpregame state anxiety and basketball performance: A re-examination of the inverted-U curve. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 235-245. Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., & Lushene, R.E. (1970). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Weiss, D.J. (1972). Canonical correlation analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19, 241-252. Wine, J.D. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 92-104. Wine, J.D. (1980). Cognitive-attentional therapy of test anxiety. In I.G. Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiety: meory, research, and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Zuckerman, M. (1960). The development of an affect adjective check list for the measurement of anxiety. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 457-462. Manuscript submitted: November 10, 1983 Revision received: April 10, 1984