Self-Efficacy, State Anxiety, and Motivation During Mandatory Combatives Training Hector R

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2008 Self-Efficacy, State Anxiety, and Motivation during Mandatory Combatives Training Hector R. (Hector Rafael) Morales-Negron

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

SELF-EFFICACY, STATE ANXIETY, AND MOTIVATION DURING MANDATORY

COMBATIVES TRAINING

HECTOR R. MORALES-NEGRON

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2008

______Robert C. Eklund Professor Directing Dissertation

______Robert Moffatt Outside Committee Member

______Gershon Tenenbaum Committee Member

______Jeannine Turner Committee Member

Approved:______Akihito Kamata, Chairperson, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems

The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above committee members.

To my Wife, Marisol Correa-Morales, thank you for being there with me throughout this 20-year long journey. You motivate me to always do better and I love you for that. To my kids: Meagan, Hector Jr., and Francisco, who are my inspiration to work hard and complete all my tasks. To my Mom, Gladys, who carried all of us on her back and showed me how to do much with a little. Thanks for your support and your prayers. To my Dad, Hector, because without knowing it, he made me the persistent and hard working man that I consider myself to be today. Last but not least, I dedicate this work to the U.S. Army Soldier, the warrior that never backs down. While I have been in school learning, many of you have fallen…you will not be forgotten. I pledge that what I have learned during this journey will be used to improve those leaders that you will see in the future. Continue to close with the enemy, which is indeed the defining characteristic of a warrior.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to:

-Dr. Robert C. Eklund, my major professor, for being patient and flexible with me and for always being available to guide me during this process. Your guidance was undoubtedly the biggest contributor to this project. I give you my most sincere thanks and appreciation.

-Dr. Gershon Tenenbaum, committee member and mentor. Thank you for your support and for believing in my potential from day 1. You are the ultimate professional and I have learned many things from you.

-Dr. Robert Moffatt and Dr. Jeanine Turner. Thank you for providing me with time from your busy schedules to develop me as a scholar. Your contributions, comments, and suggestions were and will always be welcomed. Again, thank you for your professionalism.

-Dr. Richard Hagen. Family, friend, and mentor. Thanks for your guidance and for helping me better understand the English language. Your contributions to my career are far too many to count. Thanks for being there.

-Mr. Matt Larson, SFC Matt Oniel, SGT John Bookout, SSG Scott Kovonda, SSG Garza, and SGT Andrakowicz. These ultimate warriors run the combatives programs that were used to conduct this study. Thank you for your flexibility and help during this process. The study could not have been completed without you. I sincerely hope that these findings will help the program in the near future.

-My peers and friends in the sport psychology program. Completing this journey is a hard process, and it can’t be done without the support of a great group of professionals. My peers, many of them almost 20 years younger than me, are smart and hard working individuals that through feedback and professional discussion contributed to the successful completion of this project. Thank you all, and God bless you in your journey.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS····························································································· iv TABLE OF CONTENTS·································································································· v LIST OF TABLES ·········································································································viii LIST OF FIGURES·········································································································· ix ABSTRACT······················································································································ 1 CHAPTER ONE ··············································································································· 2 Introduction···················································································································· 2 Army Combatives Program Background ··································································· 2 Psychological Aspects of the Mixed Martial Arts Environment································ 3 Rationale for the Study······························································································· 4 CHAPTER TWO ·············································································································· 6 Literature Review ·········································································································· 6 Self-Efficacy··············································································································· 7 Motivation ·················································································································· 8 Self-efficacy and Motivation···················································································· 10 State Anxiety············································································································ 10 Stress Process ··········································································································· 12 Anxiety and Self-efficacy························································································· 14 Anxiety and Motivation ··························································································· 15 Stress and Anxiety in Military Settings···································································· 16 Mental Training Techniques ···················································································· 17 Relaxation, Imagery, and Self-Talk as Interventions ··············································· 18 Stress Inoculation Training (SIT)············································································· 18 Stress Management Training (SMT)········································································ 19 Current mental training program approaches··························································· 20 Other Coping Considerations··················································································· 21 Pilot Study················································································································ 21 Purpose of the Study···································································································· 21 Hypotheses··················································································································· 22

CHAPTER THREE ········································································································ 24 Method························································································································· 24 Participants··············································································································· 24 Instrumentation········································································································· 24 Intervention ·············································································································· 28 Qualitative Inquiry···································································································· 30 Level 1 Combatives Course Description·································································· 30 Design and Procedure······························································································· 30 Data Analysis ··········································································································· 31 CHAPTER FOUR··········································································································· 34 CHAPTER FOUR··········································································································· 34 Results ························································································································· 34 Self-Defense Efficacy (SDE) ··················································································· 34 Teaching Self-Efficacy (TSE) ·················································································· 35 General Confidence·································································································· 37 Cognitive Combatives State Anxiety (CCSA)························································· 39 Somatic Combatives State Anxiety (SCSA) ···························································· 41 Motivation ················································································································ 43 Self-Defense Efficacy, State Anxiety, and Motivation ············································ 45 Participants Ordered to Attend················································································· 46 Qualitative Inquiry···································································································· 54 CHAPTER FIVE············································································································· 60 Discussion···················································································································· 60 Self-Defense Efficacy and Teaching Self-Efficacy·················································· 60 Combatives State Anxiety························································································ 61 Motivation ················································································································ 62 Correlations ·············································································································· 63 Group Comparison ··································································································· 64 Training Status ········································································································· 64 Limitations of the Current Research ········································································ 65

Conclusions ·············································································································· 68 APPENDIX A: ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONNAIRE············································ 69 APPENDIX B: SITUATIONAL MOTIVATION QUESTIONNAIRE ························· 71 APPENDIX C: COMBATIVES SELF-EFFICACY SCALE········································· 73 APPENDIX D: SPORT COMPETITION ANXIETY TEST ········································· 75 APPENDIX E: STATE COMBATIVES ANXIETY SCALE········································ 77 APPENDIX F: QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW GUIDE················································· 79 APPENDIX G: INTERVENTION INSTRUCTIONAL PACKET ································ 81 APPENDIX H: DAILY HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS··········································· 104 APPENDIX I: QUALITATIVE DATA CODING ······················································· 109 APPENDIX J: CONSENT FORM ··············································································· 115 APPENDIX K: CONSENT FORM (QUALITATIVE PORTION)······························ 117 APPENDIX L: HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTER ···································· 119 REFERENCES ············································································································· 122 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ························································································ 130

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Participants’ (N= 52) Demographics············································································24 Table 2: Pre, during, and post-training self-defense efficacy (SDE)·······························33 Table 3: Pre, during, and post-training teaching self- efficacy (TSE)·····························35 Table 4: Pre, during, and General Confidence Scores····················································37 Table 5: Pre, during, and post-training Cognitive Combatives State Anxiety (CCSA) ···39 Table 6: Pre, during, and post-training Somatic Combatives State Anxiety (SCSA)·······41 Table 7: Pre, mid, and post-training Reported Intrinsic Motivation·······························42 Table 8: Pre, mid, and post-training Self-Determination Index (SDI) ····························43 Table 9: Self-Defense Efficacy Scores for Soldiers Ordered to Participate····················45 Table 10: Teaching Self-Efficacy Scores for Soldiers Ordered to Participate················46 Table 11: Cognitive Combatives State Anxiety Scores for Soldiers Ordered to Participate ···················································································································48 Table 12: Somatic Combatives State Anxiety Scores for Soldiers Ordered to Participate ···················································································································49 Table 13: Motivation for Soldiers Ordered to Participate ··············································51 Table 14: Categories of Participant Perceptions and Percentage of Responses by Type.52

viii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: A Conceptual Scheme Relating State Anxiety and Self-Efficacy with

Motivation ················································································································································ 6 Figure 2: Inverted U Hypothesis ······················································································11 Figure 3: Self-Defense Efficacy (SDE) Scores through the Course ································34 Figure 4: Teaching Self-Efficacy (TSE) Scores through the Course ·······························35 Figure 5: Confidence Scores throughout the Course ·······················································36 Figure 6: Cognitive Combatives State Anxiety (CCSA) Scores throughout the Course·39 Figure 7: Somatic Combatives State Anxiety (SCSA) Scores throughout the Course····41 Figure 8: Self-Determination Index Scores throughout the Course·································42 Figure 9: SDE Scores for Participants Ordered to Attend ···············································45 Figure 10: TSE Scores for Participants Ordered to Attend··············································47 Figure 11: CCSA Scores for Participants Ordered to Attend ··········································48 Figure 12: SCSA Scores for Participants Ordered to Attend···········································50 Figure 13: SDI Scores for Participants Ordered to Attend ··············································51 Figure 14: Cognitive Combatives State Anxiety Comparisons Qualitative Group ·········55 Figure 15: Somatic Combatives State Anxiety Comparisons Qualitative Group············55

Figure 16: Physiological Arousal (HR) Comparisons Qualitative Group ······················· 56

ABSTRACT

A new Army-wide combatives program was made mandatory in 2004 to provide soldiers with the physical and psychological demands of hand-to-hand fighting prior to engaging in combat. This study was conducted to evaluate key psychological variables highlighted in the Chief of Staff of the Army’s memorandum that imposed the combatives program. U.S. Army soldiers (n = 52) attending three different instructor combatives training courses at two military installations in the U.S. were evaluated. Measurements were obtained on self-defense efficacy (SDE), teaching combatives self-efficacy (TCSE), combatives state anxiety (CSA), and motivation. In a quasi-experimental design, were one class was designated as the control, and the second and third as interventions, a cognitive-behavioral coping intervention targeting combatives anxiety was evaluated. Two of the courses (n = 32) served as the intervention and the other class as a control group (n = 20). Split Plot ANOVAs revealed a significant increase in SDE and TCSE across the course for both groups. Descriptively, the intervention group scored lower in CSA and higher in motivation than the control group as the course progressed. Lastly, individuals ordered to attend training scored lower in SDE, TCSE, and higher in state anxiety than those who volunteered for the training. However, individuals on the intervention group that were ordered to attend scored descriptively higher in TCSE and motivation, and lower in CSA than those in the control group that were ordered to attend. These results provide preliminary evidence that a combatives anxiety coping strategy intervention may have utility for positively influencing self-defense efficacy, combatives state anxiety, and motivation during mandatory combatives training.

CHAPTER ONE Introduction Army Combatives Program Background In a Memorandum for Record (2004), the Chief of Staff of the Army characterized the objectives of the Army Combatives Program as follows: The intent is for every soldier to experience the physical and emotional demands [italics added] of hand-to-hand fighting prior to engaging in combat. Combatives training is an important component of the warrior ethos. The purpose of combatives training is to instill confidence and fighting skill [italics added] that can only be gained through engagement with an opponent in a combative situation. Hand-to-hand combat training is a fundamental building block for preparing our soldiers for current and future operations. Soldiers must be prepared to use different levels of physical force across the operational spectrum in an uncertain environment. Combatives training will provide this critical capability. (p. 1) The same year as this Memorandum for Record, a new Army combatives program was established to fulfill its mandate. This combatives program is composed of four levels of certification for instructors, but every soldier is required to be proficient in combatives skills from all ranges of the certification. Certified instructors are responsible for the training of the soldiers at the unit level. Level one provides certification for the initial entry instructor, and provides the foundation for the program. At this level, the program focuses on grappling situations and skills that include dominant positions, choking, and joint locking techniques. The level one instructor certification course is 40 hours in length, and is conducted from Monday to Friday at a Combatives facility. Soldiers training to become instructors are required to execute the acquired skills by participating in fighting situations with their classmates on a daily basis, and at an evaluated event at the end of the week. This program is different from other martial arts training regimens because students are required to engage in hand-to-hand combat situations on a daily basis during the course. In this program, participants get to find out if their techniques are effective every time they enter the training environment.

In order for these soldiers to effectively carry out their combatives program, they must have a sense of efficacy in combatives-related tasks. If individuals are not self- efficacious about self-defense and their ability to teach self-defense, their potential to be successful in a combatives environment may be diminished. In addition, their motivation to participate or promote the program may be affected. Combatives leaders who can not support the program can have a lasting impact on soldier readiness and effectiveness in combat situations. Psychological Aspects of the Mixed Martial Arts Environment Hand-to-hand combat activities such as wrestling, boxing, karate, and mixed martial arts present a psychologically demanding environment for participants. The environment entails individual confrontations and constant threat to the individual’s ego system. Individuals who choose to participate in these types of activities must have a certain set of skills enabling them to cope with the confrontations effectively. Milton (2004) conducted a qualitative study with five mixed martial art athletes in the UK. The purpose of his study was to identify characteristics common to this cluster of fighters, and provide a starting point for future studies among this population of athletes. Through an in-depth analysis of the data, Milton (2004) identified several themes that described a multidimensional experience of the self for this core of participants. He divided this multidimensional experience into several categories such as self-self relations, spirituality, self-other relations, and emotional considerations among others. One of these categories dealt specifically with the mindset of the fighter. The participants in Milton’s study identified several key components about the mental strategies and skills required to be a fighter. These components included being more focused, disciplined, relaxed, having confidence, and being in control of their emotions during competition. All of the participants in this qualitative study were fighters by choice with more than 5 years of fighting experience, and provided a solid foundation, from their perspective, of what type of mental skills are needed to succeed or survive in a competitive hand-to-hand combat environment. Because the U.S. Army combatives program is based on the mixed martial arts principles, the skills identified in Milton’s (2004) qualitative study need to be

3 taken into consideration when developing applied cognitive-behavioral intervention strategies for individuals attending mandatory training. A study conducted with three additional fighters aimed to investigate the psychological skills that have contributed to their success in elite level kick-boxing (Davenport, 2006). The participants of this study identified seven mental skills that they believed to be linked to success in kickboxing: (1) effective use of self-talk, (2) relaxation, (3) heightened concentration, (4) self-regulation of arousal, (5) goal setting, (6) coping with being hit, and (7) imagery. In addition, three other psychological characteristics were recognized by all participants as contributing to their development: (1) high self-efficacy, (2) high motivation, and (3) mental toughness. A separate set of interviews conducted with seven world class mixed martial art fighters by Malone (2005) and Dhoot (2005) attempted to identify the fighters’ emotional states and anxiety towards participation in this environment. The following statements were extracted from the results of their findings: “No matter how good I was and no matter how good everyone else knew I was, I could not convince myself” (Malone, p.53) “No matter how hard I trained, I always felt that I was unprepared” (Malone, p.56) “I did not want to disappoint or lose any students. I had about 150 to 200 students show up (to the event). I was always so scared and so nervous of not performing. I used to throw up before my fights.” (Malone, p.54) “As far as pre-fight jitters, the night before I think about all the worst things that can happen to me. I could die; I could be horribly maimed or injured” (Dhoot, p.46) If experienced “volunteer” mixed martial art fighters can display these emotions, it is likely that less experienced individuals in a mandatory setting may experience similar or more complicated emotions. Therefore, it may be beneficial to conduct a study designed to explore whether or not instruction of mental skills strategies to participants in a mandatory combatives setting has the potential to improve their overall combatives experience. Rationale for the Study

Soldiers are required to be proficient in combat-like skills in order to perform their duty when called upon. The Army combatives program is designed to develop close combat skills necessary for soldier survival and success in hand-to-hand confrontations. This training is mandatory for all soldiers. Some soldiers subsequently volunteer to become instructors in the program, while others are ordered to become instructors. In certain settings, such as the U.S. Military Academy, instructor level skill training is mandatory for all participants. It would be valuable for the future instructors to become self-efficacious in order to carry out the training program effectively. Individuals who are self-efficacious in any particular task have higher levels of motivation and commitment to participate in activities related to that task (Bandura, 1986a, 1986b, 1997). Based on the qualitative interviews discussed herein, it appears that strong psychological skills are required to succeed in a combatives environment; therefore, it could be beneficial to evaluate course participants in their psychological capacity to cope with the program demands. According to the 2004 memorandum for record, the program was developed, in part, for the purpose of instilling combatives self-efficacy. Consequently, evaluation of program effectiveness on this account is warranted. In addition, because soldiers are expected to experience anxiety in this course, it may be beneficial to explore: (a) how the soldiers are coping with these anxiety levels, and (b) whether or not an introduction of psychological skills to cope with their anxiety levels is useful in this environment. In a mandatory training setting, strategies that have the potential to help soldiers, such anxiety coping techniques, should be examined in order to provide the soldiers with better opportunities for success.

CHAPTER TWO Literature Review Self-efficacy has been associated with higher levels of motivation and continued participation in a variety of activities (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Lane, Hall, & Lane, 2002; Lane & Lane, 2001; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991). Consequently, if one is interested in studying motivational components towards a particular activity, looking at task-specific self-efficacy is critical. In this literature review, the variables of self-efficacy, state anxiety, and their relationship to motivation for continued task-participation are introduced. The model under evaluation (Figure 1) encapsulates and illustrates three major themes: (a) self-efficacy and state anxiety are inter-related, (b) both self-efficacy and state anxiety influence motivation, and (c) an intervention aimed at reducing anxiety can influence the relationship between self-efficacy and state anxiety, and motivation. Evidence is presented in this literature review that supports this conceptual schematic. It consists of (a) defining self-efficacy and providing empirical evidence related to the study of efficacy beliefs, (b) defining motivation from a self-determination theory perspective, (c) discussing the research that focuses on the self-efficacy and motivation relationship, (d) describing the different aspects of the stress process that result in the development and change in emotional states including the experience of state anxiety, (e) presenting studies of the relationship between self-efficacy and state anxiety, (f) providing evidence of anxiety and stress reactions in military settings, and (g) presenting several anxiety intervention strategies and studies associated with the efficacy and effectiveness of such strategies.

Self-Efficacy

Motivation

State Anxiety

Intervention

Figure 1: A Conceptual Scheme Relating State Anxiety and Self-Efficacy with Motivation

Self-Efficacy Self-efficacy is a belief about one’s capabilities to achieve designated levels of performance on a specific task (Bandura, 1986a, 1986b, 1997). A high level of self- efficacy has been related to high level of motivation, performance of more challenging tasks, setting of higher goals, and perseverance in reaching those goals (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Lane, Hall, & Lane, 2002; Lane & Lane, 2001; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991). Self-efficacy provides the bridge from the physical to representations of the physical within the mind of the person (Fox, 1997). Bandura (1977, 1986a, 1986b, 1997) posits that efficacy evaluations are grounded in four specific information sources: performance accomplishment, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and perceptions of emotional arousal. Performance accomplishment refers to the individual’s previous experiences with the particular task. The more successful an individual has been in a task, the more efficacious that person will become about his or her performance. Vicarious experiences are those acquired by observing or contemplating what has happened to other people attempting task enactment. Such experiences provide task knowledge through means other than one's own direct experience. Specifically, watching others learn and perform a task provides information about one’s own capability to deal with the task. Verbal persuasion includes supporting statements from individuals with credibility on that particular task. For example, a black-belt level leader tells a participant that he or she has the potential to become a great instructor. This statement is likely to positively impact upon the individual’s self-efficacy beliefs, whereas a negative statement from the same expert would be likely to decrease self-efficacy. Lastly, emotional arousal, or perceptions of arousal related to the task at hand, also provides input to the individual efficacy appraisal. Individuals rely on their somatic and emotional states when judging their capabilities. They interpret their stress reactions and tension as signs of vulnerability to poor performance (Bandura, 1997). Bandura (1977, 1986a, 1986b) advocates using specific self-efficacy measures for the particular task rather than assessing self-efficacy as a global disposition with one specific instrument. Because measurements of self-efficacy must be specific, a literature search yielded more than 150 studies with different associated scales that measured self-

7 efficacy. Among these studies were several that specifically evaluated self-efficacy in self-defense and combatives environments (e.g., Anthony, 2005; Weitlauf, Smith, & Wright, 2001). These studies reported increases in self-defense efficacy after participation in martial arts training. Anthony (2005), for example, reported that a 12–week karate program enhanced general self-efficacy for specific self-defense tasks that also contributed to enhancing self-esteem, self-concept, and other aspects of the self perception. Weitlauf et al. (2001) also reported a significant increase in self-efficacy in women attending a voluntary self-defense training program. However, these self-efficacy measurements were specific to the activities at hand. Therefore, as recommended by Bandura, a specific scale must be developed to measure levels of self-efficacy in each study. Motivation Motivational processes are defined as the psychological constructs that energize, direct, and regulate achievement behavior (Roberts, Treasure, & Conroy, 2007). According to Roberts et al. (2007), at least 32 theories of motivation, each having their own definition of the construct, have been identified in the sport psychology literature. Vallerand (2007) defines motivation as the construct used to describe the internal and/or external forces that produce the initiation of, direction, intensity, and persistence of behavior. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors are best explained in the sport psychology literature by self-determination theory (SDT: Deci & Ryan, 1980, 1985, 1991). Since the introduction of the intrinsic motivation construct by Deci in 1971, over 800 publications have been devoted to the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Vallerand, 1997). SDT is based on the idea that in order to understand motivation, the individuals’ innate psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness must be taken into consideration. Conceptually, Deci and Ryan, consider the satisfactions of these needs as fundamental to human health and well-being. In SDT, Deci and Ryan describe motivation on a continuum of categories that begin with amotivation at one end, moving to extrinsic motivation, and reaching intrinsic motivation at the other end. According to Deci and Ryan, amotivation is experienced when individuals have no desire

8 to be involved in a particular activity while extrinsic motivation is when individuals are motivated by outside factors. Intrinsic motivation energizes participants to perform the activity for the satisfaction and enjoyment that it brings. SDT also includes aspects of self-regulation, which concerns how people take in social values and extrinsic contingencies and progressively transform them into personal values and self-motivations (Deci & Ryan, 2000). These aspects of regulation include external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, and integrated regulation. External regulation refers to the behaviors that are energized and regulated by external means. For example, a soldier might participate in combatives training in order secure free time during a future long weekend from his/her supervisor. Introjected regulation refers to the individuals’ internalization of the reasons for their participation. For example, introjected regulation would be operating if a soldier participated in the combatives course to avoid the guilt or shame of not taking part when all of his/her friends have already become instructors. When one uses introjected regulation, he/she is not being externally pressured; instead, the guilt or shame-related pressure is self- imposed. Identified and integrated regulations are self-determined types of extrinsic motivation because behavior is initiated out of choice, although it is not necessarily perceived to be enjoyable. An example of identified regulation would be the combatives participant who understands that being a better fighter can improve his skills as a soldier, and chooses to participate for his/her own benefit. An example of integrated regulation may include instances where a soldier chooses to attend a combatives certification course to further develop combatives skills because the identity of being soldier has been integrated into his or her sense of self—and satisfaction with being competent as a soldier is valued. Intrinsic motivation and self-regulation have been positively associated with continued participation in a variety of activities (Frederick-Recascino, & Schuster-Smith,

2003; Frederick, Morrison, & Manning, 1996; Ryan et al., 1997; Tsorbatzoudis et al., 2007). Tsorbatzoudis et al. reported positive correlations between intrinsic motivation and introjected regulation with higher levels of adult involvement in recreational sport participation in a study that aimed at investigating the effect of motivational dimensions

9 on sport participation. Frederick-Recascino and Schuster-Smith (2003) tested a group of cyclists and compared their sport competitiveness levels and intrinsic motivation with a group of exercisers. In their study, sport competitiveness and intrinsic motivation were positively correlated with motivation to participate and the number of days a week subjects participated in the activity. For both groups, sport competitiveness was positively correlated with intrinsic motivation. Ryan et al. (1997) evaluated tae kwon do, aerobics exercise, and fitness participants on their motives for initiating and continuing participation, and reported that intrinsic motivation factors are critical to the individuals’ decision for continued participation in any given activity. Frederick et al. (1996) found that intrinsic motivation toward an activity heightened the associated positive affect, thereby leading to increased participation and higher perceived competence and satisfaction in a group of college students. These studies support self-determination theory and show that while intrinsic motivation may not be the initial reason for participating in an activity, individuals must internalize the benefits of the task to voluntarily continue their participation. Self-efficacy and Motivation Self-efficacy has been found to support motivation for continued participation and adherence in multiple areas and with a variety of participants, including individuals with heart disease, healthy individuals, and exercise training related studies (Dzewaltowski, 1989; McAuley, Courneya, Rudolph et al., 1994; Ries, Kaplan, Limberg et al., 1995; Sallis et al., 1992). Dzewaltowski reported that higher levels of self-efficacy predicted the participants’ exercise behavior. Participants reporting higher self-efficacy on exercise ability practiced more days per week and participated in more programs. Sallis et al. (1992) also reported self-efficacy to be significantly related to increased exercise behavior in a community level study. Theoretically, the higher an individual’s belief that he or she can perform a task, the higher that person’s motivation to continue working on the task will be. State Anxiety Anxiety has been conceptualized as having both trait and state dimensions (Spielberger, 1972, 1983). State anxiety is defined as an unpleasant emotional arousal

10 experienced in face of threatening demands or dangers. Trait anxiety, on the other hand, reflects the existence of stable individual differences in the tendency to respond with state anxiety in the anticipation of threatening situations. To better capture state anxiety, consideration must be given to the person, the situation, and the ongoing interactive process (Gill, 2000). Because of its perceived relationship with performance, anxiety has been studied extensively in the field of sport psychology. Initial anxiety/ performance relationship investigations in sport were grounded in drive theory (Spence, 1956) and the inverted U- shaped hypothesis (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). Advocates of the Drive theory proposed that as drive increases, learned responses are more likely to occur. In this theory, the basic relationship is linear; as arousal increases, performance increases (Gill, 2000). The inverted U hypothesis shows a curvilinear relationship between physiological arousal and performance (Figure 2). Yerkes and Dodson law states that too low arousal has an “inert” effect on the participant, while too high has a “hyperactive” effect. This suggests that too low or too high stimulation tends to create emotions that may lead to declines in performance.

Figure 2: Inverted U Hypothesis Martens et al. (1990) presented state anxiety as a multidimensional construct including aspects of cognitive and somatic state anxiety to sport psychology. In their

11 conceptualization, cognitive anxiety refers to the mental aspects of anxiety in which individuals experience concern or worry about their performance. Somatic anxiety consists of an individual’s negatively balanced perceptions of physical arousal such as sweaty palms, butterflies, and shakiness (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1990 as cited in Krane, 1994). The Martens et al. approach proposes that cognitive anxiety has a negative relationship with performance while somatic anxiety has a curvilinear relationship. In the sport psychology literature, the anxiety/performance relationship has been examined in several sports (Chamberlain & Hale, 2007; Craft et al., 2003; Cottyn, DeClercq, Pannier, et al., 2006; Woodman & Hardy, 2003). Chamberlain and Hale (2007) reported that during a golf putting task, cognitive anxiety showed a negative relationship while somatic anxiety reflected a curvilinear relationship with performance. Cottyn et al., measuring a balance beam task in girls’ gymnastics, also found a negative relationship between both cognitive and somatic anxiety and performance. Meta-analyses (Craft et al., 2003; Woodman & Hardy, 2003) of studies of the anxiety/performance relationship have been conducted. Craft et al.’s meta-analysis was conducted on 29 studies employing the CSAI-2 to measure cognitive and somatic anxiety. They concluded that anxiety has very little influence on performance. In their analysis, the correlation between cognitive anxiety and performance was .01 and the correlation between somatic anxiety and performance was -.02. On the other hand, Woodman and Hardy reported negative correlations between cognitive anxiety and performance, while evaluating 48 studies in their meta-analysis. In their analysis, the cognitive state mean effect size on performance was significant at the .05 level (r = -.10). As demonstrated herein, the anxiety-performance relationship has been widely studied. The relationships between state anxiety and constructs, such as self-efficacy and motivation, however, have received less attention in the field. These relationships will be further explored in this document. Stress Process A cognitive appraisal of threat is a prerequisite for the experience state anxiety (Lazarus, 1991). This cognitive appraisal is a component of the stress process. Lazarus

(1993) defined the stress process in terms of four components: (a) an external stimulus, often called a stressor, is present, (b) the individual who is encountered with this stimulus must evaluate, or appraise the situation or stimulus as being stress-evoking, (c) the individual attempts to cope with these stressful demands, and (d) a complex set of reactions takes place both in the mind and the body. In Lazarus’ (1986, 1991) Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory of Emotion, primary and secondary appraisal processes play an important role in producing emotional experiences such as anxiety. Primary appraisals concern one’s stake in the outcome of an encounter (Lazarus, 1991). The three primary appraisals are goal relevance, goal congruence, and type of ego-involvement (Lazarus, 1991). Goal relevance is concerned with whether anything is at stake by the involvement in the activity. For example, for individuals who deem their outcome of this course, graduating or failing, an important goal, the potential for an emotional reaction is very high. Goal congruence or incongruence concerns whether the event or activity is evaluated as beneficial or harmful. This appraisal results in a positive or negative emotion depending on how the individual evaluates the situation. For example, in a combative setting, due to the physical confrontations, a participant who sees the environment as harmful or threatening is likely to experience emotions such as anxiety. Ego-involvement refers to the level of commitment or potential damage to the self-system that the participation in the activity may engender. For example, a combative participant who is trying to live up to a certain level of ego ideal may develop emotions about the potential results of his participation. For these individuals, it may be shameful to engage in physical/hand-to-hand confrontation and lose. Secondary appraisals concern the options and prospects for coping, and they include blame or credit, coping potential, and future expectations (Lazarus, 1991). While all three of these appraisals are necessary, in a mandatory training environment, coping potential makes an important contribution to the participants’ level of emotion. An individual, who believes that he/she can not cope with the mandatory training environment, or that these confrontations could result in a potential loss of personal meaning, is very likely to develop feelings of anxiety.

Smith (1980) applied a cognitive stress model to stress management for sport. According to Gill (2000), Smith’s basic model follows Lazarus’ model of emotion in which stress is regarded as a system of interdependent variables. In Lazarus’ view (1986, 1991), the stress process is grounded in the relationship between people (and their characteristics) and the environment in which they are situated at any given moment. Because of this relationship, the individual’s cognitive appraisal is the key element for determining how the variables, such as environmental demands and coping ability, affect each other to produce an emotion such as anxiety. Therefore, introducing cognitive- behavioral coping strategies to appropriately influence the appraisal process could be beneficial for individuals in stressful training situations, and may influence self-efficacy and motivation levels. Anxiety and Self-efficacy During the introduction of the self-efficacy construct in this dissertation, emotional arousal was described as a source of efficacy information. However, it is important to note that early studies of self-efficacy indicated that there is moderate inverse relationship between anxiety and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1983; Feltz, 1982; Litt, 1988). Endler, Speer, Johnson, & Flett (2001) conducted a study to determine whether general self-efficacy or perceived control best predicted the criterion variables of state anxiety and performance on a stressful cognitive task (e.g., solving anagrams) under conditions of high and low control. They separated participants into high and low situational control groups and measured, among other variables, levels of state anxiety and self-efficacy. Endler et al. reported significant negative relationships between self- efficacy and anxiety in the high control group (r = -.42) and low control group (r = -.36). In an educational setting, Al-Darmaki (2004) reported that individuals attending a counseling training program who scored low on state anxiety obtained significantly higher scores in counseling self-efficacy than those who scored high in state anxiety. Marquez, Jerome, McAuley, Snook, and Canaklisova (2002) randomly assigned the participants in their study into low and high efficacy groups in order to identify the relationship between self-efficacy and anxiety in exercise settings. The low efficacy group was given false feedback information in order to lower their efficacy beliefs. These

14 researchers also found an inverse relationship between self-efficacy and anxiety. The participants with lower efficacy reported higher levels of exercise anxiety; however, the researchers were cautious about interpreting the magnitude of the relationship. In a study assessing physique anxiety and self-efficacy in physical evaluations, Marquez and McAuley (2001) reported that in high evaluation settings individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy indicated lower levels of anxiety for the task. In their study, state anxiety and self-efficacy had a significant negative relationship (r = -.32). Overall, the results of these studies appear to indicate that, to some extent, higher task-related anxiety is associated with lower self-efficacy for task performance. In addition, because of the inverse relationship between anxiety and self-efficacy, it is expected that higher levels of anxiety will also have a negative relationship with motivation to learn and with continued participation in any given task. In accordance with Bandura (1997), enhancing physical status, reducing stress levels and negative emotional proclivities, and correcting misinterpretation of bodily states is a major way of altering efficacy beliefs. Therefore, it is suggested that if participants in a stressful training event learn how to regulate their arousal levels, they may be able to gain more from the training environment, and gain higher motivation levels for the task. Anxiety and Motivation High levels of anxiety can affect levels of motivation towards participating in a particular task. However, the relationship between anxiety and motivation has not been a focus of the sport psychology research. One possibility for the lack of interest in this area is that, as previously noted, sport psychologists have been more interested in the anxiety- performance relationship. Another possibility is that individuals who experience higher levels of anxiety may implement a flight response, and choose not to take part in the particular activity. Because of such avoidance, the population of high anxious subjects may not be available in certain sport settings. However, in mandatory settings, such as academic/classroom environments or military training, individuals do not have the option to implement the flight response, and therefore, studying the anxiety/motivation relationship under these circumstances may be relevant. The literature search in this area

15 yielded some articles dealing with anxiety and motivation to learn in academic settings (Tapia & Marsh, 2005; Sprengel & Job, 2004). Tapia and Marsh (2004) reported higher levels of math anxiety to be negatively correlated with motivation for math class participation among 134 students attending mathematics classes at the university level. In a nursing education setting, Sprengel and Job found that reduced anxiety was related to increased learning capacity and motivation to learn while students worked with mentors that provided information about the anxieties that were present during clinical work. It appears that in these settings, anxiety has a negative relationship with motivation, and this relationship needs to be further evaluated in other mandatory settings. Stress and Anxiety in Military Settings Stress and anxiety have been studied in military settings because of the impact they can have on soldier performance. Barak, Bodner, Klayman, Ring, and Elizur (2000) studied the impact of stress on Israeli soldiers during the Gulf War. They evaluated 40 healthy soldiers who belonged to two different groups during the operation; combatants and auxiliary personnel. Their study revealed that individuals in combative-like situations are more affected by stress than those in auxiliary positions. Duarte, Ribas, and Ribeiro (2004) studied anxiety reactions during parachute jumping operations and found that when the environment becomes more challenging, such as during a night time parachute jump, the participants’ levels of anxiety significantly increased. They concluded that there were not significant differences between more and less experience parachutists; therefore, the exposure to the training alone may have not been sufficient to minimize the anxiety levels of the participants. Harris, Hancock, and Harris (2005) evaluated military personnel after exposure to extended periods of stress, and identified significant decreases of psychological states and cognitive performance capacity. Wallenious, Larsson, and Johansson (2004) evaluated the cognitive performance of military observers during military operations, and reported anxiety as a possible contributor to self-reported cognitive limitations. These studies support the notion that, similarly to sport, anxiety can impact performance in military settings. The combatives environment in which this study will be performed, also presents changes in environmental stressors and demands;

16 therefore, one can expect anxiety to influence the soldiers’ self-efficacy, motivation, and performance as they participate in the training environment.

Coping with Anxiety Environment provides man with certain harsh incentives and demands which, as long as their intensity and frequency are within the limits of human tolerance, can stimulate his motivation and enhance his productivity. However, when these environmental demands become excessive or, conversely, when they become scarce, the balance of incentives for creativity will be upset and as a result neither the excess nor the absence of these stimuli will be compatible with and conducive to a healthy adaptation in life (McGrath, 1970). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) broadened the definition of the stress process from the above described concept that included only "environmental demands" to include psychological components such as appraisal and coping. According to Lazarus and Folkman, stress is "a particular relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being" (p. 19). Lazarus and Folkman's theory helps explain the moderation of stressors by the use of coping mechanisms. The details of the stress and appraisal processes were previously discussed in this document. Because anxiety has the potential to impact self-efficacy, motivation, and performance, several techniques/interventions have been developed to assist individuals to cope with anxiety. Mental Training Techniques Cognitive techniques, such as relaxation and imagery, are the most commonly used strategies to help athletes cope with anxiety. Cognitive strategies such as self-talk and schema reconstruction are used to identify and adjust problematic thinking that has the potential to negatively impact performance (Williams & Leffingwell, 1996). Relaxation refers to providing the athletes with options to manage the physiological reactions that are presented during stressful situations. Imagery allows the athlete to visualize different aspects of their performance, and be able to minimize the element of surprise that can also contribute to elevated levels of anxiety. Other strategies, such as problem solving, goal-setting, and time management are also utilized as coping strategies.

All these techniques have been integrated into coping training programs such as Stress Inoculation Training (SIT) and Stress Management Training (SMT) that have been used successfully in different settings. These programs are further described below. In addition, other perspectives and approaches have been outlined but have been subjected to little empirical examination. Relaxation, Imagery, and Self-Talk as Interventions. The techniques discussed in this section have also been used independently, and in combination, as interventions to deal with competitive anxiety. Brent (2005) utilized an intervention strategy to aid student-athletes deal with competitive anxiety. Brent introduced relaxation, imagery, and self-talk skills to thirty athletes in a college environment, and reported that the treatment groups differed greatly from a control group on competitive anxiety and negative affect during follow up testing. Mammasis and Doganis (2004) introduced mental training skills, such as imagery and relaxation, to junior tennis players to measure the impact of this strategy on pre-competitive anxiety, self-confidence, and performance. They compared two groups of athletes who received the same amount of tennis skills training. However, the intervention group received mental skills training that included goal setting, positive thinking and self-talk, concentration routines, arousal regulation techniques, and imagery. Results indicated lower levels of somatic and cognitive anxiety and higher levels of self-confidence for participants in the intervention group during post session scores. They also reported that the intensity of self-confidence was greater for intervention group athletes. Coping strategies have also been found effective in music and performance settings (Sisterhen, 2005). Sisterhen provided musicians with training on progressive relaxation and imagery. Participants self-reported higher levels of self-confidence and performance after 4 weeks of psychological skills training. Sisterhen reported that the coping training assisted the musicians in recognizing and controlling physical tension and improve their overall performance.

Stress Inoculation Training (SIT). SIT is a strategy that has been widely used to help individuals be prepared to deal with emotion, such as anxiety, before it occurs.

Meichenbaum (1977) developed SIT in an attempt to integrate the research on the role of

18 cognitive and affective factors in coping processes with the emerging technology of cognitive behavior modification. The SIT includes a three-phase intervention designed to enhance individuals’ coping repertoires, and to empower them to use already existing coping skills (Meichenbaum, 1996). The three phases included conceptualization, skill acquisition, and application. During conceptualization, the trainer (sport psychologist) introduces the nature and impact of stress, and the role of the appraisal process in the development of emotions, such as anxiety. Clients are encouraged to view perceived threats and provocations as problems-to-be-solved, and to identify those aspects of their situations and reactions that are potentially changeable, and those aspects that are not changeable (Meichenbaum, 1996). During the skill acquisition phase, coping skills (i.e. emotional self-regulation, self-soothing and acceptance, relaxation training, self- instructional training, cognitive restructuring) are taught and practiced. Lastly, the application and follow through provides opportunities for the clients to apply the variety of coping skills across increasing levels of stressors. SIT treatment efficacy has been documented in areas of acute limited stressors such as performance evaluations and public speaking (Altmaier, Ross, Leary et al., 1982; Hussain & Lawrence, 1978; Jaremko, 1980, 1983; Smith, 1980), chronic intermittent stressors such as military combat (Meichenbaum, 1994), and post surgical anxiety in athletes (Ross & Berger, 1996). Altmaier et al. used SIT among other cognitive- behavioral strategies to reduce anxiety levels of undergraduate students with speech anxiety. In their study, all treatments were more effective than no treatment to decrease the students’ anxiety levels. Ross and Berger (1996) utilized SIT with injured athletes trying to identify the impact of this cognitive-behavioral strategy on their anxiety levels after surgery. Participants in the treatment group were found to experience significantly less post surgical pain and anxiety during the rehabilitation process when compared with controls. These studies support the notion that individuals can learn to manage the stress process, and are able to cope with their anxiety levels if properly instructed.

Stress Management Training (SMT). Cognitive-Affective Stress Management Training (SMT) is a coping skills training program designed to help athletes control dysfunctional stress processes (Smith, 1980). Under the SMT strategy, athletes are taught

19 an integrated coping response having both relaxation and cognitive components that can be used to control emotional arousal (Smith, 1980). The SMT program is based on principles from previous programs such as Wolpe’s (1958, 1961) systematic desensitization, and the stress inoculation training discussed herein. SMT includes three basic steps to teach athletes cope with anxiety. In step one, the therapist teaches a response that is incompatible with anxiety (a relaxation response). Step two involves developing a hierarchy of stressful situations, which are then presented while client is relaxed in step 3. SMT has been used successfully in training and competition with volleyball players (Crocker, 1989; Crocker, Alderman, & Smith, 1988). Crocker et al. measured youth level volleyball players after exposing them to eight models of SMT that included cognitive and somatic anxiety coping skills. They found that the treatment group emitted fewer negative thoughts in response to videotaped stressors, and had superior service reception performance in a controlled practice compared to the control group. Crocker (1989) evaluated SMT under competitive conditions. They measure the anxiety levels of volleyball athletes while serving at a national level competition, and found that those who received the SMT protocol obtain better performance and lower anxiety levels scores than those in the control group. Current mental training program approaches. During the last 20 years, the field of sport psychology has improved the approaches to provide psychological skills training to athletes and fitness participants. Vealey (2005) presented a program where coaches served as educational mental trainers and aimed at helping athletes attain optimal development and performance during competition. The program advocates getting an inner edge by the use of self –monitoring, thought-stopping self-talk, imagery, physical relaxation, goal setting, and behavior management. Martin, Thompson, and McKnight (1998) introduced a program with the objective to teach athletes to teach/manage themselves. This is an integrative psycho-educational approach that combines reality therapy and behavioral counseling and utilizes goal-setting, goal attainment scaling, self- management plans, and self-talk.

Other Coping Considerations

Beehr and McGrath (1996) distinguished five situations that create a particular temporal context for coping: (a) preventive coping: long before the stressful event occurs, or might occur, (b) anticipatory coping: when the event is anticipated soon; for example, a soldier has been identified to become an instructor and will attend the course within the next training cycle, (c) dynamic coping: while the event is ongoing; for example, diverting attention from aspects of the self to actually see the experience as a positive learning opportunity, (d) reactive coping: after it has happened, and (e) residual coping: long afterward, by contending with long-run effects. Because of the variety of programs and strategies available for coping with anxiety the five situations introduced by Beehr and McGrath’s must be evaluated in reference to the particular domain and situation. For each situation, a different coping approach may be necessary because the environmental and situational demands affect overall anxiety levels. Nevertheless, the research presented herein suggests that, in stressful environments, preventive, anticipatory, and dynamic coping can provide individuals with better opportunities to succeed. Pilot Study On a pilot study, Morales-Negron (2006) evaluated the levels of self-defense efficacy (SDE), teaching combatives self-efficacy (TCSE), and state combatives anxiety (SCA) among U.S. Army soldiers (n = 25) attending an instructor combatives training course. A Repeated Measures ANOVA revealed a significant increase in SDE and TCSE across the course. In the pilot study, individuals with higher levels of SCA scored lower in SDE than those with lower SCA scores at all measurement points. In addition, individuals ordered to attend training scored lower in SDE, TCSE, and higher in state anxiety than those who volunteered for the training.

Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to describe changes in self-defense efficacy, self- efficacy for teaching combatives, levels of competitive state anxiety, and level of motivation to participate during a one-week US Army combatives instructor level-one

21 certification program training course. In addition, a preliminary examination was conducted into whether or not the introduction of anxiety coping strategies influences these variables. To fulfill this purpose, a quasi-experimental design investigation was conducted involving three separate classes exposed to the level-one certification program training course. One served as control group (n = 20), and two classes as an experimental intervention group (n = 32) to obtain the measurements. There was several research questions associated with this study: a) In there a higher combatives self-efficacy increase for soldiers who are given a combatives anxiety coping intervention? b) Is there a greater combatives anxiety level decrease before evaluated bouts for subjects exposed to the anxiety coping strategies? c) Is a higher level of combatives self-efficacy associated with a higher level of motivation to participate? d) Is a higher level of combatives state anxiety associated with lower level of motivation to participate? e) Does the anxiety coping strategies intervention assist in lowering levels of anxiety and if so, how does these lower levels relate to self-efficacy and motivation to participate? f) Do individuals ordered to attend the course have lower levels of self-efficacy and motivation, and a higher level of anxiety than participants who volunteered for the training? Hypotheses a) Combatives Self-efficacy will increase in both groups across the training period but increases will be larger for the participants on the intervention group. b) State Anxiety before each fighting scenario will not change for the control group but will decrease for the intervention group throughout the course. c) Higher levels of Combatives Self-efficacy will be positively associated with motivation for participants in both groups during the course.

22 d) Combatives state anxiety will be negatively associated with motivation during all measurements in the course. e) Subjects in the intervention group will show lower level of anxiety throughout and after the course, and more self-efficacy, and motivation to participate. f) Intervention group’s subjects that were ordered to attend will have higher combatives self-efficacy, motivation to participate, and lower combatives state anxiety than those in the control group who were ordered to participate.

CHAPTER THREE Method Participants Participants were army soldiers (N = 52) attending three Army Combatives Level One Instructor Certification Courses in two military installations in the United States. Participants were predominately male with limited previous combatives training experience. They came from different army military occupational skills areas; however, the majority of them were in the combat arms field. Their age ranged between 18-47 years old. Participant demographics are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Participants’ (n = 52) Demographics Factor Category F % Gender Male 47 90% Female 5 10% Status Volunteer 38 73% Ordered 14 27% Occupational Skills Area Combat 40 77% Combat Support 12 23% Previous Combatives Experience Yes 3 6% No 49 94%

In order to capture the perspectives about the anxiety associated with environment, among these 52 participants, 10 identified as scoring exceptionally high in trait anxiety participated in the qualitative interviews part of the investigation. These participants were 9 males and 1 female and their interviews are reported below. Instrumentation Administrative Data Questionnaire (Appendix A). The general information presented in Table 1 was obtained with this questionnaire. The questionnaire included

24 items relating to age, gender, military rank and occupation, training status (volunteer or ordered to attend), and previous martial arts training outside of Army Combatives. Situational Motivation Scale (Guay, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000; Appendix B). The 16-item Situational Motivation Scale (Guay et al., 2000) is a measure of situational (or state) motivation toward a chosen activity. This self-report inventory contains four items per subscale, and is designed to measure intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, external regulation, and amotivation. Participants were asked to respond to each item relative to the stem: "Why are you currently engaged in this activity?" Item responses were provided on a 7-point Likert scale anchored by the descriptors of corresponds not at all (1) and corresponds exactly (7). Items aimed at measuring intrinsic motivation ask questions such as “Because I think that this activity is interesting”. Those asking about identified regulation ask questions such as “Because I am doing it for my own good.” Those aimed at external regulation ask questions such as “Because I am supposed to do it.” Lastly, those aimed at amotivation ask questions such as “There may be reasons to do this activity but personally I don’t see any”. Standage, Duda, Treasure, and Prusac, (2003) reported the alpha internal consistencies (Cronbach, 1951) for all the subscales to equal or be above Nunnally’s (1978) criteria of .70 deemed acceptable reliability in the psychological domain. In this study, observed alpha coefficients for intrinsic motivation and identified regulation measurements ranged between .87 - .91 and .77 - .87 respectively. Alpha coefficients for external regulation and amotivation measurements ranged between .83 - .87 and .77 - .85 before and after the course respectively. For this study, the Self-Determination Index (SDI; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987) was utilized as the measure of an index of relative autonomy and self-regulated behavior. The SDI integrates scores of each motivation subscale into a single score corresponding to the participant’s position on a self-determination continuum, thus reducing the number of variables in the analyses (Lemyre, Treasure, & Roberts, 2006). Grolnick and Ryan (1987) formula for calculating the SDI is: (2 * IM + 1 * IR) – (1 * ER + 2 * A). The SDI approach employed in this investigation is also described in the Deci and Ryan’s (2002) Handbook of Self-Determination Research and has been utilized by several self- determination theory researchers (e.g., Vallerand & Bissonnettee, 1992; Vallerand, 1997).

Martial Arts Self-Efficacy Scale (Appendix C). Development of this scale followed guidelines listed on the Information on Self-Efficacy, community of scholars website and Bandura’s book; Self-efficacy: The exercise of control (1997), and mirrors the format utilized by many self-efficacy studies over the past two decades. Bandura (1977, 1986a, 1986b) advocates using specific self-efficacy measures for the particular task, rather than assessing self-efficacy as a global disposition. This measure included subscales to measure Self-Defense Efficacy (SDE) and Teaching Self-Efficacy (TSE). The Combatives Self-Efficacy Scale was developed specifically for this study. It is composed of ten items that employ a 5-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items number 4 and 9 are aimed at measuring self-efficacy for teaching martial arts skills. The remaining items are intended to measure self-efficacy for self defense. Items on this scale asked self-defense questions such as “to what degree do you believe that you can defend yourself if you are attacked?” and teaching combatives questions such as to “what degree are you confident that you can teach martial arts skills to others?” During this study, observed alpha coefficients for TSE measurements ranged between .92 - .97, and for SDE between .72 - .87 before and after the course respectively. Sport Competitive Anxiety Test (SCAT; Martens, 1977; Appendix D). The 15-item Sport Competition Anxiety Test (SCAT) assesses competitive trait anxiety. On a 5-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (hardly ever) to 5 (often), individuals indicated how they generally feel about competitive situations. Items on this scale include questions such as “Competing against others is socially enjoyable”, “Before I compete I feel uneasy”, and “Before I compete I am calm”. Martens, Vealey, and Burton (1990) reported on the development and psychometric properties of the SCAT Internal

consistency reliabilities ranged from .95 to .97. The SCAT is being utilized to identify trait competitive anxiety before the beginning of the training. This scale was only administered once during the course of the study in order to identify individuals with low and high trait anxiety as they enter the training environment. State Anxiety Rating Scale (Cox, Ruffin, & Robb, 1999; Appendix E). Cox, Ruffin, and Robb (1999) modified the Martens, Vealey, and Burton (1990) Competitive State

Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2) to afford rapid assessment of competitive anxiety during participation in competitive activities. The three items on this scale measure, respectively, cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence. Each item employs a 5-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Results of previous investigations (Cox et al., 1998, 1999) have shown scores on the short version to be moderately correlated (.60 to .70) with anxiety and self-confidence components of Martens et al.'s (1990) original inventory. The results of the self-confidence item will be briefly discussed; however, the specific self-defense efficacy constructs are addressed by more relevant measurements. The item measuring cognitive anxiety asked, “I feel concerned about performing poorly, choking under pressure, and that others will be disappointed with my performance.” The somatic anxiety item asked, “I feel jittery, my body feels tense, and my heart is racing.” Because of the nature of the training, it was critical to obtain a quick and effective measure of anxiety prior to any significant event in training. The single item per construct measurement by this scale provides an accurate and speedy assessment of the individual’s state anxiety prior to a fight situation on a daily basis. Qualitative Interview Guide (Appendix F). This document was used during the interview process with the aim of identifying the combatives experience of the participants as they relate to self-efficacy, anxiety, and motivation. This interview guide was utilized as the general format to generate the discussion between the researchers and the subjects. The questions were open ended to allow the participants to share their experiences without bias or pressure towards a specific area. Items specifically designed to identify participant’s motivation to participate, such as “How did you find out about this training? Did you volunteer for this training? If not, who ordered you to attend?” Items aimed at identifying what aspects of the training generate emotions, such as anxiety ask questions such as, “What do you find to be the most challenging/intimidating part of this training?” and “What do you feel when confronting another soldier in a fight?” Items aimed at understanding how these high anxious participants cope with anxiety ask questions such as, “How do you deal with these emotions?” and “Can you describe how have you been able to adapt to the training environments from the first time you trained

27 combatives?”. Each of the five selected participants for each group (control or intervention) completed the interview one time. Measure of Physiological Arousal. Polar A1 Series Heart Rate Monitors (Woodbury, NY) were used to measure heart rate during sessions for the five anxious participants of the control group (control) during day one. However, because of the nature of the fighting activity, heart rate monitors shifted and were distracting to the training environment. Therefore, for the benefit of the participants, the heart rate monitors were abandoned. Participants were asked to monitor their pulse as they normally do for physical fitness sessions. The method was finding the pulse on the neck artery and counting the beats after the command “begin”. The beats were counted for 10 seconds and the number multiplied by 6. After a two time trial, the average manual form count was within 2 beats of the heart rate monitor for each group of participants. Each time before their daily fight sessions, participants reported the results of their self- administered/researcher lead heart rate check. The results were then annotated on their individual file for evaluation. Intervention Participants in the intervention group received instruction (Appendix G) on anxiety coping strategies while the control group did not receive any additional instruction. The instruction was modified for combatives training using as a model Brent’s (2006) cognitive-behavioral stress management intervention for collegiate athletes. Coordination with the training site was conducted in order to integrate the intervention into the training without an additional burden to the intervention group participants, and without loss of instruction that would otherwise be available in the course. Specifically, morning intervention instruction occurred during a 30 minute period of time set aside for administrative activities such as cleaning procedures, equipment maintenance, etc. occurred for the control group. Afternoon intervention instruction occurred during a time-period where the control group was exposed to a 30-minute non- instructional film of hand-to-hand combat activity. The outline to be used for the intervention is as follows:

(a) Day 1 (a.m.) – What is anxiety, how it is manifested, and how it relates to combatives. This training session included the definition of anxiety, and brainstorming with the participants about their personal combatives experience. Day 1 (p.m.) – How to identify physiological, emotional, and psychological signs of combatives anxiety. The session included specific reactions to anxiety and how they can affect combatives performance. Participants were given a homework assignment to reflect on their personal experiences. (b) Day 2 (a.m.) – Strategies to deal with anxiety. Arousal regulation, breathing, imagery, cognitive reconstruction, and self-self-talk strategies were introduced to the participants. Day 2 (p.m.) – Arousal regulation and Progressive Relaxation. Participants were introduced to the basic theories of arousal and performance. They were also experienced a progressive muscle relaxation session. (c) Day 3 (a.m.) – Imagery, Cognitive reconstruction, and Self-talk for combatives situations. Participants were introduced to the above mental skills and how to apply them to their combatives experience. Day 3 (p.m.) – Application of anxiety coping strategies/Pre-fight routines. All mental training techniques presented during the course were integrated into a pre-fight routine in preparation for the evaluated bouts on the next day. (d) Day 4 (a.m.) – Application of coping strategies (continued). Participants brought back their pre-fight routines and the concepts were reviewed prior to the evaluated bouts. In addition, a second progressive muscle relaxation session was conducted before the evaluated bouts. Day 4 (p.m.) – Transferability of coping strategies to other combat situations. Participants discussed in which other aspects of their military related jobs these mental skills could be useful. (e) Day 5 (a.m.) – Introducing basic coping strategies to others. During this session, participants discussed how to identify highly anxious students in the formation and how to best address these issues.

Qualitative Inquiry In both groups, after completing the trait anxiety inventory (Sport Competition Anxiety Test) on Day 1, five high trait anxious participants were invited to participate in the qualitative portion of the study. An interview was conducted with each participant. The participants did not know why they were selected (a random selection was announced). They completed an additional consent form to wear the heart rate monitor and to be audio taped during the interviews. All participants were interviewed on Day 3 and each interview lasted about 30 minutes. These five participants were interviewed using the interview guide (Appendix F) and were asked to wear a heart rate monitor during the afternoons of each training day in order to obtain physiological measurements of arousal before the fights. However, as explained above, the method utilized for physiological arousal was heart rate check by pulse at the neck artery due to distractions created by the placing and removal of the heart rate monitor during the training period. Level 1 Combatives Course Description During the level one course, soldiers are exposed to the basic techniques for close one-on-one combat. On day 1, participants received specific instruction about the three basic distances for engaging in hand-to-hand combat. The instruction emphasizes how most fights end up on the ground; therefore, the soldiers must be proficient first in the ground fighting techniques. These techniques include ground control, and submission holds such as joint locking and chocking techniques. Soldiers participated in combatives situations on a daily basis where they attempted to apply control and submission holds to their opponents. Because individuals fought every day and getting a submission from their opponent was the ultimate objective, it was necessary that soldiers have high levels of self-efficacy. In addition, they should also be able to control their arousal levels in order to stay calm and be able to perform. On day 4 and 5 of the training the soldiers were evaluated on their combatives skills. Design and Procedure Institutional Human Subjects Committee approval was obtained for this study. Following the provision of informed consent, participants completed all the self-efficacy and anxiety scales. More specifically, before the beginning of Day 1 training, participants

30 completed the administrative data questionnaire, combatives self-efficacy scale, trait anxiety, the situational motivation scale, and the state combatives anxiety scale. Prior to the combatives sparring session occurring on each of the five days of the course, participants completed the self-defense and teaching combatives self-efficacy scale and the state combatives anxiety rating scale. On Day 3, the situational motivation scale was completed in addition to the self-defense and state anxiety scales. After the training program concluded on Day Five, participants once again completed the combatives self- efficacy scale, the situational motivation scale, and the state anxiety scale. Data Analysis

Trait anxiety measures where taken once during the pre-training measurements. The control group reported a lower level of trait anxiety (M = 2.88, SD = .84) than the intervention group (M = 3.15, SD = .66). The results of an independent sample t-test indicated that there was not a significant difference between the two groups, p > .05, Cohen’s d = -.35. Trait anxiety had a significant positive correlation with pre-training cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety (p < .001). Trait anxiety measures were used to identify the most anxious participants for the purpose of a qualitative investigation.

The first, second, and fifth hypotheses were tested using a Split Plot Analysis of Variance; state anxiety, combatives self-efficacy, and teaching self-efficacy were dependent variables; time (i.e., pre, during (5), and after training) was considered the within repeated factor, and treatment (i.e., control vs. intervention) was used as the between-subjects factor. The third and fourth hypotheses were tested using correlational analyses among self-efficacy and combatives state anxiety; combatives state anxiety and motivation; and motivation and self-efficacy. The sixth hypothesis stated that intervention group’s subjects that were ordered to attend would have higher combatives self-efficacy, motivation to participate, and lower combatives state anxiety than those in the control group who were ordered to participate. This hypothesis was tested using a Split Plot Analysis of Variance; state anxiety, motivation (SDI), combatives self-efficacy, and teaching self-efficacy were dependent variables; time (i.e., pre, during, and after training) was considered the within repeated

31 factor, and treatment (i.e., control vs. intervention with only ordered to attend cases selected) was used as the between-subjects factor. Because of the number of Split Plot ANOVAs (11) conducted; an adjustment to the alpha has been adopted for the purpose of this study. The increased number of statistical analyses may lead to a greater chance of type I error; therefore, rather than utilizing .05 as the alpha, a more conservative alpha of .01 was employed. A Bonferroni- type adjustment (but not a full Bonferroni adjustment) was utilized because the number of subjects in the study was low. The adjustment employed was intended to balance the risk Type 1 error rate inflation across the multiple Split-Plot ANOVAs with the risk of inflating the Type 2 error by adopting an overly conservative alpha. For this study, effect- size estimates are interpreted by using Cohen’s d, and eta-squared evaluations. In this study, benchmarks presented by Cohen (1988) for interpreting Cohen's d were utlitized, where 0.2 equates to a small effect, 0.5 equates to a medium effect, and effects larger than 0.8 equate to large effects. Eta-squared evaluations as proposed by Cohen (1988) are: .01 equates to a small effect, .06 equates to a moderate effect, and .14 equates to a large effect. In addition, if descriptive patterns were identified between the two groups, effect size between two groups and two time intervals were conducted to identify differences between the groups during that particular period. The qualitative analyses followed a heuristic approach. Heuristic research is based on a methodology which was developed at the University of Hamburg during the late seventies and early eighties (Kleining & Witt, 2000). This methodology aims at discovery and uses the variables of research design in a certain way to serve this purpose. Heuristics provides us with a mixture of phenomenology and the researcher’s experiences and uses methods of triangulation for trends identification to analyze the data from the interviews in order to identify tendencies and unique aspects about combatives participation and anxiety from the high trait anxious participants’ perspective. According to Kleining & Witt, (2000), heuristics inquiry requires the researcher to follow four basic rules: (a) The research person should be open to new concepts and change his/her preconceptions if the data are not in agreement with them. This basic rule is not as easy to follow as it sounds. By nature, researchers already bring their own

personal ideas about the topic they are motivated to study; therefore, keeping their feelings aside can be a difficult task. Therefore, this rule suggests a reconsideration of the researcher's scientific position if the data consistently are not in agreement with information taken for granted. (b) The topic of research is preliminary and may change during the research process. It is only fully known after being successfully explored. (c) Data should be collected under the paradigm of maximum structural variation of perspectives. Variation of the sample and of research methods avoids one- sidedness of representation of the topic, a variety of questions that avoid just one answer. (d) The analysis is directed toward discovery of similarities. It locates similarities, accordance, analogies or homologies within these most diverse and varied data.

The evaluation of this data was completed transcribing all the statements from the interviews and identifying the patterns and themes associated with the participant’s combatives experience.

CHAPTER FOUR Results Self-Defense Efficacy (SDE) The means and standard deviations for SDE scores at each measurement point during the course are presented in Table 2. A Split Plot ANOVA was conducted to inferentially evaluate the observed trends in self-defense efficacy, and to identify if there were any significant differences between the two groups. Figure 3 provides a depiction of the self-defense efficacy scores observed across the training course. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated in the repeated measures, χ2(2) = 97.4, p < .01, and so degrees of freedom in the analysis were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = .55). A significant time main effect for SDE scores was observed across the course, F(3.3, 166.1) = 35.2, p < .01, η2 = .41, in the form of a significant positive linear trend, F(1, 50) = 87.7, p < .01, η2 = .64. There were no significant main effect differences between the two groups F(1,50) = .22, p > .01, η2 = .004, and the time-by-group interaction was also nonsignificant, F(3.3, 166.1) = .50, p > .01, η2 = .10.

Table 2

Pre, during, and post-training self-defense efficacy (SDE)

Self-Defense Efficacy (SDE)

Control Intervention

Measurement Occasion n M SD n M SD

Pre-Training 20 3.21 .64 32 3.23 .70

Day 1 20 3.33 .58 32 3.30 .50

Day 2 20 3.47 .54 32 3.35 .49

Day 3 20 3.66 .54 32 3.55 .50

Table 2 Continued

Self-Defense Efficacy (SDE)

Control Intervention

Measurement Occasion n M SD n M SD

Day 4 20 3.61 .60 32 3.64 .62

Day 5 20 3.93 .62 32 3.91 .54

Post-Training 20 4.21 .43 32 4.04 .45

Control 3 Intervention

2 Self-Defense Efficacy Self-Defense

1 Pre- Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Post- Training Training Time

Figure 3: Self-Defense Efficacy (SDE) Scores through the Course

Teaching Self-Efficacy (TSE) A Split Plot ANOVA was performed to evaluate if there were significant increases on teaching self-efficacy. Table 3 depicts the teaching self-efficacy (TSE) scores throughout the duration of the course. Figure 4 provides a depiction of the teaching self-efficacy scores across the training program. Mauchly’s test indicated that assumption of sphericity had also been violated for this variable, χ2(2) = 67.6, p < . 01. The degrees of freedom for teaching self-efficacy scores were also adjusted using Greenhouse-Geisser

35 estimates of sphericity (ε = .63). A significant main effect for time was observed in teaching self-efficacy, F(3.7, 189.1) = 29.7, p < .01, η2 = .37 that was manifested as a significant positive linear trend, F(1, 50) = 79.5, p < .01, η2 = .61. No significant group main effect, F(1, 50) = 2.14, p > .01, η2 = .04, or time by group interaction observed for this variable, F(3.7, 189.1) = .64, p > .01, η2 = .13.

Table 3

Pre, during, and post-training teaching self- efficacy (TSE)

Teaching Self-Efficacy (TSE)

Control Intervention

Measurement Occasion n M SD n M SD

Pre-Training 20 2.80 1.2 32 2.54 1.1

Day 1 20 3.05 .95 32 2.59 1.0

Day 2 20 3.3 1.1 32 2.7 1.02

Day 3 20 3.47 1.2 32 3.18 .96

Day 4 20 3.47 1.09 32 3.10 1.09

Day 5 20 3.77 1.0 32 3.48 .99

Post-Training 20 4.05 .96 32 3.59 .91

Control 3 Intervention

2 Teaching Self-Efficacy 1 Pre- Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Post- Training Training Time

Figure 4: Teaching Self-Efficacy (TSE) Scores throughout the Course

General Confidence The third item on the State Anxiety Rating Scale (Cox, Ruffin, & Robb, 1999) addressed general confidence towards performance. On a 1 to 5 Likert scale it asked, “I feel comfortable, secure, and confident about performing well.” Originally, this item was not intended to be reported due to the use of more relevant efficacy measurements such as the combatives self-defense and teaching efficacy. However, post-hoc evaluations of this variable revealed some interesting patterns meriting evaluation and possible future investigation. Table 4 and Figure 5 depict the confidence scores during all measuring points of the course. A Split Plot ANOVA was performed to evaluate if there were significant increases on this variable. Mauchly’s test indicated that assumption of sphericity had also been violated for cognitive combatives state anxiety, χ2(2) = 33.1, p < .05. The degrees of freedom for cognitive state anxiety scores were also adjusted using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = .81). A significant main effect for time in confidence was observed F(4.9, 243.4) = 10.4, p < .001, η2 = .17 that was manifested in the form of a significant positive linear trend, F(1, 50) = 33.9, p < .001, η2 = .40. No significant group main effect was found F(1, 50) = .12, p > .01, η2 = .002; however, a significant interaction between the groups in confidence F(4.9, 243.4) = 3.45 p < .01, η2 = .07 was observed.

Independent samples t-tests were conducted to further investigate the significant interaction. A significant general confidence difference between the two groups (p < .05) was found only on Day 2. Descriptively, both groups generally tended to increase in confidence over the duration of the course. The trend in the control group, however, was somewhat different than the trend in the intervention group. The generally positive trend in confidence the control group started at a higher initial point than the intervention group, decreased at Day 4 of training before returning to the positive trend and ended at a somewhat lower level than observed in the intervention group. On the other hand, the intervention group maintained a relatively steady increase of confidence throughout the course.

Table 4

Pre, during, and General Confidence Scores

Confidence

Control Intervention

Measurement Occasion n M SD n M SD

Pre-Training 20 3.40 .99 32 3.13 .98

Day 1 20 3.65 .88 32 3.28 .89

Day 2 20 3.75 .78 32 3.25 .92

Day 3 20 3.80 .95 32 3.59 .91

Day 4 20 3.35 1.1 32 3.75 .76

Day 5 20 3.75 .96 32 4.06 .67

Post-Training 20 4.10 .85 32 4.28 1.0

Control 3 Intervention Confidence 2

1 Pre- Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Post- Training Training Time

Figure 5: Confidence Scores throughout the Course

Cognitive Combatives State Anxiety (CCSA) The mean scores for cognitive combatives state anxiety during the course of the study for all the participants are presented in Table 5. Figure 6 illustrates the changes in cognitive state anxiety during the course for both control and intervention groups. Mauchly’s test indicated that assumption of sphericity had also been violated for cognitive combatives state anxiety, χ2(2) = 41.2, p < .05. The degrees of freedom for cognitive state anxiety scores were also adjusted using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = .80). A significant main effect for time in cognitive combatives state anxiety was observed F(4.8, 240.3) = 11.9, p < .01, η2 = .19 and it was manifested in the form of a significant negative linear trend, F(1, 50) = 22.7, p < .001, η2 = .31. A nonsignificant group main effect in cognitive combatives state anxiety, F(1, 50) = .19 p > .01, η2 = .004 was evident; however, a significant group-by-time interaction was observed F(4.8, 240.3) = 3.53 p < .01, η2 = .07. In order to further explore the interaction identified by the Split Plot ANOVA, Independent samples t-tests were conducted for each training day. A significant difference between groups was found only on Day 1 (p < .01) where the intervention group scored significantly higher than the control group. Descriptively, for participants on the control group, the mean scores reflected a moderate level of cognitive anxiety during pre-training measures. Day 1 measures reflected a decrease to low levels from pre-training means; however, steady increases on CCSA were noted until Day 4 were they reached a moderate

39 level of cognitive anxiety. For the control group, the highest cognitive anxiety mean, a moderate level, for a training day was observed on Day 4. The control group’s pattern of cognitive anxiety also mirrored the results of the previously discussed pilot study (Morales-Negron, 2007). On the other hand, the intervention group tended to show steady decreases of cognitive anxiety from moderate to low levels throughout the course to (including the Day 4 test) with the highest training day cognitive state anxiety score being reported during Day 1 measures. When comparing the changes from Day 3 to the evaluated bouts on Day 4 for the two groups, the intervention group experienced increase in anxiety that was meaningfully less that the control group (i.e., a medium effect size; ES = .44).

Table 5 Pre, during, and post-training Cognitive Combatives State Anxiety (CCSA)

Cognitive Combatives State Anxiety

Control Intervention

Measurement Occasion n M SD n M SD

Pre-Training 20 2.95 1.4 32 2.87 1.2

Day 1 20 1.65 .75 32 2.47 .95

Day 2 20 1.95 .94 32 2.28 .85

Day 3 20 2.05 1.1 32 1.96 .59

Day 4 20 2.60 1.3 32 2.15 .99

Day 5 20 1.80 .95 32 1.96 .93

Post-Training 20 1.90 .91 32 1.78 .91

Control 3 Intervention

2 Cognitive State Anxiety Cognitive State 1 Pre- Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Post- Training Training Time

Figure 6: Cognitive Combatives State Anxiety (CCSA) Scores throughout the Course

Somatic Combatives State Anxiety (SCSA) The mean scores for SCSA during the course of the study for all the participants are presented in Table 6. Figure 7 illustrates the changes in somatic state anxiety during the course for both control and intervention groups. On the Split Plot ANOVA, Mauchly’s test indicated that assumption of sphericity had been violated for the somatic combatives state anxiety measures, χ2(2) = 55.1, p <. 01. The degrees of freedom for somatic state anxiety scores were also adjusted using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = .73). A significant main effect for time in somatic combatives state anxiety was observed, F(4.3, 217.4) = 12.2, p < .001, η2 = .20 that was manifested as a significant linear trend, F(1, 50) = 9.04, p < .01, η2 = .15. No significant group main effect was between the groups, F(1, 50) = 2.77 p > .01, eta η2 = .05. A significant group-by-time interaction was observed, F(4.3, 217.4) = 3.97 p < .01, η2 = .07. Independent samples t-test was conducted in order to evaluate the interactions identified by the Split Plot ANOVA. T-test results indicated that the two groups were significantly different on Day 1 (p < .01), and Day 2 (p < .05). Descriptively, the somatic combatives state anxiety patterns are similar to those reported for CCSA; however, somatic combatives state anxiety descriptively increased for the participants in the control group from low to moderate during the transition from Day 3 to Day 4. The control group’s pattern of somatic anxiety also mirrored the results of the previously discussed pilot study (Morales-Negron, 2007). The control group was noticeably lower moving

41 from moderate to low, descriptively speaking, until day 4 when the jump up to being roughly the same as the intervention group. The intervention group showed steady decreases of cognitive anxiety throughout the course to include Day 4 as they moved from moderate to low somatic state anxiety. For the intervention group, the highest reported state anxiety was again during pre-training measurements. Even when the intervention group also increased during Day 4, the level of somatic anxiety for that day was not as high as the control group. When comparing both groups during the transition from Day 3 to Day 4, a large effect size for the intervention group was identified (ES = .91).

Table 6

Pre, during, and post-training Somatic Combatives State Anxiety (SCSA)

Somatic Combatives State Anxiety (SCSA)

Control Intervention

Measurement Occasion n M SD n M SD

Pre-Training 20 2.55 1.2 32 3.00 1.2

Day 1 20 1.65 .75 32 2.56 .84

Day 2 20 1.65 .74 32 2.18 .93

Day 3 20 1.75 .85 32 2.18 .73

Day 4 20 2.80 1.1 32 2.50 .95

Day 5 20 1.80 .83 32 2.09 .92

Post-Training 20 2.00 .97 32 1.81 .97

Control 3 Intervention

2 Somatic State SomaticAnxiety State 1 Pre- Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Post- Training Training Time

Figure 7: Somatic Combatives State Anxiety (SCSA) Scores throughout the Course

Motivation The Situational Motivation Scale (Guay, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000) measured which type of motivation (i.e. intrinsic, identified regulation, external regulation, or Amotivation) the participants had during different measuring points throughout the course. While the self-determination index used during this study is calculated by combining all the different types of motivation, the data allows for evaluation of the different levels motivation reported at each measuring point. Table 7 introduces the percentage of individuals that reported higher scores in intrinsic motivation than the other categories of motivation. During pre-training measures, 50% of the control group participants reported their motivation to participate as intrinsic while only 40% of the intervention group participants were intrinsically motivated. However, by the end of the course, 55% of the control group participants reported being intrinsically motivated while the intervention group participants increased to 50%.

Table 7

Pre, mid, and post-training Reported Intrinsic Motivation

Individuals Reporting Intrinsic Motivation

Control Intervention

Measurement Occasion n Total % n Total %

Pre-Training 20 10 50% 32 13 40%

Mid-Training 20 7 35% 32 11 34%

Post-Training 20 11 55% 32 16 50%

Table 8 and Figure 8 illustrate the SDI scores for both groups at the three measurement points. On the Split Plot ANOVA, Mauchly’s test indicated that assumption of sphericity had been violated for the intervention group’s self-determination index scores, χ2(2) = 15.9, p <. 01. The degrees of freedom for SDI scores analysis were adjusted using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = .78). A self-determination main effect for time was observed, F(1.6, 78.2) = 5.29, p < .01, η2 = .10 that was manifested as a positive linear trend, F(1, 50) = 5.8, p < .01, η2 = .16. No significant group main effect, F(1, 50) = .09, p > .01, η2 = .002 or time-by-group interaction was observed, F(1.6, 78.2) = .19, p > .01, η2 = .004.

Table 8

Pre, mid, and post-training Self-Determination Index (SDI)

Self-Determination Index (SDI)

Control Intervention

Measurement Occasion n M SD n M SD

Pre-Training 20 9.45 6.7 32 9.59 8.4

Mid-Training 20 9.54 6.3 32 10.23 6.4

Post-Training 20 10.86 6.18 32 11.65 5.7

9 Control 8 Intervention

Self-DeterminationIndex 6

5 Pre-Training Mid-Training Post-Training Time

Figure 8: Self-Determination Index Scores throughout the Course

Self-Defense Efficacy, State Anxiety, and Motivation

For both groups, cognitive state combatives anxiety scores were negatively correlated with self-defense efficacy scores on all training days (rs from -.14 to -.62); however, the correlation was only significant on Day 4 for the control group (r = -.62, p <

.01). Cognitive state combatives anxiety and self-defense efficacy correlations for the intervention group were not significant at any of the measurements points. For both groups, cognitive state combatives anxiety scores were also negatively correlated with intrinsic motivation scores during pre, mid, and after training measurements for the intervention group (rs ranging from -.09 to -.24) and for the control group (rs ranging from -.21 to -.53). Pre-training correlations between cognitive state anxiety and motivation were not significant for neither group; however, the control group correlations between these two variables were significant during Day 3 (r = -.48, p < .05), and after training (r = -.53, p < .05,) measurements.

Participants Ordered to Attend Self-Defense Efficacy. The means and standard deviations for SDE scores for the individuals ordered to participate at each measurement point during the course are presented in Table 9. Figure 9 provides a depiction of the self defense efficacy scores observed across the training course for this group of participants. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated in the repeated measures, χ2(2) = 46.1, p < .01, and so degrees of freedom in the analysis were corrected using Greenhouse- Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = .53). A significant main effect for time F(3.2, 37.9) = 12.3, p < .001, η2 = .51, that was manifested in a significant positive linear trend, F (1, 12) = 27.9, p < .001, η2 = .70, in the SDE scores was observed. No significant main effect for group, F (1, 12) = .76, p > .01, η2 = .06, and no significant group by time interaction was observed, F (3.2, 37.9) = 1.8, p > .01, η2 = .16. However, as with the overall sample, an important factor to note is that descriptively, the individuals in the intervention group did not decrease in self-dense efficacy from Day 3 to Day 4 where individuals in the control group showed a descriptive decrease on their self-defense efficacy scores. Evaluating this relationship, the intervention group experienced a descriptive increase in self-defense efficacy that was meaningfully higher than the control group (a medium effect size ES = .33).

Table 9 Self-Defense Efficacy Scores for Soldiers Ordered to Participate

Self-Defense Efficacy (SDE)

Control Intervention

Measurement Occasion n M SD n M SD

Pre-Training 6 3.02 .97 8 3.59 .98

Day 1 6 3.25 .58 8 3.43 .66

Day 2 6 3.29 .44 8 3.48 .60

Day 3 6 3.47 .45 8 3.59 .65

Day 4 6 3.27 .60 8 3.71 .69

Day 5 6 3.66 .73 8 4.01 .54

Post-Training 6 4.10 .35 8 4.03 .43

Control 3 Intervention

2 Self-DefenseEfficacy

1 Pre- Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Post- Training Training Time

Figure 9: SDE Scores for Participants Ordered to Attend Teaching Self-Efficacy. The means and standard deviations for TSE scores for the individuals ordered to participate at each measurement point during the course are

47 presented in Table 10. Figure 10 provides a depiction of the teaching self efficacy scores observed across the training course for this group of participants. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had not been violated in the repeated measures, χ2(2) = 22.1, p > .001. A significant main effect for time, F(6, 72) = 8.26, p < .001, η2 = .41, reflected as significant positive linear trend, F (1, 12) = 30.5, p < .01, η2 = .72, was observed over the training course TSE. There were no significant main effect for group, F (1, 12) = .023, p > .01, η2 = .002 and no significant group-by-time interaction observed, F (6, 72) = .80, p > .01, η2 = .06.

Table 10 Teaching Self-Efficacy Scores for Soldiers Ordered to Participate

Teaching Self-Efficacy (TSE)

Control Intervention

Measurement Occasion n M SD n M SD

Pre-Training 6 1.91 .74 8 2.00 1.2

Day 1 6 2.25 .75 8 2.00 1.1

Day 2 6 2.66 .98 8 2.06 1.2

Day 3 6 2.33 1.2 8 2.43 1.2

Day 4 6 2.50 1.2 8 2.43 1.4

Day 5 6 2.91 1.0 8 2.93 1.4

Post-Training 6 3.08 1.1 8 3.18 1.2

Control 3 Intervention

2 Teaching Teaching Self-Efficacy 1 Pre- Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Post- Training Training Time

Figure 10: TSE Scores for Participants Ordered to Attend

Cognitive Combatives State Anxiety. For individuals ordered to attend combatives training, scores related to trait anxiety were also higher for the intervention group. The means and standard deviations for CCSA scores for the individuals ordered to participate at each measurement point during the course are presented in Table 11. Figure 11 provides a depiction of the cognitive state anxiety scores observed across the training course for this group of participants. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated in the repeated measures, χ2(2) = 41.4, p < .01, and so degrees of freedom in the analysis were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = .50). A significant time effect was identified, F(3.0, 36.2) = 6.6, p < .01, η2 = .36, and it was reflected as a significant positive linear trend, F(1, 12) = 5.1, p < .01, η2= .30. There was no significant main effect for groups, F(1, 12) = .06, p > .01, η2= .01 and no significant group by time interaction, F(3.0, 36.2) = 1.8, p > .01, η2= .001. Descriptively, individuals on the intervention group who were ordered to attend the training scored lower in cognitive anxiety than those in the control group during the evaluated days and as the course progressed. Evaluating this relationship from pre to post measures, the intervention group experienced a descriptive decrease in cognitive combatives state anxiety that was meaningfully higher than the control group (a large effect size ES = 1.91).

Table 11 Cognitive Combatives State Anxiety Scores for Soldiers Ordered to Participate

Cognitive Combatives State Anxiety (CCSA)

Control Intervention

Measurement Occasion n M SD n M SD

Pre-Training 6 2.67 1.5 8 3.00 .75

Day 1 6 1.66 .81 8 2.12 .99

Day 2 6 2.17 .75 8 2.62 1.2

Day 3 6 2.17 .75 8 1.87 .64

Day 4 6 3.33 1.36 8 2.75 1.16

Day 5 6 2.17 1.16 8 1.87 1.12

Post-Training 6 2.17 1.16 8 1.37 .59

Control 3 Intervention

2 Cognitive StateAnxiety Cognitive

1 Pre- Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Post- Training Training Time

Figure 11: CCSA Scores for Participants Ordered to Attend

Somatic Combatives State Anxiety. The means and standard deviations for SCSA scores for the individuals ordered to participate at each measurement point during the course are presented in Table 12. Figure 12 provides a depiction of the somatic state anxiety scores observed across the training course for this group of participants. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated in the repeated measures, χ2(2) = 50.5, p < .01, and so degrees of freedom in the analysis were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = .56). A significant time effect was observed, F(3.4, 40.3) = 5.4, p < .01, η2 = .31; however, unlike the other variables, the effect was not linear, F (1, 12) = .62, p > .01, η2 = .05. No significant group differences were identified, F (1, 12) = 1.8, p > .01, η2 = .13. In addition, because of the adjusted significance level, there was no significant interaction between the two groups, F(3.4, 40.3) = 2.8, p = .049, η2 = .19. Descriptively, individuals on the intervention group showed steady decreases, from moderate to low, in SCSA throughout the course of the study except on Day 4 (the testing day) but this increase was of smaller magnitude than what was observed in the control group. In addition, the intervention group completed the training with descriptively lower levels of somatic anxiety. Evaluating this relationship from pre to post measures, the intervention group experienced a descriptive decrease in cognitive combatives state anxiety that was meaningfully higher than the control group (a large effect size ES = 1.3).

Table 12 Somatic Combatives State Anxiety Scores for Soldiers Ordered to Participate

Somatic Combatives State Anxiety (SCSA)

Control Intervention

Measurement Occasion n M SD n M SD

Pre-Training 6 1.83 .75 8 3.50 1.6

Day 1 6 1.50 .83 8 2.50 1.19

Table 12 Continued Somatic Combatives State Anxiety (SCSA)

Control Intervention

Measurement Occasion n M SD n M SD

Day 2 6 1.67 .82 8 2.37 .92

Day 3 6 1.50 .54 8 2.25 .88

Day 4 6 3.50 1.0 8 3.00 1.2

Day 5 6 1.83 .75 8 1.88 .99

Post-Training 6 2.00 1.1 8 1.75 1.2

Control 3 Intervention

2 Somatic StateSomatic Anxiety

1 Pre- Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Post- Training Training Time

Figure 12: SCSA Scores for Participants Ordered to Attend

Motivation. Table 13 and Figure 13 illustrate changes in the self-determination index for participants ordered to attend the training. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated in the repeated measures, χ2(2) = 7.4, p < .05, and so degrees of freedom in the analysis were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser

52 estimates of sphericity (ε = .67). No significant time effect was identified for motivation, F(1.3, 16.1) = 3.5, p > .01, η2 = .23. A Split Plot ANOVA revealed no significant differences among these two groups F (1, 12) = 34.6, p > .01, η2 = .62. No significant interaction was identified between these two groups, F(1.3, 16.1) = .67, p > .01, η2 = .05. Descriptively, individuals in the intervention group who had been ordered to attend increased in self-determination when compared to those ordered to attend in the control group. Evaluating this relationship from pre to post measures, the intervention group experienced a descriptive increase in self-determined behavior that was meaningfully higher than the control group (a medium effect size ES = .37).

Table 13

Pre, mid, and post-training Self-Determination Index (SDI) for individuals ordered to attend

Self-Determination Index (SDI)

Control Intervention

Measurement Occasion n M SD n M SD

Pre-Training 20 1.25 4.8 32 1.06 11.9

Mid-Training 20 1.75 3.4 32 4.13 7.8

Post-Training 20 3.62 4.9 32 6.94 6.6

5 Control 4 Intervention 3

0 Pre-Training Mid-Training Post-Training

Figure 13: SDI Scores for Participants Ordered to Attend Qualitative Inquiry Ten participants were selected to contribute to the qualitative portion of the study. Eighty percent of the participants in this group volunteered for the training. Their ages ranged from 19 to 47 years old. The ten individuals represented the top five high anxious, as scored on the trait anxiety scale, of their respective, control (M = 3.27 SD = .27) or intervention group (M = 3.33 SD = .19). The purpose of the qualitative inquiry was to identify the participant’s perceptions about the combatives program, the benefits and disadvantages associated with participation, and their intent to participate in the program. In addition, the inquiry attempted to recognize combatives specific stressors, the emotions associated with those stressors, and the coping strategies and adaptations that the participants utilized throughout the course to better manage their combatives state anxiety. Table 14 illustrates the trends and themes identified during the study.

Table 14 Categories of Participant Perceptions and Percentage of Responses by Type

Category Total Responses Control Intervention Age Under 20 0 (0%) 2 (40%) 21-30 10 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 31-40 2 (40%) 2 (40%) over 40 1 (20%) 0 (0%) Training Status 10 Volunteer 8 5 (100%) 3(60%) Ordered 2 0 (0%) 2 (40%) Perceptions Advantages 2 (40%) 3 (60%) (Confidence) 3 (60%) 3 (60%) Disadvantages (None) 5 0 (0%) 3 (60%) Disadvantages 6 (Motivation) 3 Perceptions Excitements (Learning) 4 (80%) 5 (100%) Challenges 9 2 (40%) 3 (60%) (Differences) 5

Table 14 Continued Category Total Responses Control Intervention Emotions Anxiety 7 4 (80%) 3 (60%) Nervous 4 2 (40%) 2 (40%) Coping Hope 3 3 (60%) 0 Imagery 3 0 3 (60%) Breathing 3 0 3 (60%) Adaptations Relaxing 4 0 4 (80%) Perceptions Excitements (Learning) 4 (80%) 5 (100%) Challenges 9 2 (40%) 3 (60%) (Differences) 5 Emotions Anxiety 7 4 (80%) 3 (60%) Nervous 4 2 (40%) 2 (40%) Coping Hope 3 3 (60%) 0 Imagery 3 0 3 (60%) Breathing 3 0 3 (60%) Adaptations Relaxing 4 0 4 (80%) Perceptions Excitements (Learning) 9 4 (80%) 5 (100%) Challenges (Differences) 5 2 (40%) 3 (60%)

Participation Status. As previously stated, the majority of the participants volunteered for the training. However, the participants’ volunteer status appeared to have different definitions as they stated their reason for taking part in the training. Participant’s statements related to intrinsic motivation included: “I believe that the training is exciting and I volunteered for it” and “I wanted to take combatives. Once I enlisted I asked about combatives training and was told of the new program”. Statements closely associated with identified regulation included “My unit does the training every Friday. Everyone in my unit is level 1 certified. My husband is also level 2 combatives certified. I volunteered for the training” and “Another soldier that works with me told me about the training and my sergeant asked me if I wanted to come.” Individuals ordered to attend were very clear on their reasons for participation, their statements included: “My chain of command and a

55 lot of the instructors in the unit are combatives certified. I was chosen to become an instructor. My squad leader told me to attend” and “Someone in my unit told me. Also, everyone in my unit is level 1. Every Friday we do combatives. I was ordered by my commander and first sergeant.” The 20% of individuals ordered to attend were part of the intervention group. Nevertheless, regardless of their initial status, 100% of the participants stated that they were motivated to return for the next level of instructor training. Perceived Advantages and Disadvantages. The participants’ perceptions about the advantages and disadvantages of the training were very similar for members of the control and intervention groups. General self-defense skills were mentioned as an advantage by 90% of the participants. Statements such as, “It teaches soldiers how to survive with any weapon (hands, feet, etc.)”, “It gives you confidence in your self-defense skills and also in your unit members because you know who can and can’t fight.”, and “It makes you a better trained combat soldier.”, not only display what these soldiers feel but also describes the overall intent of the combatives program. Fifty percent of the participants did not see any disadvantages of being involved in the program. Thirty percent mentioned as a challenge having to deal with individuals that were ordered to attend that may not have the motivation to participate; therefore, holding back others who are willing to train. These statements included “People not being motivated to participate because they don’t want to do it”, and “I have noticed that some people that are here mandatory, don’t seem to have the heart in to and while working with them, makes the training slow and methodical.” Excitements and Challenges. When asked about what was the most exciting part of the training, an overwhelming 90% of participants mentioned learning as the primary source. “Learning the chokes and the arm bars because it allows me submit the opponent. I enjoy fighting with others because you can’t underestimate anyone.”, and “I like the learning aspect. I have learned something everyday and as you mentioned, “even when you lose you learn something”. I agree with that, I have been able to relax because of it.” The challenges were associated with personal choices or difficulties such as sex differences, “Differences between males and females (strength wise) is the most

56 challenging part. If you have to fight male soldiers, it is very frustrating. We have to learn to deal with that.”, or experience level disadvantages “That not everyone is at the same level and they are using techniques that we don’t recognize in order to win. To me that is intimidating, on the other hand, I have learned those techniques.” Emotions. The emotions associated with hand-to-hand training had been previously discussed in this document. However, the statements here represent the combatives experience these soldiers went through. As with some of the previous areas, there were not many differences between the experiences of the participants in both groups. When asked what they felt when confronting another soldier, 90% of the statements included words like anxiety and “I feel nervous”. Some stated, “It depends on the fighter that I am presented with. If it is a bigger opponent then I worry about if they are stronger than me and what I need to do to survive this fight. If they are smaller and faster what do I need to do with them? I am concerned about being able to adjust my fight plan to be able to defeat my opponent.”, “With me, I have always been anxious. When I fight I always suffer from anxiety. I get very nervous just fighting others. In practice is not that much but once it becomes a real fight, and then I become a wreck mentally. It does cloud my fight plan…I have also noticed that when I go in front of a crowd, it also affects me. I think I am my worst enemy…I defeat myself with my thinking.”, and “A little nervous…I don’t want to get choked out, no one wants to get choked out. Part of the anxiety is related to fighting people you work with all the time. It becomes uncomfortable because we don’t know.” These statements clearly demonstrate that combatives state anxiety is a genuine concern for the participants in this program. Coping. Dealing with the emotions was approached differently by each group. The control group participants used statements such as “I just confront my fights and hope that they will stop once the fight stops”, and “I pray. Self-statements “don’t get choked out”…getting choked out is the most embarrassing. Self-doubt and question myself” in order to express their coping experience. On the other hand, the participants in the intervention group had already integrated some of the techniques instructed during the course to cope with their combatives experience. Their statements mentioned, “I started to use visualization and go through the moves in my head before a fight. I have learned to

57 use these strategies to help me during the training”, “When I get anxious, I work very hard and that drains my energy levels. However, I have been able to relax with the breathing exercises”, and “I try to stay calm. The breathing exercise has helped me a lot on this.” These statements provide preliminary evidence that, even in a short period of time, mental skills training can help combatives participants control their cognitive and somatic anxiety. Figures 14, 15, and 16 illustrate the differences in cognitive and somatic anxiety, and physiological arousal respectively between the participants in each group that were part of the qualitative portion of the study. Adaptations to Training. As expected, the adaptations to training expressed by individuals in the control group referred to training and personal applications of the self- defense techniques. “I try to learn as much as I can and to create protections to deal with the training”, “Because all the fighting I have done, I am just feeling things through”, and “Don't have choice but to deal with it” are statements from the participants in the control group. The intervention group participants’ adaptations were more associated with their ability to control their physiological responses to the training. Their statements mentioned, “The more I learn to relax, the easier it is for me to get motivated”, “I am less tense that once I first started. I have been able to calm my breathing and pace myself during the training”, and “I have learned to relax my body.” As previously stated, these quotes appear to support the notion that the individual’s motivation and enjoyment for the training can be influence by their exposure to combatives anxiety coping strategies.

Control 3 Intervention

2 Cognitive State Anxiety Cognitive State 1 Pre- Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Post- Training Training Time

Figure 14: Cognitive Combatives State Anxiety Comparisons Qualitative Group

Control 3 Intervention

2 Somatic Anxiety State 1 Pre- Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Training Time

Figure 15: Somatic Combatives State Anxiety Comparisons Qualitative Group

140

120

100

80 Control

60 Intervention

0 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5

Figure 16: Physiological Arousal (HR) Comparisons Qualitative Group

CHAPTER FIVE Discussion Self-Defense Efficacy and Teaching Self-Efficacy Based on the Chief of Staff of the Army guidelines, it would be optimal for individuals who are to become combatives leaders to be self-efficacious in combatives skills. These instructors will be responsible to pass on combatives related skills to the soldiers in their units as they return to their current stations and begin a combatives program. Self-efficacy has been found to contribute to levels of participation, motivation, and adherence in a variety of tasks (Bandura, 1986a, 1986b, 1997; Lane, Hall, & Lane, 2002; Lane & Lane, 2001; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991); therefore, higher levels of self- efficacy can be considered beneficial for the objectives of this program. The results of this study showed that combatives self-efficacy increases after participation in the training protocol. The training, regardless of the condition (mandatory or volunteer), was found to positively influence individuals’ belief that they can defend themselves and that they can teach these techniques to others. For the purpose of this study, the results only provided partial evidence to support the first hypothesis which stated that combatives self-efficacy would increase in both groups but increases would be stronger for the participants in the intervention group. While both groups increased in combatives self-efficacy, the differences between them were not inferentially significant. However, supporting Bandura’s theory that learning how to interpret bodily states is a significant contributor to self-efficacy beliefs, the intervention group participants did not report a decrease in their levels of self-defense efficacy during the critical evaluated bouts on Day 4 and competitive setting on Day 5. Descriptively, it appears that individuals who were exposed to anxiety control strategies during the course were able to sustain their self-defense efficacy when environmental stressors such as testing and evaluation were present. General confidence towards combatives performance as measured by the State Anxiety Rating Scale (Cox, Ruffin, & Robb, 1999) demonstrated a similar pattern than the self-defense efficacy scores. Both groups increased in confidence; however, there was a time by group interaction caused by a significant difference on Day 2. Descriptively,

60 while the control group had reported higher levels of confidence than the intervention group through Day 3, their scores reversed during the evaluating days resulting in the control group reporting higher levels of confidence. Therefore, it appears that confidence can also be sustained by the exposure to combatives anxiety coping strategies. Combatives State Anxiety The second hypothesis indicated an expectation for the levels of combatives state anxiety to decrease across the course for the intervention group participants and to remain stable for the control group. Inferential evaluation revealed a significant negative linear trend indicating that both groups decreased in cognitive combatives state anxiety throughout the course. In addition, a time by group interaction caused by significant group differences on Day 1 and Day 2. Descriptively, observed cognitive and somatic state anxiety means appeared to be elevated, relatively speaking, on Day 4 of the training for both groups. Lazarus (1993) defined the stress process in terms of four components: (a) an external stimulus, often called a stressor, is present, (b) the individual who is encountered with this stimulus must evaluate, or appraise the situation or stimulus as being stress-evoking, (c) the individual attempts to cope with these stressful demands, and (d) a complex set of reactions takes place both in the mind and the body. In a combatives setting, the appraisals that lead to anxiety include many factors that can change from day-to-day or from situation to situation; therefore, it is assumed that the environmental demands such as the evaluated bouts presented during Day 4 of the training may have influenced the participants’ appraisal. On the other hand, individuals who were exposed to the combatives anxiety coping strategies reported descriptively lower anxiety scores than those individuals in the control group for Day 4 measures. The descriptive pattern of results is consistent with results of studies presented in the literature review (Altmaier, Ross, Leary et al., 1982; Brent, 2005; Crocker, 1989; Crocker,

Alderman, & Smith, 1988; Mammasis & Doganis, 2004; Meichenbaum, 1996; Ross &

Berger, 1996; Sisterhen, 2005; Williams & Leffingwell, 1996). It seems that offering psychological skills training has the potential to positively influence anxiety responses among soldiers in combatives training even after a short-term exposure.

From the early studies of self-efficacy in sports settings there always been a modest negative relationship between anxiety and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1983, Feltz, 1982, Litt, 1988) and during this study, an analogous relationship was found for those who were not exposed to the anxiety coping strategies. For example, on Day 4 of the training, all participants’ self-defense combatives skills were to be evaluated, an event considered stressful. On this day, control group participants scored the highest somatic and cognitive anxiety in the study while at the same time showing a slight descriptive decline on their SDE levels. On the other hand, intervention group participants continued to show increases in self-defense efficacy during Day 4 but showed lower levels of cognitive and somatic anxiety than their counterparts. It is not suggested that there is a direct causal relationship between self-efficacy and anxiety; however, the fact that self- efficacy continued on the rise for the participants of who were exposed to the anxiety coping strategies, is a concept that should be further explored in mandatory training settings. In this study, the intervention group achieved decreased levels of state anxiety that fits a descriptive negative linear trend for both cognitive and somatic anxiety throughout the course while the control group did not. These results appear to suggest that the cognitive-behavioral strategy implemented with the intervention group to reduce combatives state anxiety was successful and aids the participants to better control their combatives state anxiety during different aspects of the training. Motivation Inferential evaluation revealed significant changes over time in self-determined motivation for all the participants in the training environment. Descriptively, it appears that the intervention group reported a stronger positive linear trend. Intrinsic motivation and self-determined behavior have been positively associated with continued participation in a variety of activities (Frederick-Recascino, & Schuster-Smith, 2003; Frederick,

Morrison, & Manning, 1996; Ryan et al., 1997; Tsorbatzoudis et al., 2007). As previously discussed, self-determined behavior is critical for the success of the combatives program. In this study, the descriptive results appear to indicate that, in mandatory settings, exposing individuals to combatives anxiety coping strategies has the potential to help

62 them better interpret the symptoms of state anxiety, and could influence their motivation and self-determined behavior towards that activity. In sport and exercise settings, not many studies evaluate the relationship between anxiety and motivation. In other domains (academic and social relationships), it has been demonstrated that lower levels of anxiety are associated with higher levels of motivation. This study provides a starting point for studying the relationship between motivation and anxiety in competitive settings that should be further explored. Correlations Self-Defense Efficacy and Motivation. In accordance with the third hypothesis, self-defense efficacy and motivation were positively correlated during the course of the study. The control group’s motivation was positively correlated at all measurement points while the intervention group started with a negative correlation that changed to a positive during Day 3 and after training measurements. This change in direction appears to indicate that, for the participants on the intervention group, the intrinsic motivation significantly changed as their self-efficacy improved during the course. Several study results have suggested that higher levels of self-efficacy are associated with higher levels of motivation to participate (Bandura, 1986a, 1986b, 1997; Lane, Hall, & Lane, 2002; Lane & Lane, 2001; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991). The results of this study are consistent with what has been suggested in the literature as changes in motivation were observed as self-efficacy increased. Self-Defense Efficacy and State Anxiety. As in the preliminary study (Morales- Negron, 2006), the relationship between self-defense efficacy and cognitive state anxiety was negative for all measurements. However, these correlations were only significant on Day 4 for the control group. It is assumed that because the intervention group received anxiety coping strategies and, as discussed, they achieved lower levels of state anxiety during Day 4, the strength of the negative relationship was weakened. Consequently, it may be a positive sign to see that a significant correlation between state anxiety and self- defense efficacy was not observed for the intervention group. State Anxiety and Motivation. Supporting the fourth hypothesis, state anxiety and motivation were negatively correlated during the course of the study. However, these

63 correlations were significant for the control mid and after training measurements. In accordance with the previous assumption, the control group’s lower reported state anxiety scores may have contributed to the weakening of the correlation making it not significant for the control group. Group Comparison The fifth hypothesis stated that participants in the intervention group would show lower levels of anxiety throughout and after the course, and more self-efficacy, and motivation to participate. However, the results of the study only supported this hypothesis to a degree. Inferentially, groups were not significantly different in self-defense efficacy, teaching efficacy, or self-determined motivation. However, there were group by time interactions in cognitive and somatic state anxiety created by significant differences on specific training days. Descriptively, the intervention group scored lower levels of state anxiety than control during the critical evaluated times, competition days, and after the training. However, during Days 1 through 3, their scores were higher possibly due to their exposure to the physiological and cognitive anxiety symptoms that were instructed during the intervention protocol. Training Status The results of this study related to combatives self-efficacy may be promising due to the descriptive and inferential increases in SDE and TSE from pre-to-post evaluation for those ordered to attend the training. The results of this study suggest that while volunteers are more likely to be high in self-defense and teaching self-efficacy, there may be a potential for individuals ordered to attend to also become self-efficacious about their self-defense and teaching ability. Because of the mandatory setting of the combatives training, it was critical to empirically evaluate the differences between those ordered to attend the training on the observed variables. When comparing individuals ordered to attend in each group, inferential evaluations revealed no significant main effect for groups in self-defense efficacy, teaching self-efficacy, cognitive and somatic state anxiety, or self-determined motivation. Descriptively, it is important to note that the intervention group reported slightly higher levels of self-efficacy during evaluated days, teaching self-efficacy after

64 training, and self-determined motivation throughout the training, and lower cognitive and somatic state anxiety than the control group. These results appear to indicate that the anxiety coping strategies intervention is also helpful for participants that were ordered to attend the training. The exposure to the coping strategies can possibly support the development of their confidence and motivation towards the program. Limitations of the Current Research The first limitation of the current study is that the quasi-experimental design limited the ability to control potential intervening variables. In addition, the design and realistic training environment provided groups that were not entirely equivalent. Because of this limitation, the control groups started with higher levels of intrinsic motivation than the intervention group. Secondly, the data gathering was made in an actual combatives training course. The setting created a limitation on the number of participants that was available in the classes that were evaluated in this investigation. The small number of participants at the evaluated classes presents a limitation in reference to statistical power. For example, there were four time by group interaction evaluations that had an eta-squared at the moderate or large level; however, the results were inferentially non significant. It would be optimal to observe a larger number of courses to obtain a sufficient amount of participants to increase statistical power and be able to identify what these size effect mean. In addition, more courses would allow the use of more powerful hierarchical analyses that would permit the researcher to account for class effects. In addition, there were a small number of individuals ordered to attend the training program. Fourteen participants reported that they were ordered to attend the training. Due to the small number, inferential evaluations may not identify differences that may actually exist when comparing these particular groups. However, the descriptive evaluation presents an accurate depiction of what these individuals experienced during the training even if the ability to make inferences beyond these individuals was limited. The length of the intervention provides a possible challenge for the measurement of the variables. Because the level 1 training is a one-week course, the intervention was limited to 60 minutes each day. This limitation meant that the intervention period may not

65 have been sufficient to be fully effective. The single item measures of cognitive and somatic state anxiety could also be considered a limitation because single item measures could present a problem with validity and reliability. It would be advisable to employ a scale that, through several items, provides a more reliable measure of combatives state anxiety. A real life setting presents other challenges that can not be controlled during the experiment. These may include instructor approach differences, the amount of combatives experiences some participants may already have, and the occupational background of the participants. Two of the three evaluated courses had the same group of instructors but one was in a different installation with new set of instructors. The way a particular instructor approaches and interacts with the participants is a variable that can influence self-efficacy, anxiety, and motivation. While it can be challenging to measure these teaching approach differences, they need to be considered. In addition to teaching approaches, participants also come to the training with multiple levels of combatives experience, and those who have been exposed to the training longer may have different approaches, and beliefs than those exposed for the first time. Lastly, there are differences in the psychological make up of individuals that are combat arms experts such as infantry, armor, and cavalry, than those on the medical or administrative fields. These differences can also contribute to some aspects of the variables evaluated during this study. Future Applications and Research Directions Army wide mandatory combatives training is new phenomenon with significant implications to soldier readiness and national security. The ability of soldiers to face their enemy in combat is one of the most critical skills they can possess and they do not have the option to avoid learning these critical skills. Facing an enemy, known or unknown, may lead these warriors to produce certain emotions such as fear and anxiety. In this study, it appears that exposure to the combatives training alone may not be sufficient for the soldiers to learn to regulate the emotions that may support increases in self-efficacy and that the integration of combatives anxiety coping strategies is useful in the process. In accordance with Bandura (1997), enhancing physical status, reducing stress levels and negative emotional proclivities, and correcting misinterpretation of bodily states is a key

66 element of altering efficacy beliefs. If participants, even those in mandatory status, learn how to regulate their arousal levels and find their optimal zone of performance they may be able to gain more from the training environment. Therefore, combatives specific coping strategies should be implemented as part of the combatives training in assist soldiers with the development of their overall combatives self-efficacy, state combatives anxiety, and how these variables impact motivation for continued participation. The program utilized during this study provides a viable option to introduce the soldiers to the initial stages of mental skills training. As observed during the training, with a short treatment, those in the intervention group were able to maintain lower levels of anxiety during evaluated days. The descriptive results suggest that there appears to be potential for the intervention, and generate curiosity about what a longer intervention could contribute to the soldiers’ development as fighters. In addition, future studies should look at the effects of this training in other domains of the combatives environments such as performance, teaching ability, and how motivation and self- regulated behavior was sustained. In addition to the issues presented above, future studies must give consideration to the different instruments used in the study to gather the data. The self-defense efficacy questionnaire can be further assessed to provide follow up studies with a modification that moves along with the development of the combatives courses. The state anxiety measure, because of the one-item per category composition, could also be modified. The statements in the state anxiety scale combined several items together creating the possibility for the participants to misunderstand or misinterpret the questions. Future studies that look at state anxiety should examine the possibility of creating a testing environment specific questionnaire includes more than one item for each of the state anxiety components. There are other levels of combatives instructor training that include longer courses and more dedicated participants. Future studies could modify this protocol to introduce combatives anxiety coping strategies to level 2 and 3 returning instructors. These courses are from two to four weeks long and would provide participants with a longer intervention and more time for them to assimilate and apply the information presented. In

67 a longer study, researchers could better control for instructor assignment and participants are more likely to be real volunteers than at an entry level course. In addition to the combatives environment specific observations, there are other relevant questions that are presented by the results of this study. Specifically, the potential for future investigations of the relationship between state anxiety, and motivational constructs in sports and exercise settings. As previously discussed, the relationship between these two variables has been overlooked in sport psychology because of its limited connection with performance. The results of this study appear to indicate an increase in motivation and self-determined behavior for those individuals that learned to cope with their state anxiety. Therefore, future evaluations should look at the extent of this relationship not only in mandatory settings but also when individuals are first looking to enter a particular physical activity domain. Conclusions Anxiety coping strategies have proven useful in reducing state anxiety and helping the individuals’ enjoyment of a variety of experiences (Altmaier, Ross, Leary et al., 1982; Hussain & Lawrence, 1978; Jaremko, 1980, 1983; Smith, 1980). In this study, participants who were exposed to the strategies to manage combatives state anxiety appeared to be able to sustain self-defense efficacy during stressful conditions such as evaluations and competitions. In addition, these participants showed that they were somewhat able to control their cognitive and somatic state anxiety during these particular events. Lastly, their’ intrinsic motivation and self-determine behavior appeared to be positively impacted by lower levels of state anxiety. It is suggested that further evaluation would be beneficial to further investigate the effects of a longer intervention. The intervention presented during this study appears to show some promise for improving the combatives experience of individuals ordered to attend the training as well as those who volunteered for the training that are affected by higher levels of combatives state anxiety. Further evaluations could contribute to the knowledge base created by this study. Confident leaders who are in control of their emotional responses during combatives situations could contribute to the program objectives, and in turn may impact the development of future warriors.

APPENDIX A: ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONNAIRE

Mandatory Combatives Training: Self-Efficacy, State Anxiety, and Motivation

Administrative Information Questionnaire

1. Age:______

2. Military Rank:______

3. Score on LAST APFT:______DATE of APFT:______

4. Did you volunteer for this training?

Circle one: Yes / No

If you were told to attend, who asked you to attend: Commander / 1SG / Supervisor / Other (specify) ______

5. Outside of Army Combatives, do you have any previous martial arts experience?

Circle one: Yes / No

If yes, what type? ______For how long?______

6. Do you have any concerns about attending this training?

APPENDIX B: SITUATIONAL MOTIVATION QUESTIONNAIRE

The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS) Directions: Read each item carefully. Using the scale below, please circle the number that best describes the reason why you are currently engaged in this activity. Answer each item according to the following scale: 1: corresponds not all; 2: corresponds a very little; 3: corresponds a little; 4: corresponds moderately; 5: corresponds enough; 6: corresponds a lot; 7: corresponds exactly.

Why are you currently engaged in this activity? Not At All Moderately Exactly

1. Because I think that this activity is interesting………………...1…. …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 2. Because I am doing it for my own good ………………………1….…...2………..3…...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 3. Because I am supposed to do it……………………………….. 1…. …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 4. There may be good reasons to do this activity, but personally I don’t see any …………………………………. 1…. …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 5. Because I think that this activity is pleasant…………………. 1…. …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 6. Because I think that this activity is good for me…………….. 1…. …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 7. Because it is something that I have to do …………………… 1…. …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 8. I do this activity but I am not sure if it is worth it…………… 1…. …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 9. Because this activity is fun ………………………………….. 1…. …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 10. By personal decision………………………………………… 1…. …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 11. Because I don’t have any choice……………………………..1…. …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 12. I don’t know; I don’t see what this activity brings me……….1…. …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 13. Because I feel good when doing this activity………………... 1…. …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 14. Because I believe that this activity is important for me……...1… …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 15. Because I feel that I have to do it ……………………………1…. …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 16. I do this activity, but I am not sure it is a good thing to pursue it …………………………………………...... 1…. …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 Future Plans 1. I intend to develop or support the combatives program upon my return to the unit………………………………………. 1…. …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 2. Upon my return, I intend to talk to my leaders about supporting this program ………………………………………… 1…. …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7 3. When in a leadership position, I intend to support the combatives program………………………………...... 1…. …..2………..3……...... 4…………...5……….6………..7

APPENDIX C: COMBATIVES SELF-EFFICACY SCALE

Combatives Self-Efficacy Questionnaire

This questionnaire is designed to evaluate how you perceive that you can defend yourself in a hand-to-hand situation and/or can apply your self-defense skills and knowledge in a fighting situation as well as the ability to pass on this information to others. Please answer the questions based on how do believe you would handle a, one-on-one, hand-to-hand situation. Strongly Moderately Strongly Disagree Agree Agree Item 1 2 3 4 5 1. I can defend myself if I am attacked……………………………………………………..1 2 3 4 5

2. In a fight situation, I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events…………………………………………………………………………. 1 2 3 4 5

3. While engaged in a hand-to-hand situation, I can remain calm when facing difficulties ……………………………………………….………………………… 1 2 3 4 5

4. Martial arts skills are easy for me to teach to others ……………………………………1 2 3 4 5

5. In a confrontation, I can usually handle whatever comes my way ………………………1 2 3 4 5

6. Thanks to my combatives resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations……………………………………………………………………..….1 2 3 4 5

7. It is easy for me to stick to my strategy and win the fight………………………………...1 2 3 4 5

8. Because of my previous martial arts training, I will succeed in my fights….………….....1 2 3 4 5

9. I am confident that I can teach martial arts skills to others……………………………….1 2 3 4 5

10. I am not concerned with winning or losing a fight, survival is enough for me…………....1 2 3 4 5

APPENDIX D: SPORT COMPETITION ANXIETY TEST

Sport Competition Anxiety Test

Below are some statements about how people feel when they compete in sports and games. Read each statement and decide if you HARDLY EVER, or SOMETIMES, or OFTEN, feel this way when you compete in sports and games in general. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one item. Remember to use the word that best describes how you usually feel when competing in sports and games. Hardly Ever Sometimes Often 1. Competing against others is socially enjoyable…………………………. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Before I compete I feel uneasy………………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5 3. Before I compete I worry about not performing well…………………… 1 2 3 4 5 4. I am a good sportsman when I compete………………………………… 1 2 3 4 5 5. When I compete I worry about making mistakes……………………….. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Before I compete I am calm……………………………………………... 1 2 3 4 5 7. Setting a goal is important when I compete……………………………...1 2 3 4 5 8. Before I compete I get a queasy feeling in my stomach………………… 1 2 3 4 5 9. Just before I compete I notice that my heart beats faster than normal…...1 2 3 4 5 10. I like to compete in games that demand considerable energy…………..1 2 3 4 5 11. Before I compete I feel relaxed…………………………………………1 2 3 4 5 12. Before I compete I am nervous..………………………………………..1 2 3 4 5 13. Team sports are more exciting than individual sports………………….1 2 3 4 5 14. I get nervous wanting to start a game…………………………………..1 2 3 4 5 15. Before I compete I usually get tense………………………………….. 1 2 3 4 5

APPENDIX E: STATE COMBATIVES ANXIETY SCALE

Combatives Anxiety Rating Scale

This anxiety rating scale was created by Cox, Robb, and Russell (1998, 1999) as a modified short version of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory – 2(CSAI-2) (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, and Smith, 1990). For this study the short version is modified to specifically identify combatives related anxiety.

1. I feel concerned about performing poorly, choking under pressure, and that others will be disappointed with my performance.

Not At All Somewhat Very Much 1 2 3 4 5

2. I feel jittery, my body feels tense, and my heart is racing.

Not At All Somewhat Very Much 1 2 3 4 5

3. I feel comfortable, secure, and confident about performing well.

Not At All Somewhat Very Much 1 2 3 4 5

APPENDIX F: QUALITATIVE INTERVIEW GUIDE

Self-efficacy, State Anxiety, and Motivation during Mandatory Combatives Training

Interview Guide

1. Please state age, military rank, and study service number.

2. How did you find out about this training? Did you volunteer for this training? If not, who ordered you attend?

3. From your perspective, what are the benefits and disadvantages of the mandatory combatives approach?

4. What do you find to be the most exciting part of this training?

5. What do you find to be the most intimidating part of this training? Why?

6. What do you feel when confronting another soldier in a fight?

7. How do you deal with these emotions?

8. Can you describe how have you been able to adapt to the training environment from the first time you trained combatives?

9. How involved do you intend to be with this program once you graduate?

10. How much support do your officers provide to the combatives program?

APPENDIX G: INTERVENTION INSTRUCTIONAL PACKET

Self-Efficacy, State Anxiety, and Motivation during Mandatory Combatives Training

Hector R. Morales-Negron Ph.D. Candidate, FSU Sport and Exercise Psychology Fall 2007

Weekly Outline n Day 1

q Introduction to Combatives State Anxiety n Day 2

q How to Cope with Combatives Anxiety

q Physiological Arousal and Progressive Relaxation n Day 3

q Imagery for Combatives

q Cognitive Reconstruction and Positive Self-Talk n Day 4

q Applying Coping Strategies and Pre-performance Routines

q Transferability of Psychological Skills to other Military Aspects n Day 5

q Introducing Basic Relaxation Techniques to others

Day 1 a.m.

Objectives for this Lesson n Gain a basic understanding of mental preparation aspects for fighters n Understand study background and rationale

Day 1 p.m.

Background n Study Overview n Combatives Requirements Army-wide n Experiences in Teaching Combatives n Ratio of Instructor Return n Command and Leader support for the program

Mental Skills in the Martial Arts Environment

n Milton (2004) q 7 MMA Fighters n Davenport (2006) q 10 Kick Boxing Professionals n Dhoot (2005) q 7 MMA Fighters n Malone (2005) q 5 MMA Fighters

Day 1 a.m.

Anxiety in Mixed Martial Arts

•Open Mindedness •Relaxed •Disciplined and Focused •Confidence vs. Self-Doubt •Resilience •Thoughtfulness vs. ignoring thoughts related to risk •Tolerant of Anxiety

DAVENPORT (2006) • Coping with being hit • Overcome fear of injury • Mental Toughness

Day 1 a.m. Milton (2004)

Dhoot (2005), Malone (2005)

•“No matter how good I was and no matter how good everyone else knew I was, I could not convince myself”

•“No matter how hard I trained, I always felt that I was unprepared”

•“I did not want to disappoint or lose any students. I had about 150 to 200 students show up (to the event). I was always so scared and so nervous of not performing. I used to throw up before my fights.”

•“As far as pre-fight jitters, the night before I think about all the worst things that can happen to me. I could die; I could be horribly maimed or injured” Day 1 a.m.

Effect of Combatives State Anxiety on Self-Confidence

4.5

4 Low CSCA Moderate CSCA High CSCA 3.5 Self-Defense Efficacy Self-Defense

2.5 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Training day

Day 1 a.m.

Combatives Anxiety

n Multidimensional q Short term or state anxiety q Overtime in analogous situations or trait anxiety

n State Anxiety Multidimensional (Liebert & Morris, 1967) q “Cognitive – worry” q “Emotional – arousal”

n Anxiety is a result of the stress process

Day 1 a.m.

Combatives State Anxiety

PHYSIOLOGICAL STATE

PSYCHOLOGICAL AROUSAL

Vulnerability to Stress, Fear, Anxiety

EMOTIONAL AROUSAL

Day 1 a.m.

Day 1 - Afternoon

Objectives for this Lesson n Understand where combatives anxiety comes from n Understand how combatives anxiety can affect your performance n Brainstorm previous experiences in combatives situations that may have lead to anxiety

Day 1 p.m.

The Stress Process: Social Cognitive Perspective (Smith, 1980)

Personality and Situational Factors

Situation Behavior Cognitive Physiological •Demands & Affective •Performance •Resources Appraisal Responses

“A situation does not become stressful, it is interpreted negatively”

Day 1 p.m.

How does Anxiety affects you?

n Individual Differences n Physiological Reactions æ Nervous system, HR, blood sugar levels, breathing rate, O2 Consumption, muscular tension. Visual field, blood flow, and flexibility n Cognitive Reactions q Concentration q Concern q Overwhelmed and confused q No feeling of control q Decision Making n Behavioral Reactions

Day 1 p.m.

Homework

a. Describe stressors of YOUR combatives experience b. How do they affect you physiological, cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally

Day 2 - Morning

Objectives for this Lesson n Provide an overview of all the psychological skills that will be introduced during the course

Day 1 p.m.

Strategies to Cope with Combatives Anxiety n Overview

q Arousal Regulation

q Progressive Muscle Relaxation

q Imagery

q Positive Self-Talk

q Cognitive Reconstruction

Day 2 - Afternoon

Stressors of Combatives Training n Thoughts of not performing well q Leads to Anger/Frustration/Disappointment n Separation of the sexes n Opponents/Competition n Not knowing what to do n What others my think of me n Physical preparation n Getting hurt n Fear of failure

Stressors of Combatives Training n Fear of embarrassment n Thinking that I don’t have enough experience n That others may learned faster than me n That I will not be prepared to teach n Fear of letting myself down

WHICH OF ALL THESE ARE UNDER YOUR CONTROL?

Objectives for this Lesson

n Present the concept of arousal and how can affect performance

n Help you identify your optimal level of performance

n Conduct progressive relaxation

Day 1 p.m.

Inverted U Hypothesis of Emotional Arousal

Optimal Level of Performance

n Now that you understand the basic concept, what is your level of optimal performance? n What does it feel for you to be ready? n You need to understand your level so you can better prepare… n How do we get there?

q If it is too high?

q How about if it is too low?

Progressive Relaxation

Day 3 - Morning

Power of Imagery

n Fundamental skill for fighters (Do you use it?) helps learning and can improve performance with practice n Natural mental process used for memory, planning, learning, creating & performing n It can be done from an internal or external view n Let’s practice

Day 3 a.m.

Positive Self-Talk and Cognitive Reconstruction n What is self-talk? q They are our thoughts… what we tell ourselves q These can be very powerful messages! What we tell ourselves influences our feelings and actions. n How often do you use self-talk? q Probably all the time, most of the time is negative n Imagine you just got tapped…what are you saying to yourself? Or if it difficult to pass the guard, what are saying as soon as you are in someone’s guard?

Day 3 p.m.

Burns’ 10 Types of Cognitive Distortions n All or nothing thinking n Overgeneralization n Mental filtering n Disqualifying the positive n Jumping into Conclusions q Mind Reading/Fortune Telling n Magnification n Emotional Reasoning n Labeling n Personalization n Should statements

Cognitive Reconstruction

n Let’s evaluate these Cognitive Distortions

q Do they look familiar?

q How can they be fixed? n Steps to correct cognitive distortions

q Recognize the situation

q Automatic Though

q Physical/Emotional Response

q Cognitive Distortion

q Reframe your thoughts…you are in control

Day 3 p.m.

Day 3 - Afternoon

Objectives of a Pre-Fight Routine n Control proper level of energy n Find the proper focus n Rehearse your pre-fight strategy n Establish Self-confidence n Review a competition focus and refocusing plan n Prepare for distractions and unexpected events n Prepare to work through discomfort, fatigue, and frustration n Stay on task

Components of Pre-Fight Routine

n Positive self-talk n Positives images of past performance n Review your attention and situational awareness cue words n Energy management – what level do YOU perform best (relaxed, middle-ground, or “fired up”)

Pre-Fight Plan

Physical Mental Preparation Preparation Before Arriving at the Combatives Area General Warm Up (45- 30 min before fight) Focused Warm Up (10 min before game) Last Minute (1 min before competition)

Day 3 - Homework

a. Cognitive Reconstruction b. Pre-Fight Routine

Day 4 - Morning

Coping Strategies Application n Let’s mentioned some of the concerns in today’s activity q How can we deal with the distortions n Integrate progressive relaxation to balance the arousal level q Reach your individual zone of optimal performance n Conduct your pre-performance routine q It should include arousal control, imagery, and positive self-talk to defeat concerns or fears about your combatives experience

Day 4 - Afternoon

100

How can these skills be transferred to other military tasks?

n Arousal Regulation n Progressive Muscle Relaxation n Imagery n Positive Self-Talk n Cognitive Reconstruction

Day 4 - Homework

a. Provide two military situations specific to your MOS where you can use mental training skills

101

Day 5 - Morning

Review of all Skills

n Arousal Regulation n Progressive Muscle Relaxation n Imagery n Positive Self-Talk n Cognitive Reconstruction

102

Teaching Basic Mental Skills to Others n Why do I need to teach this to others?

q Combatives instructors

q For the most part, you are volunteers

q It is critical for program support and survival

q It will improve their combatives experience n Basic Instruction of

q Arousal Regulation/Progressive Muscle Relaxation

q Imagery

q Positive Self-Talk

q Cognitive Reconstruction

Questions

103

APPENDIX H: DAILY HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS

104

Coping with Anxiety (Homework 1)

ID NUMBER______

1. Describe stressors of YOUR combatives experience.

2. How do they affect you physiological, cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally?

Cognitively (mind/worry)

Physiological (heart rate, physical reactions)

Emotionally (motivation, how do you feel about the fight)

Behaviorally (what decision do you make due to this emotions)

105

Coping with Anxiety (Homework 2)

ID NUMBER______

1. Think of your best competition ever… a. Describe your level of optimal performance…

b. What did it feel, looked, and sound during your best performance ever?

106

Coping with Anxiety (Homework 3)

ID NUMBER______

1. Cognitive Reconstruction a. Provide situation

b. Automatic thought

c. Physical/emotional response

d. Cognitive distortion

e. Reframe it with the use of self-talk

2. Describe your Pre-Fight Routine

107

Sport Psychology Topic: Pre-Performance Routines

What is a pre-performance routine?

In short, a mental preparation routine consists of specific thoughts, words, images, feelings, and behaviors that you develop to prepare your mind for competition. Each element of your mental routine should help you reach your “ideal mindset” – a mindset that helps you perform at your best. This mental routine often occurs with your physical preparation so as you are warming up your body you are also warming up your mind.

Objectives of a Pre-Competition Routine • Control proper level of energy • Find the proper focus • Rehearse your pre-competition strategy • Establish Self-confidence • Review a competition focus and refocusing plan • Prepare for distractions and unexpected events • Prepare to work through discomfort, fatigue, and frustration • Stay on task

What things do I need to include in my pre-performance routine? • Positive self-talk • Positives images of past performance • Review your attention and situational awareness cue words • Energy management – what level do YOU perform best (relaxed, middle-ground, or “fired up”) Use the table below to create your pre-performance routine for you’re the clinch drill and the tournament. Based on today’s discussion, and your physical warm up routines, think about what you can do to prepare mentally.

Physical Preparation Mental Preparation Before Arriving at the Combatives Area

General Warm Up (45-30 min before fight)

Focused Warm Up (10 min before fight)

Last Minute (1 min before fight)

108

APPENDIX I: QUALITATIVE DATA CODING

109

Theme Code Source Statement or Quote BCKGD AGE C1 26-Years old BCKGD AGE C2 47-Years old BCKGD AGE C3 34-Years old BCKGD AGE C4 37 years old female BCKGD AGE C5 26 years-old SGT BCKGD AGE I1 25 years-old Private First Class BCKGD AGE I2 39 years-old Staff Sergeant from the Reserves BCKGD AGE I3 19 years-old Private First Class BCKGD AGE I4 38-Years old BCKGD AGE I5 19 years-old Specialist BCKGD Status C1 Volunteered Soldier at my unit told me about the training and I volunteer to check it BCKGD Status C2 out. I volunteered for the training because it is a directive from the BCKGD Status C3 Department of the Army. My unit does the training every Friday. Everyone in my unit is level 1 certified. My husband is also level 2 combatives certified. I volunteered BCKGD Status C4 for the training. BCKGD Status C5 I believe that the training is exciting and I volunteered for it Some in my unit told me. Also, everyone in my unit is level 1. Every Friday we do combatives. I was ordered by My commander and first BCKGD Status I1 sergeant. We had some basic combatives training at my unit lead by graduates of this course. I volunteered to attend. They came and demonstrated the BCKGD Status I2 techniques and asked for volunteers to attend the training. Another soldier that works with me told me about the training and my sergeant asked me if I wanted to come. In my unit we do combatives BCKGD Status I3 rarely. We only have one combatives level 1 certified instructor. I wanted to take combatives. Once I enlisted I asked about combatives BCKGD Status I4 training and was told of the new program. My chain of command and a lot of the instructors in the unit. I was chosen to become an instructor. I did not what to expect because many people come back from the training with many stories. I know it is a hard week. It is not as bad as I thought it would be. My squad leader told BCKGD Status I5 me to attend. PER Advantages C1 It teaches soldiers how to survive with any weapon (hands, feet, etc.) PER Advantages C2 Learning new skills to defend myself PER Advantages C3 It makes you a better trained combat soldier.

110

This program helps me with promotions, future deployments, and dealing with struggles of everyday life. Everyday is a fight and we learn PER Advantages C4 to deal with them. Benefits are that it is good training for any soldier no matter their job, PER Advantages C5 size, age, or sex. It gives you confident on your self-defense skills and also in your unit PER Advantages I1 members because you know who can and can’t fight. It think is good for everyone. You never know when you will need these PER Advantages I2 techniques in combat or anywhere else Self-defense in general, being able to use these techniques. In addition, PER Advantages I3 being able to teach others PER Advantages I4 Becoming more confident One of the benefits is to successfully fight at the unit levels. Self-defense PER Advantages I5 and I surely learned to defend myself here. PER Disadvantages C1 No disadvantages. PER Disadvantages C2 No disadvantages. However, the new things that the combatives program require more physical activity and being close to others. It is difficult for many people PER Disadvantages C3 to be close or do close combat with others PER Disadvantages C4 No disadvantages. PER Disadvantages C5 No disadvantages. PER Disadvantages I1 I don’t see any disadvantages I have noticed that some people that are here mandatory, don’t seem to have the heart in to and while working with them, makes the training PER Disadvantages I2 slow and methodical. People not being motivated to participate because they don’t want to do PER Disadvantages I3 it. For me, because I have a lower rank, I can just recommend People in the reserves are not as aware of the training. I would like to PER Disadvantages I4 see more training information. I don’t see many disadvantages other than people get out-of-control and using the techniques outside of the military use like in a bar fight or such. Maybe even to become bullies towards others because they know PER Disadvantages I5 that they can fight Learning how to push the body no matter how tight the situation or how PER Exciting C1 impossible the situation. PER Exciting C2 Learning new skills to defend myself PER Exciting C3 Learning new techniques and moving into close contact with people PER Exciting C4 Learning how to fight and defend against the opposite sex. PER Exciting C5 Actual grappling. PER Exciting I1 Learning new things and being in a different environment

111

I like the learning aspect. I have learned something everyday and as you mentioned, “even when you lose you learn something”. I agree with that, PER Exciting I2 I have been able to relax because of it. PER Exciting I3 Arm bars and choke holds. Because it gives me an advantage in a fight. The individual practice time, when I am allow to practice on my own the PER Exciting I4 skills that they have presented. Learning the chokes and the arm bars because it allows me submit the opponent. I enjoy fighting with others because you can’t underestimate PER Exciting I5 anyone. Being put in positions that I can’t get out of or don’t know how to PER Challenging C1 respond to. PER Challenging C2 Nothing, just the fighting Overcoming my non-aggressive behavior and allowing people to enter PER Challenging C3 into my personal space. Differences between males and females (strength wise) is the most challenging part. If you have to fight male soldiers, it is very frustrating. PER Challenging C4 We have to learn to deal with that. PER Challenging C5 Learning all the moves and counters PER Challenging I1 Trying to remember the individual steps. A lot of different moves to learn That not everyone is at the same level and they are using techniques that we don’t recognize in order to win. To me that is intimidating, on the PER Challenging I2 other hand, I have learned those techniques… The only thing I have trouble with is that is very physically demanding. I PER Challenging I3 get tired quickly. I am here to learn but some others may not be. Or at least that is the way PER Challenging I4 that it feels. PER Challenging I5 Learning your opponents’ strategy so you can adjust to it It depends on the fighter that I am presenting with. If it is bigger opponent than I worry about if they are stronger than me and what I need to do to survive this fight. If they are smaller and faster what do I need to do with them. I am concerned about being able to adjust my fight EMO Emotions C1 plan to be able to defeat my opponent.

For me, it is just a learning tool to better myself as well as my fellow soldiers. With me, I have always been anxious. When I fight I always suffer from anxiety. I get very nervous just fighting others. In practice is not that much but once it becomes a real fight, then I become a wreck mentally. It does clouds my fight plan…I have also noticed that when I go in front of a crowd, it also affects me. I think I am my worst enemy…I EMO Emotions C2 defeat myself with my thinking.

112

Anxiety and how to get out of the situation as quickly as possible. Every time I fight with a bigger opponent. If I let them into certain positions I EMO Emotions C3 will have a big disadvantage. Most of my reactions are cognitive… EMO Emotions C4 I feel a bit of fear of getting hurt and if I start to lose I feel anger A little nervous…I don’t want to get choked out, no one wants to get choked out. Part of the anxiety related to fighting people you work with EMO Emotions C5 all the time. It becomes uncomfortable because we don’t know. I get nervous because you don’t know how the fights are going to end up. EMO Emotions I1 I really applied the techniques to relax, they have been very useful. Anxious, unsure still what I want or what to do. I get frustrated because it. The mental training has helped me relax and enjoy the training a bit EMO Emotions I2 more as the week goes along. In here, I don’t care if I win or lose. In my unit, I will try to win all the EMO Emotions I3 time because I am competitive but is ok if I lose. Anxious and I don’t know how to turn that off. It is a lot of information EMO Emotions I4 to take in a couple of days For the first 10 seconds I feel nervous because you don’t know what to expect from the fight. After the bell rings I am ready to go. I have learned to relaxed my body. I am confident about my skills as the week EMO Emotions I5 goes by I just think about them (my options) a lot. I try to turn them into energy COP Coping C1 to help me fight. COP Coping C2 I just confront my fights and hope that they will stop once the fight stops Get involved quick to get it over. I try to confront the fight as much as COP Coping C3 possible. Try to get it done… I pray. Self-statements “don’t get choke out”…getting choke out is the COP Coping C4 most embarrassing. Self-doubt and question myself… I do a lot of self-instruction…I think about others that have made to the COP Coping C5 program…but if they were able, so would I. COP Coping I1 I try to stay calm. The breathing exercise has helped me a lot on this. I started to use visualization and go through the moves in my head before a fight. I have learned to use these strategies to help me during COP Coping I2 the training. I have been using the imagery and it works for me. I like to see the many COP Coping I3 options available before I fight. When I get anxious, I work very hard and that drains my energy levels. COP Coping I4 However, I have been able to relax with the breathing exercises. COP Coping I5 I try to see the way I will fight on my mind and then try relax. I have learned to use my experience to help me create different ADP Adaptation C1 variations of moves and counter attacks.

113

ADP Adaptation C2 Because all the fighting I have done, I am just feeling things through. I seem to pick up techniques as soon as I try them. Then I have been able ADP Adaptation C3 to catch myself to fix the little things. I try to learn as much as I can and to create protections to deal with the ADP Adaptation C4 training. ADP Adaptation C5 Don't have choice but to deal with it ADP Adaptation I1 The more I learn to relax, the easiest it is for me to get motivated. ADP Adaptation I2 I have learned to relax my body I am trying to learn as much as possible. So all the information provided ADP Adaptation I3 has been useful and I am trying to implement it. I am less tense that once I first started. I have been able to calm my ADP Adaptation I4 breathing and pace myself during the training. ADP Adaptation I5 I have learned to relax my body. FPLNS Future Plans C1 I intent to get certified level 2 before I leave for Germany. FPLNS Future Plans C2 I want to return for level 2 and level 3 in the future I plan to return for level 2 and to implement combatives as PT for my FPLNS Future Plans C3 soldiers I want to continue to train and move to higher levels. It is important to me. I want to continue to continue to the highest level “I would like too, FPLNS Future Plans C4 but I don’t know if my body would allow it” I want to return for level 2 and become the primary instructor for my FPLNS Future Plans C5 unit. FPLNS Future Plans I1 I would like to go to level 2. FPLNS Future Plans I2 I will to return for level 2 once my unit allows me to return FPLNS Future Plans I3 I would like to go all the way to level 4. FPLNS Future Plans I4 I would like to go all the way to level 4 FPLNS Future Plans I5 I will to return for level 2 because my squad leader already told me..

114

APPENDIX J: CONSENT FORM

115

116

APPENDIX K: CONSENT FORM (QUALITATIVE PORTION)

117

118

APPENDIX L: HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTER

119

Office of the Vice President For Research Human Subjects Committee Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742 (850) 644-8673 . FAX (850) 644-4392

APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date: 7/12/2007

To: Hector Morales-Negron

Address: 6929 Tomy Lee Tr Tallahassee, FL 32309 Dept.: EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND LEARNING SYSTEMS

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research Self-efficacy, State Anxiety, and Motivation during Mandatory Combatives Training

The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the research proposal referenced above has been reviewed by the Human Subjects Committee at its meeting on 6/13/2007 2:00:00 PM. Your project was approved by the Committee.

The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be required.

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be used in recruiting research subjects.

If the project has not been completed by 7/8/2008 you must request a renewal of approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the Committee.

You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.

120

By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor is reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.

This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance Number is IRB00000446.

Cc: Robert Eklund, Advisor HSC No. 2007.531

121

REFERENCES Altmaier, E. M., Ross, S. L., Leary, M. R., & Thombrough, M. T. (1982). Matching stress inoculation's treatment components to client's anxiety mode. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 331-334.

Al-Darmaki, F.R (2004). Counselor training, anxiety, and counseling self-efficacy: implications for training psychology students from the united emirates university. Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 429-440.

Anthony, M.O. (1995). The use of basic karate techniques to increase self-efficacy. Dissertation Abstracts International, (UMI Number 3159468)

Bandura, A., Adams, N.E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 287-308

Bandura, A. (1986a). Social foundation of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986b). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 359-373

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Barak, Y., Bodner, E., Klayman, N., Ring, A., & Elizur, A. (2000). Anxiety among Israeli soldiers during the gulf war. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 250, 3, 148-151.

Beehr, T.A., McGrath, J.E. (1996). The methodology of research on coping: Conceptual, strategic, and operational-level issues. In Handbook of Coping Theory, Research, Applications. Zeidner, M. & Endler, N.S. (Eds.): 65–82. Wiley. New York.

Brent, M.E. (2004). A cognitive behavioral stress management intervention for Division I collegiate student-athletes. Dissertation Abstracts International, (UMI Number 3148373)

Burton, D. (1988). Do anxious swimmers swim slower? Reexamining the elusive anxiety performance relationship. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 45-61.

Chamberlain, S.T., Hale, B.D. (2007). Competitive state anxiety and self-confidence: intensity and direction as relative predictors of performance on a golf putting task. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 20, 197-208.

Clemons, E.P. (1996). Monitoring anxiety levels and coping skills among military recruits. Military Medicine, 161, 18-21.

122

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cottyn, J., De Clercq, D., Pannier, J., Crombez, G., & Lenoir, M. (2006, February). The measurement of competitive anxiety during balance beam performance in gymnasts. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 157-164.

Cox, R. H., Robb, M., & Russell, W. D. (2000). Concurrent validity of the revised Anxiety Rating Scale (ARS-2). Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 327-334.

Craft, L.L., Magyar, M., Becker, B.J., Feltz, D.L. (2003). The relationship between the competitive state anxiety inventory – 2 and sport performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 44-65.

Crocker, P.R. (1989). Evaluating stress management training under competition conditions. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 191-204.

Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.

Davenport, T.J. (2006). Perception of the contribution of psychology to success in elite kickboxing. Journal of Sport Science and Medicine, CSSI, 99-107.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39–80). New York: Academic.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). The general causality orientations scale: Self- determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109–134.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of Self-Determination Research. New York: Boydell and Brewer.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237–288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Dhoot, J (2005). Psyched Up. Grappling, 5 (12), 53-57.

123

Duarte, A. F., Ribas, P.R., Ribeiro, L.C. (2004). Effects of military parachutists' experience on anxiety variables in different moments of a nocturnal jump. Medicine & Science in Sport and Exercise, 36, 260-261.

Dzewaltowski, D.A. (1989). Toward a model of exercise motivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 251-269.

Endler, N.S., Speer, R.L., Johnson, J.M., Flett, G.L. (2001). General self-efficacy and control in relation to anxiety and cognitive performance. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 20 (1), 36-52.

Fairclough, S.H. (2006). Anxiety and performance in the British driving test. Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 9 (1), 43-52

Ford, M. (1992). Motivating Humans: goals, emotions, and personal agency belief. Boston: Sage

Feltz, D.L. (1982). Path analysis of the casual elements in Bandura’s theory of self- efficacy and anxiety based model of avoidance behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 764-781.

Feltz, D.L., Chase, M.A. (1998). The measurement of self-efficacy and self-confidence in sport. In J.L. Duda (Ed.)., Advances in Exercise and Sport Psychology Measurement, 65-78, Fitness Information Technologies Inc.; Morgantown, WV.

Fox, K.R. (1997). The physical self: from motivation to well-being. Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics

Frederick-Recascino, C., & Schuster-Smith, H. (2003, September). Competition and intrinsic motivation in physical activity: a comparison of two groups. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 240-254.

Frederick, C., Morrison, C., & Manning, T. (1996). Motivation to participate, exercise affect, and outcome behaviors toward physical activity. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 82, 691-701.

Gill, D.L. (2000). Psychological dynamics of sport and exercise (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics

Gould, D., Petlichkoff, L., Simons, J., & Vevera, M. (1987). Relationship between competitive state anxiety Inventory-2 subscale scores and pistol shooting performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 33-42.

Grolnick, W.S. & Ryan, R.M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: an experimental and individual difference investigation. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 322-340.

124

Guay, R, Vallerand, R.J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of state intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The situational motivation scale (SMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24, 175-213.

Hardy, L., Mullen, R., & Jones, G. (1996). Knowledge and conscious control of motor actions under stress. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 621-636.

Harris, W.C., Hancock, P.A., & Harris, S.C. (2005). Information processing changes following extended stress. Military Psychology, 17, 115-128.

Hulya, A.F., Demirhan, G., Koca, C., & Cem, D. (2006). Precompetitive anxiety and affective state of climbers in indoor climbing competition. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 102, 394-404.

Hussain, R., & Lawrence, S. (1978). The reduction of test, state, and trait anxiety by test specific and generalized stress inoculation training. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 2, 25-37.

Jaremko, M. (1983). Stress inoculation training for social anxiety with emphasis on dating anxiety. In D. Meichenbaum and M. Jaremko (Eds.) Stress reduction and prevention. New York: Plenum Press.

Jones, G., & Hanton, S. (2001). Pre-competitive feeling states and directional anxiety interpretations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 385-395.

Kais, K., & Raudsepp, L. (2005). Intensity and direction of competitive state anxiety, self-confidence, and athletic performance. Kinesiology, 37, 13-20

Krane, V. (1994). The mental readiness form as a measure of competitive state anxiety. Sport Psychologist, 8, 189-202.

Krane, V., Williams, J., & Feltz, D. (1992). Path analysis examining relationships among cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, state confidence, performance expectations, and golf performance. Journal of Sport Behavior, 15, 279-295.

Kleining, G. & Witt, H. (2000). The qualitative heuristic approach: A methodology for discovery in psychology and the social scienes. Rediscovering the method of introspection as an example [19 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 1(1). Extracted from http://qualitative-research.net/fqs on 20 September 2006

Klauer, T., Filipp, S.H. (1993). Trier Scales on Coping with Physical Illness. Göttingen: Germany

125

Lane, A.M., Hall, R., & Lane, J. (2002). Development of a measure of self-efficacy specific to statistic courses in sport. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport, and Tourism Education, 11, 2,

Lane, J., Lane, A.M. (2001). Self-Efficacy and academic performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 687-694.

Lazarus, R.S. (1986). Stress: Appraisal and coping capabilities. How to define and research stress. Washington, D.C., American Psychiatric Press.

Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press. London.

Lazarus, R.S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress appraisal and coping. New York: Springer Publishing.

Lemyre, P.N., Treasure, D.C., & Roberts, G.C. (2006). Influence of Variability in Motivation and Affect on Elite Athlete Burnout Susceptibility. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 28, 32-48.

Liao, C.M., Masters, R.S.W. (2002). Self-focused attention and performance failure under psychological stress. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 289-305.

Litt, M.D. (1988). Self-efficacy and perceived control: Cognitive mediators of pain tolerance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 149-160.

Lynn, D.C. (1999). The relationship between stress and self-efficacy of secondary school administrators in southwestern Ontario. Dissertation.

Maehr, M.L., Braskamp, L.A. (1986). The motivation factor: a theory of personal investment. Lexington, MA: Lexington

Mammasis, G., Doganis, G. (2004). The effects of a mental training program on juniors pre-competitive anxiety, self-confidence, and tennis performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 118-137.

Marchant, D.B., Morris, T., & Anderson, M.B. (1998). Perceived importance of outcome as a contributing factors in competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21, 71-92.

Malone, E. (2005). The Mental Edge. Grappling, 5, 46-51.

Marquez, D.X., Jerome, G.J., McAuley, E., Snook, E.M., Canaklisova, S. (2002). Self- efficacy manipulation and state anxiety responses to exercise in low active women. Psychology and Health, 17, 783-791.

126

Marquez, D.X., McAuley, E. (2001). Physique anxiety and self-efficacy influences on perceptions of physical evaluation. Social Behavior and Personality, 29, 649-660.

Martens, R., Vealey, R.S., & Burton, D. (1990). Competitive anxiety in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

McAuley, E., Courneya, K.S., Rudolph, D.L., & Cox, C.L. (1994). Enhancing exercise adherence in middle-aged males and females. Preventive medicine, 23, 498-506.

McGrath, J.E. (1970). A Conceptual Formulation for Research on Stress, Social and Psychological Factors in Stress. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive behavioral modification: An integrative approach. New York: Plenum Press

Meichenbaum, D. (1994). A clinical handbook/practical therapist manual for assessing and treating adults with post traumatic stress disorder. Waterloo, Ontario: Institute Press.

Meichenbaum, D. (1996). Stress inoculation training for coping with stressors. The Clinical Psychologist, 49, 4-7.

Milton, M. (2004). Being a fighter: It is a whole state of being. Existential Analysis, 15, 116-130

Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nichols, J.G. (1984). Achievement motivation: conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.

Nichols, J.G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Polman, R., Rowcliffe, N., Borkoles, E., & Levy, A. (2007). Precompetitive state anxiety, objective and subjective performance, and causal attributions in competitive swimmers. Pediatric Exercise Science, 19. 39-50.

Ries, A.L., Kaplan, R.M., Limberg, T.M., & Prewitt, L.M. (1995). Effects of pulmonary rehabilitation on physiologic and psychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Annals of Internal Medicine, 122, 823-832.

127

Roberts, G.C., Treasure, D.C., Conroy, D.E. (2007). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in sport and physical activity: an achievement goal interpretation. In G. Tenenbaum & R.C. Eklund (Eds.) Handbook of Sport Psychology (3rd Ed.), Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Ross, M.J., Berger, R.S. (1996). Effects of stress inoculation training on athletes' post surgical pain and rehabilitation after orthopedic injury. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 406-410

Ryan, R., Frederick, C., Lepes, D., Rubio, N., & Sheldon, K. (1997). Intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 335-354.

Sallis, J.F., Hovell, M.F., Hofstetter, C.R., & Barrington, E. (1992). Explanation of vigorous physical activity during two years using social learning variables. Social Science and Medicine, 34, 25-32.

Standage, M., Duda, J.L., Treasure, D.C., Prusac, K.A. (2003). Validity, reliability, and invariance of the situational motivation scale (SIMS) across diverse physical activity contexts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 19-25.

Sisterhen, L.A. (2005). The use of imagery, mental practice, and relaxation techniques for musical performance enhancement. Dissertation Abstracts International, (UMI Number 3174357)

Smith, R. E. (1980). A cognitive-affective approach to stress management training for athletes. In C. H. Nadeau, W. R. Halliwell, K. M. Newell, and G. C. Roberts (Eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Press.

Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Spielberger, C. D. (1980). Test Anxiety Inventory. Preliminary professional manual. Palo alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Spielberger, C.D. (1989). Stress and anxiety in sports. In D. Hackfort & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Anxiety in sports: An international perspective (pp. 3-20). New York: Hemisphere Publishers.

Sprengel, A.D., Job, L. (2004). Reducing Student Anxiety by Using Clinical Peer Mentoring With Beginning Nursing Students. Nurse Educator, 29(6). 246-250.

Tapia, M., Marsh, J.E. (2004). The relationship of math anxiety and gender. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8, 125-178.

128

Tsorbatzoudis, H., Alexandris, K., Zahariadis, P., & Grouios, G. (2006). Examining the relationship between recreational sport participation and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and amotivation. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 103, 363-374.

Vallerand, R.J., Bissonnettee, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: a prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599-620.

Vallerand, R.J. (2007). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation in sport and physical activity. A review and look to the future. In G. Tenenbaum & R.C. Eklund (Eds.) Handbook of Sport Psychology (3rd Ed.), Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Vealey, R. S. (2005). Coaching for the inner edge. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Wallenious, C., Larsson, G., & Johansson, C.R. (2004). Military observers’ reaction and performance when facing danger. Military Psychology, 16, 211-229.

Weitlauf, J.C., Cervone, D., Smith, R.E., & Wright, P.M. (2001), Assessing generalization in perceived self-efficacy: multidomain and global assessments of the effects of self-defense training for women. Personality of Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1683-1691.

Wilson, P. & Eklund, R.C. (1998). The relationship between the competitive anxiety and self-presentational concerns. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20, 81-97.

Williams, J. M., & Leffingwell, T. R. (1996). Cognitive strategies in sport and exercise psychology. In J. L. VanRaalte & B. W. Brewer (Eds.). Exploring Sport and Exercise Psychology. Washington, D.C.: APA.

Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Wolpe, J. (1961). Systematic desensitization treatment of neurosis. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 132, 189-203.

Woodman, T., & Hardy, L. (2003). The relative impact of cognitive anxiety and self- confidence upon sport performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 443-457.

Yerkes, R.M. & Dodson, J.D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459-482.

129

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

HECTOR R. MORALES-NEGRON

CIVILIAN EDUCATION

PhD, Educational Psychology and Learning Systems, Sport and Exercise Psychology (Present)

American Sport Education Program Coaching Principles Course (1999)

M.Ed., Education, Kinesiology, University of Georgia (1998)

Group Exercise Leader, American Council of Exercise (1998)

Exercise Leader, American College of Sports Medicine (1993)

B.A., Education, Kinesiology, University of Puerto Rico (1990)

MILITARY EDUCATION

U.S. Army Combatives Level I-IV Course (2003-2006)

U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (2002).

Naval War College National Decision Making Process Course (1999).

Navy War College Strategy and Policy Course (1998).

U.S. Army Air Defense Officer Advanced Course. Fort Bliss Texas (1995).

U.S. Army Master Fitness Trainer Course (1993).

MILITARY EXPERIENCE

Academy Professor of Physical Education, U.S. Military Academy at West Point (present)

Battalion Executive Officer (2004-2005).

Battalion Training and Operations Officer (2003-2004)

Assistant Division Air Defense Officer- 2nd Infantry Division, Korea (2002-2003)

Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Education, U.S. Military Academy (1998-2001)

Commander, A Battery, 5-2 ADA, Bamberg, GE, Slovinski Brod, Croatia SFOR (1996-1997)

Commander, Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 69th ADA, Giebelstatd, Germany, Kaposvar, Hungary, IFOR (1995-1996)

130

Officer Basic Course Instructor and Mentor, Fort Bliss TX (1994-1995). Executive Officer, B Battery, 2-5 ADA Fort Hood, TX (1993-1994).

Platoon Leader, B Battery, 3-3 ADA Fort Polk, LA (1991-1993).

FIELD EXPERIENCES

Gold’s Gym Tallahassee Applied Exercise Psychology Consultant (Present).

Assistant Coach, Peak Mental Performance, Tallahassee Community College Baseball Club (Present).

Tallahassee Titans, Traveling Baseball Peak Mental Performance Coach (Present) – Working with the young athletes on the development of the mental aspects of their game. Developed a handbook for the young athletes to keep track of all the lessons and to communicate with the performance enhance coach with questions and issues related to their mental game. In coordination with the coaches, have integrated mental strategies into the pitching practice routines.

High School Wrestling Sports Psychology Consultant (2005-06) – Worked with the athletes in performance enhancement issues. Themes included: pre-competitive anxiety, control of arousal levels, goal setting, and performance tracking. The interactions included presentations, activities, and discussions for the entire team and one-on-one consultations with the varsity athletes.

Leach Physical Fitness Center Applied Sport Psychology (2005-06) – Provided orientation, guidance, and goal setting strategies to the personal trainers and group exercise leaders at the Leach Physical Fitness Center. Created a strategy to assist individual exercises in goal setting, motivation to stay in the program, and strategies for fitness success. Lead a group of sport psychology consultants to assist the clients directly with the mental aspects of exercise participation and adherence.

USA Judo E Level Coaches Clinic Sport Psychology (2005) – Prepared and provided guidance for the sport psychology educational requirements of the E and D level USA Judo Coaches.

Master Combatives Trainer, Fort Bliss, Texas (2004). - During this time, the only field grade officer Modern Army Combatives level-IV certified instructor in the U.S. Army. Responsible for implementing the level I and Level II certification program for the Air and Missile Defense Brigades, the PLDC, ANOC, BNOC, and OES cadre at Fort Bliss. The Fort Bliss’ Combatives program will be utilized as a model for combatives post level implementation Army wide.

Instructor, University of Texas at El Paso Assistant Professor (2004). Instruct part-time physical conditioning, beginner Judo, and Women’s self-defense courses at the UTEP’s physical activity classes program.

U.S. Standardized Physical Readiness Program Instructor (2003). As the Battalion Training Officer lead and organized the Unit’s train-the-trainer program to execute the new Army Standardized Physical Readiness program.

131

2nd Infantry Division Sports Festivals Organizer (2003). Responsible for the organization, coordination, and successful completion of two major divisional sporting events. The KATUSA-US appreciation week and the Warrior Division Sports Festival in coordination with local MWR officials. Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Education, USMA (1998-2001). As an AP of physical education, instructed more than 10 different courses to include; Boxing, Close Quarters Combat, Advanced Unarmed Combat, Basketball, Soccer, Exercise to Music, Strength Development, Muscular Fitness Lab, fitness and wellness, personal fitness, and unit fitness. Director of the Women’s Self Defense program 1999-2001 and developed the 1st Judo Elective Course at the U.S. Military Academy.

U.S. Military Academy Youth Program Martial Arts Instructor, Basketball Referee, and Baseball Umpire and Coach (1998-2001). - During my tour of duty at the military academy, volunteered to participate in Youth Services events as an instructor and referee of many sporting events.

4th Degree Black Belt, Kodokan Judo (1980-Present). -As judo athlete, have participated on several levels of competition (regional, National, and International). -Armed Forces Athlete. 1995 Armed Forces Judo Champion, 1995 and 1999 U.S. Military World Games Judo Team Member. -Head Coach of the West Point Army Judo team 1998-2001. 2000-2001 Eastern Collegiate Judo Association Coach of the Year. -Assistant Coach to the U.S. 2000 World University Games Team. -Selected as an Assistant Coach for the 2001 Jr. Pan-American Judo Championships (Could not attend due to military duties). -Head Coach for the 2003, 2004, 2006, and 2007 U.S. Armed Forces Judo Teams. -Collegiate Champion for UPR. -USA Judo National Referee.

Graduate Student University of Georgia (1997-1998).

As a UGA student, I was provided the opportunity to develop a Judo and Self Defense course that was instructed for two academic sessions. In addition, instructed a self- defense seminar for all the PE teachers during 1998 UGA Physical Education Summer Conference and instructed running and walking classes.

PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS/PUBLICATIONS

Motivation, Goal Setting, and Adherence (2007). Lead instructor in a continuing education credit course for personal trainers. Developed and presented a program to teach personal trainers how to motivate their clients to better improve their commitment to exercise behaviors.

Developing Leadership among Players (2007). Morales-Negron, Basevitch, and Eccles. Insight Magazine, Publication of the British Football Association.

Chiles High School Baseball Program Boosters Presenter (2006) – Provided parents and coaches with a presentation about goal setting specifically designed for baseball athletes.

132

Cognitive Appraisals of a Lifetime of Judo Participation: A Qualitative Heuristic Study (2006) – Poster Session 2006 Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology Conference. Miami, Florida

Training the Minds outside Sports and Educating the Future Athletes: Applied Sport Psychology Opportunities for the Graduate Students (2006) – Poster Session 2006 Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology Conference. Miami, Florida

Dealing with Change and Unexpected Situations: Effective Mental Strategies for Pitchers at All Levels (2006). Florida State Applied Sport Psychology Newsletter.

Motivation for Continued Participation (2006). Key Note Speaker at the 60-day fitness challenge program, Gold’s Gym Tallahassee, Florida

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (AAHPERD) National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE) Association of Applied Sports Psychology (AASP) Council of International Military Sports (C.I.S.M.) Judo Technical Committee USA Judo U.S. Judo Association U.S. Judo Federation American Tae Kwon Do Foundation Modern Combatives Arts Association

133