Desarrollo

J.Hudson

Sport Science, School of Social Sciences, University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, UK

1 Introduction

Understanding the complex relationship between arousal and sports performance remains a primary concern within sport psychology. For instance, Kerr (1987) stated that there is a consensus amongst sport psychologists that the relationship between arousal and performance is critical to elite level sport. One approach which has been employed to investigate this phenomenon is “reversal theory” (Kerr, 1987). Only those proposals of reversal theory that are examined in this study are discussed here and a more comprehensive review can be found in Apter (1989). Reversal theory suggests that level of arousal per se is less important for performance than the individual’s own interpretation of his/her arousal level—a proposal that contradicts earlier models of the arousal-performance relationship, for example, the “inverted-U hypothesis” (Yerkes-Dodson, 1908, cited by Kerr, 1987). According to Kerr (1990), sports performance will be detrimentally affected by discrepancies between the athlete’s perceived arousal and the level that he/she would prefer to experience, that is, if the athlete feels more or less aroused than he/she would like to.

Arousal discrepancy is thought to result in unpleasant emotions and subsequently, stress—known as tension stress (Males and Kerr, 1996). Further stress is created by coping efforts directed at alleviating this tension stress—this is referred to as effort stress. It is likely that insufficient or excessive effort stress, in relation to experienced tension stress, will not alleviate the tension stress but will further exacerbate the situation. This has prompted Males and Kerr (1996) to claim that discrepancies between effort and tension stress will result in poor sports performance.

Empirical substantiation of these proposals is currently emerging: for example Cox and Kerr (1989) revealed that skilled and winning squash players reported less pre- match arousal discrepancy than did novice and losing players. Using intra-individual comparisons of elite male slalom canoeists’ performances over a season, Males and Kerr (1996) found that all the subjects’ best performances were preceded by no arousal discrepancy. However, only one subject reported a significant arousal discrepancy prior to his worst performance and only one subject reported a significant discrepancy between tension and effort stress prior to their worst performance.

Science and Racket Sports II, edited by A.Lees, I.Maynard, M.Hughes and T.Reilly. Published in 1998 by E & FN Spon, 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE, UK. ISBN: 0 419 23030 0

Stress and arousal in badminton players 175 Biddle and Hill (1992) have demonstrated the importance of considering subjective performance outcomes (the individual’s own assessment of his/her performance) in sport psychology research. However, Cox and Kerr (1989) and Males and Kerr (1996) measured only objective performance outcomes (performance finishing time or position). Considering this, and the equivocal support for the reversal theory proposals outlined above, it seems that further empirical inquiry is required into these proposals across a range of sports contexts, performers and outcomes. This is particularly important if reversal theory is to be used as a framework for sport psychology interventions as Kerr (1993) suggested it can be. Therefore, using a sample of elite youth badminton players, this study investigated the following hypotheses: pre-game arousal discrepancy is associated with poor objective and subjective performance outcomes, and, pre-game

discrepancy between tension and effort stress is associated with poor subjective and objective performance outcomes.

2 Methods 2.1 Subjects

Subjects were 7 male and 9 female youth badminton players whose ages ranged from 13 to 19 years with a mean age of 14.9 years (S.D.=±1.6 years). Relative to their age group, 8 were international standard, one was a national standard player, 6 were county or regional standard and one player failed to provide this

information. All players were attending a week long ‘High Performance Badminton Camp’ at a United Kingdom university. Data reported here were collected during a tournament held on the final evening of the camp.

2.2 Instruments

The measurement instrument consisted of various sub-components. The modified Tension Effort Stress Inventory [TESI] (Svebak, 1993), as used by Males and Kerr (1996), assessed perceived internal and external tension and effort stress. The modification made by Males and Kerr (1996) was to add two scales of the Telic State Measure [TSM] (Svebak and Murgatroyd, 1985, cited by Moles and Kerr, 1996) to assess the individual’s levels of preferred and felt arousal.

Perceived internal tension stress was assessed using the following item: In relation to your next game, how much pressure, stress, challenge or demand do you feel under from your own body/self? and, for effort stress: In relation to your next game, how much effort do you think you’re putting up to cope with the pressure, stress, challenge or demand you feel from your own body/self? Items relating to external tension and effort stress replaced your own body/self with other factors. Perceived and preferred arousal levels were assessed using the following items, respectively, Please estimate how aroused (worked up) you feel right now and, Please estimate how aroused (worked up) you would prefer to feel right now. Subjects responded using a 7 point Likert scale anchored with 1=low and 7=high on the TSM items and 1=no pressure and 7=very much pressure on the TESI items. Males and Kerr (1996) combined these state measures in this way and suggested that the validity of each questionnaire was unlikely to be compromised

176 Hudson

simply by presenting the measures in the same questionnaire, which have been used in a number of previously published studies (Males and Kerr, 1996). Likert scale measures of performance satisfaction have also been used in a number of previously published studies (for example, Biddle and Hill, 1992). Objective performance outcomes were recorded as win or lose and subjective performance outcomes were recorded as the individual’s level of satisfaction with his/her performance. These were indicated by subjects’ responses to the question: How satisfied are you with the way you just played? which were recorded on a 7 point Likert scale, anchored by 1=very satisfied to 7=not at all satisfied.

2.3 Procedure

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects and from coaching staff at the ‘High Performance Badminton Camp’ who were acting in loco parentis. Prior to warming up for the tournament, subjects were instructed on how and when to complete the questionnaire. The athletes were divided into two teams which competed against each other throughout the tournament (this was not part of the experimental manipulation). Each player could play a maximum of three games: a singles, a doubles, and, a mixed doubles match. Points were awarded to each team on the basis of the outcome of each game (this was not part of the experimental manipulation) and the winning team was the one with the most points at the end of the tournament. Due to the number of players attending the camp it was not possible for every player to play three games, therefore 13 played a total of three games and 3 played only two, meaning that complete data sets were not available for all subjects.

Subjects completed the measurement instrument at the following times

throughout the tournament: before their first game; after their first game; after their second game, and, after their third game

3 Results

3.1 Subjective outcome and arousal discrepancy

Arousal discrepancy was determined by calculating the absolute difference between the subjects’ reported levels of preferred and felt arousal. Two groups were formed based on the subjects’ reported levels of satisfaction: ‘satisfied’ was indicated by a rating from 1–3 on the subjective performance scale described above and ‘dissatisfaction’ by a rating from 4–7. A Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Signed Ranks test indicated significantly greater arousal discrepancy when players were satisfied with their performance than when they were dissatisfied [Z=-2.8966, P<0.01 (2-tailed probability)].

3.2 Objective outcome and arousal discrepancy

A Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Signed Ranks test indicated no significant differences in arousal discrepancy when players won compared with when they lost [Z=- 0.2213, P>0.05 (2-tailed probability)].

Stress and arousal in badminton players 177 3.3 Subjective outcome and stress discrepancy

Stress discrepancy was indicated by calculating the absolute difference between the subjects’ reported tension and effort stress—one for internal stress discrepancy and one for external stress discrepancy. ‘Satisfied’ and ‘Dissatisfied’ groups were formed as above. A Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Signed Ranks test indicated greater external stress discrepancy when players were dissatisfied with their performance than when they were satisfied that approached traditional alpha levels [Z=-1.8743, P=0.06 (2-tailed probability)]. A Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Signed Ranks test indicated no significant differences in internal stress discrepancy between ‘satisfied’ and ‘dissatisfied’ players [Z=-0.5112, P>0.05 (2-tailed probability)]. 3.4 Objective outcome and stress discrepancy

A Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed Ranks tests revealed no significant differences between the internal and external stress discrepancies reported prior to games that were won and those that were lost. [For internal stress discrepancy, Z=-0.9308, P>0.05 (2-tailed probability) and for external stress discrepancy, Z=0.00, P>0.05 (2-tailed probability)].

4 Discussion

Results of this study lend only partial support to the first hypothesis. Contrary to predictions, but in support of Males and Kerr’s (1996) findings, poor objective performance outcomes were not associated with pre-game discrepancy between felt and preferred arousal levels in these elite youth badminton players. However, in line with predictions, significantly less pre-game arousal discrepancy was reported when players were satisfied with the way they had played than when they were dissatisfied. This supports Biddle and Hill’s (1992) contention of the importance of subjective performance outcomes. Also supported here was Kerr’s (1987) suggestion that the athlete’s own interpretation of their arousal is central to the relationship between arousal and performance in sport.

These findings also offered only partial support for the second hypothesis investigated. Contrary to predictions, pre-game internal or external stress discrepancy was no greater prior to games that were lost than prior to those that were won. Internal stress discrepancies were no greater when players were dissatisfied than when they were satisfied with the way they played. However, external stress discrepancies were significantly greater when players were dissatisfied with the way they had played. This may indicate that these athletes were unable to cope with perceived stress from external sources which could have adversely affected personal performance satisfaction. These dissatisfied players reported greater perceived effort than tension stress. External sources of stress may be particularly salient for these athletes who may then exert greater effort stress than is needed to cope with perceived external tension stress. In so doing, effort may be directed away from performance, resulting in performance dissatisfaction. It is also possible that the athletes’ coping efforts were misdirected which again may have influenced reported levels of performance satisfaction.

178 Hudson

5 Conclusions

Interventions aimed at helping athletes to manage arousal levels and so gain maximal satisfaction from their sporting experience should be based around the individual’s currently preferred level of arousal. This is particularly important in minimising attrition from youth sport as the athlete may be achieving objective success, but not personal satisfaction, and therefore may no longer want to participate in the sport. Subsequent research should investigate this suggestion and should identify and explain reasons why arousal discrepancy appears to influence subjective but not objective performance outcomes. To extend the current line of inquiry, future research should examine whether or not performance satisfaction is underpinned by perceptions of optimal levels of felt arousal in relation to desired levels of arousal.

Future empirical inquiry should identify external sources of stress and interventions that can help young athletes to cope with them to maximise the positive affect which can be gained from sports participation.

In summary, it appears that reversal theory offers a potential framework for understanding the relationship between arousal, stress and sports performance and for guiding interventions that seek to maximise the athlete’s performance

achievements and satisfaction. Further research in this area is clearly required. 6 References

Apter, M.J. (1989) Reversal Theory: Motivation, Emotion and Personality. Routledge, London.

Biddle, S.J.H., and Hill, A.B. (1992) Attributions for objective outcome and subjective appraisal of performance: Their relationship with emotional reactions in sport. British

Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 215–226.

Cox, T., and Kerr, J.H. (1989) Arousal effects during tournament play in squash.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 1275–1280.

Kerr, J.H. (1987) Structural phenomenology, arousal and performance. Journal of Human

Movement Studies, 13, 211–229.

Kerr, J.H. (1993) An eclectic approach to psychological interventions in sport: Reversal theory. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 400–418.

Males, J.R., and Kerr, J.H. (1996) Stress, emotion, and performance in elite slalom canoeists. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 17–36.

Svebak, S. (1993) The development of the Tension and Effort Stress Inventory (TESI), in

Advances in Reversal Theory (eds J.H.Kerr, S.Murgatroyd and M.J.Apter), Swets

Zeitlinger, Amsterdam, pp. 189–204.

Svebak, S., and Murgatroyd, S. (1985) Metamotivational dominance: A multimethod validation of reversal theory constructs. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 48, 913–919.

Yerkes, R.M., and Dodson, J.D. (1908) The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology of Psychology, 18, 4, 459.