Doctor of Philosophy

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STATE ANXIETY AND SELF-EFFICACY AMONG ATHLETES

THESIS

SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF Doctor of Philosophy

IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION

By DILSHAD ALI

Under the Supervision of Dr. Kabir Shah Khan

DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL HEALTH AND SPORTS EDUCATION, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY, ALIGARH-202002, INDIA. 2012

Dedicated to My Parents

Department of Physical Health & Sports Education Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh-202002 (U.P.)

Mob. No. 09837265848 Dr. Kabir Shah Khan Associate Professor E-mail: [email protected]

Date:………………………..

Certificate

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF STATE ANXIETY AND SELF-EFFICACY AMONG ATHLETES” carried out by Mr. Dilshad Ali for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy in Physical Education under my supervision, is an original contribution and adds substantially to the existing treasure of knowledge in the discipline of physical education and allied sciences. The thesis is fit for submission to the examiners for evaluation.

It is further certified that Mr. Dilshad Ali has fulfilled the prescribed conditions of duration and nature given in the Statutes and Ordinances of the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.

(Dr. Kabir Shah Khan) Supervisor Acknowledgments

First, and foremost, I would like to thank Almighty Allah, for his grace and

blessings blustered upon me during this period. Without Him, nothing is possible in

the world.

No words are adequate to express my sentiments of everlasting gratitude to

my venerable teacher and intellectual supervisor Dr. Kabir Shah Khan, Associate

Professor, Department of Physical Health & Sports Education, Aligarh Muslim

University, Aligarh, under whose continuous guidance, valuable suggestions and encouragement in my work, I am able to complete this thesis.

I shall not be successful in my duties if I do not give my heartiest thanks to

Prof. Ikram Hussain, Chairman, Department of Physical Health & Sports

Education, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, for his positive encouragement,

and providing me essential research facilities in the department.

Scholar also, conveys his sincere thanks and respect to Dr. Syed Tariq

Murtaza, Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Health & Sports

Education, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, who helped me in completing this

manuscript.

I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to my teachers Prof. Jaowad

Ali, Dr. Rajendra Singh, Dr. Brij Bhusan Singh, Dr. Zamirullah Khan and non-

teaching staff, Department of Physical Health & Sports Education A.M.U.,

Aligarh for their encouragement and motivation for this academic endeavour. Acknowledgements

I also grasp this opportunity to express my heartiest thanks to my incredible network of family. Finally, I am seriously indebted to my Father Mr. Abdul Kayom

Khan, Mother Mrs. Shakeela Begum, Sister Afsana Parveen and Brothers Mohd.

Shabuddeen, Irshad Ali, Mohd. Soil, Samshul Ali for their immense love, prayers and support, without which this work would have not been accomplished in target time. To the click, Shabana Parveen who is my beloved fiancée thanks for encouragement during this work.

I would like to give thanks to my seniors, Dr. Abdul Azeej Khan, Murad Ali

Khan and my fellow researcher friends Shamim Ahmad, Zeeshan Haider, Asim

Khan, Mohd Arshad Bari, Arif Mohammad, Sartaj Khan and Mohd Abdul Moid

Siddiqui for sharing thoughts and support during course of this study.

Last but not least a deep sense of appreciations is due to all the players who acted as subjects for the study, as well as organizing committee of All India

Intervarsity Athletic Championship, University of Chennai, without their voluntary and wholehearted support and cooperation this study could not have been completed.

And finally, I with all my devotions, put forward this research work of mine to all those who have contributed, without which my work would not have seen fulfillment.

Dilshad Ali Contents

Page No. Certificate Acknowledgements List of Tables i-ii List of Figures iii-iv Chapter – I Introduction 1-27 Statement of the Problem Objectives of the Study Hypotheses Limitation of the Study Delimitation of the Study Definition and Explanation of Technical Terms Significance of the Study Chapter-II Review of Related Literature 28-62 Chapter-III Methodology 63-71 Sample Tools Procedure of Data Collection Statistical Analysis Chapter-IV Results and Discussion 72-135 Chapter-V Conclusions, Suggestions and Recommendations 136-140 References 141-162 Appendices Personal Data Form 163-166 Competitive State Anxiety Inventory -2 General Self-Efficacy List of Tables

Table Page Contents No. No. Showing difference between high and low performance 1 73 athletes on competitive state anxiety Showing difference between high and low performance 1.1 75 athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable Showing difference between high performance track and 2 77 field athletes on competitive state anxiety Showing difference between high performance track and 2.1 79 field athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable Showing difference between low performance track and 3 81 field athletes on competitive state anxiety Showing difference between low performance track and 3.1 83 field athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable Showing difference between high and low performance 4 85 track athletes on competitive state anxiety Showing difference between high and low performance 4.1 87 track athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable Showing difference between male and female high 5 89 performance track athletes on competitive state anxiety Showing difference between male and female high 5.1 performance track athletes on competitive state anxiety 91 sub-variable Showing difference between male and female low 6 93 performance track athletes on competitive state anxiety Showing difference between male and female low 6.1 performance track athletes on competitive state anxiety 95 sub-variable Showing difference between high and low performance 7 97 field athletes on competitive state anxiety Showing difference between high and low performance 7.1 99 field athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable Showing difference between male and female high 8 101 performance field athletes on competitive state anxiety

Showing difference between male and female high 8.1 performance field athletes on competitive state anxiety 103 sub-variable Showing difference between male and female low 9. 105 performance field athletes on competitive state anxiety Showing difference between male and female low 9.1 performance field athletes on competitive state anxiety 107 sub-variable Showing difference between high and low performance 10 109 athletes on self-efficacy Showing difference between high performance track and 11 111 field athletes on self-efficacy Showing difference between low performance track and 12 113 field athletes on self-efficacy Showing difference between high and low performance 13 115 track athletes on self-efficacy Showing difference between male and female high 14 117 performance track athletes on self-efficacy Showing difference between male and female low 15 119 performance track athletes on self-efficacy Showing difference between high and low performance 16 121 field athletes on self-efficacy Showing difference between male and female high 17 123 performance field athletes on self-efficacy Showing difference between male and female low 18 125 performance field athletes on self-efficacy

List of the Figures

Figure Page Contents No. No. Showing mean difference between high and low 1 74 performance athletes on competitive state anxiety Showing mean difference between high and low 1.1 performance athletes on competitive state anxiety sub- 76 variable Showing mean difference between high performance 2 78 track and field athletes on competitive state anxiety Showing mean difference between high performance 2.1 track and field athletes on competitive state anxiety sub- 80 variable Showing mean difference between low performance 3 82 track and field athletes on competitive state anxiety Showing mean difference between low performance 3.1 track and field athletes on competitive state anxiety sub- 84 variable Showing mean difference between high and low 4 86 performance track athletes on competitive state anxiety Showing mean difference between high and low 4.1 performance track athletes on competitive state anxiety 88 sub-variable Showing mean difference between male and female 5 high performance track athletes on competitive state 90 anxiety Showing difference between male and female high 5.1 performance track athletes on competitive state anxiety 92 sub-variable Showing mean difference between male and female low 6 94 performance track athletes on competitive state anxiety Showing mean difference between male and female low 6.1 performance track athletes on competitive state anxiety 96 sub-variable

iii

Showing mean difference between high and low 7 98 performance field athletes on competitive state anxiety Showing mean difference between high and low 7.1 performance field athletes on competitive state anxiety 100 sub-variable Showing mean difference between male and female high 8 102 performance field athletes on competitive state anxiety Showing mean difference between male and female high 8.1 performance field athletes on competitive state anxiety 104 sub-variable Showing mean difference between male and female low 9. 106 performance field athletes on competitive state anxiety Showing mean difference between male and female low 9.1 performance field athletes on competitive state anxiety 108 sub-variable Showing mean difference between high and low 10 110 performance athletes on self-efficacy Showing mean difference between high performance 11 112 track and field athletes on self efficacy Showing mean difference between low performance 12 114 track and field athletes on self-efficacy Showing mean difference between high and low 13 116 performance track athletes on self-efficacy Showing mean difference between male and female high 14 118 performance track athletes on self-efficacy Showing mean difference between male and female low 15 120 performance track athletes on self-efficacy Showing mean difference between high and low 16 122 performance field athletes on self-efficacy Showing mean difference between male and female high 17 124 performance field athletes on self-efficacy Showing mean difference between male and female low 18 126 performance field athletes on self-efficacy

CHAPTER–I Introduction

Chapter-I

Introduction

Sports and games became a focal point to establishing a strong relationship wherever we lived. It is a familiar and comfortable venue for connection with each other because sport is a complex activity, which become a sort of war on human muscles and mind. We have witnessed a revolution in the wide arena of sports. Now a day’s one of the most

challenging tasks for athletes is how they improve psychological

behaviour and performance in competitive sports. It has been previously

conceded that psycho-physiological conditioning programs and

traditionally skill practices are of crucial importance in high-level

competitive sports, which highly affects an athlete’s performance.

It has been caused due to the scientific approach and their

application in sports. The modern science of psychology has established

beyond doubt that some of the characteristic and qualities are inherited

while others are acquired, especially in the context of sports, through

constant participation, practice, and performance over a period of time

(Kamlesh, 2004). However, it is extremely difficult to distinguish

Introduction between what and how much is genetically inherited and what and how much is acquired through efforts.

Athletics was very popular and unique sports in the in 776 B.C. It is a collection of sports events that involve running, throwing and jumping. The first race of record is noted to have taken place at the first

Olympic Festival in Ancient Rome in 776 B.C. During these times, the

Olympics remained the main stage for all track and field events and it only displayed such events every four years. The first college athletics competition was held between Oxford and Cambridge in1864, and it was included in the first modern Olympic which was organized at Athens

(Greece) in 1896 and has formed its backbone since. Female were first allowed to participate in track and field events in the Olympics in 1928

because both male and female do not participate against each other.

Female generally run the same distances as male although hurdles and

steeplechase barriers are lower and the weights of the shot, discus, javelin and hammer are lesser.

If we talk about the Indian athletes performances in the track and field condition so far, it can be said that the Indian athletes have a rich tradition of brilliant performances in the international competition. India has produced a lot of successful athletes at national and international

Introduction level. The most successful and famous Indian athletes include the names of Jeev Milkha Singh, T.C. Yohannan, Gurbachan Singh, Sriram Singh etc. All of these athletes are considered as the golden boys for Indian athletics in its initial period. In present, among the most successful Indian athletics like P. T. Usha, Anju Bobby George, Jyotirmoyee Sikdar,

Saraswati Saha and Soma Biswas etc. A part from them, there are also some other athletes who are showing the signs to become successful in the international tournaments in the near future. Keeping in mind all the phases in the evolution of Athletics in India, it can be said that Athletics has shown a continuous trend of improvement so far and it is showing some promising signs for the future performance.

In present sporting environment, sport scientists and sports psychologists have the capacity and ability to search and find out those invisible factors which directly and indirectly support towards the enhancement of athlete’s performance. Sports related scientific research and development in India has not been able to keep pace with international standard in the wide arena of sport psychology, exercise physiology, sport training methods, kinesiology, sports medicine and injury management etc. To achieve the highest and economical performance in the field of games and sports at national and international

Introduction level, a positive attention should be given towards research development in sports sciences and its allied field.

Sports Psychology

The term sports psychology is defined as the study of psychological and mental factors affecting participation in sport, exercise, and physical activities and the application of the knowledge thus gained to everyday setting (LeUnes & Nation, 2002). Coleman Griffith, the father of sports psychology, introduced the concept of sports psychology in 1925 by teaching the first sports psychology class at the University of

Illinois. Today, the field of sports psychology continues to make positive contributions to both competitive athletics and the world of sports. The significance of psychological factors for performance enhancement has been forcefully stressed by many experts (Singer & Kane, 1975; Brook &

Whiting, 1975; Bull, 1995). They advocated that individuals are affected not merely by their physical and techno - tactical ability but also by their psychological make-up. Mahoney, Avener and Evener (1983) suggested that within constraints an athlete’s performance is significantly related to his or her psychological functioning.

Introduction

Sport psychology has a unique place in sport sciences. There are numerous factors that are responsible for the performance of sports person’s including track and field athletes as fundamental skill, technique, physiological, anthropometrical etc. along with these factors; the performance of athletes is also determined by certain psychological variables. It plays an important role with increasing, managing and sustaining the sports performance by emotions and minimizing the psychological effects on individual behaviour and poor performance. A lot of psychological factors affect participation and performance in sporting event, especially track and field participants. It is also a specialization within the brain psychology and kinesiology that seeks to understand psychological factors that affect performance in sports, physical activity, and exercise and apply these to enhance an individual and team performance. Some of the most important skills taught are goal setting, relaxation, visualization, self-talk, awareness and control, concentration, confidence and using rituals.

Since from decades, the sports psychologists and researchers have been scholarly examine the influence of certain significant psychological variables such as self-concept, self-esteem, level of aspiration, achievement motivation, adjustment and locus of control which influence

Introduction the performance of athletes. The review literature reveal that no study has been conducted taking in to account the variables like competitive state anxiety and self-efficacy among track and field athletes in relation to their performance of them. The present study is an attempt to study these variables in relation to performance of athletes.

Anxiety

The concept of anxiety may be either psychic or somatic or even both; the most important point in each case is the intensity of abating and trigger off psycho-chemical reaction in the body and creates a vicious circle. Rachman (1998) defined anxiety as a pervasive and significant negative effect is a central feature of many psychological problems.

Anxiety is a common phenomenon of everyday life and plays a crucial role in human life because all of us are the victim of anxiety in different ways, it has been a natural reaction to threats in the environment and part of the preparation for the fight or flight response. This is our body’s primitive and automatic response that prepares it to fight or flee from perceived harm or attack. It is a hardwired response that ensures survival of the human species. Sporting competition promotes similar psychological and bodily responses because there is often a threat posed towards the ego; your sense of self-esteem. Essentially, when the

Introduction demands of training or competition exceed one’s perceived ability, anxiety is the inevitable outcome.

Habitually, before any sports competition athletes experience stress or anxiety due to increased psychological demands of the sports competition situation. Therefore, it is an imbalance between demand and

capacity of an athlete to execute a course of action. Anxiety is a

physiological response to a real or imagined threat. A positive amount of

anxiety is required to achieve desirable task. But higher level of anxiety

physically inhibits performance by causing muscular tension and

disturbing coordination of the movements. Therefore, it is very important

aspect to be handled which highly helps a coach to prepare the athletes

physically and mentally in such a way that an individual himself is able to

resist and tolerate any kind of psychological eventuality, which may

occur before or during competition.

Games and sports turn out as the special opportunities for the study

of the feelings of the athletes in a mixture of sporting events (Bray, Jones

& Owen, 2002; Tielman, Peacock, Cureton & Dishman, 2002). Anxiety

is a feeling that exists in people nature. It occurs under irritating condition

excess anxiety may result in abnormal functions for the body. Every

Introduction human being feels different level of anxiety, and physiological properties that play very important role in this situation (Spilberger, 1966).

Practically every concern of human endeavor is thought to be affected somehow by anxiety. It is a reaction by an individual to a stressful situation (Spilberger, 1972) and in competitive sports, a great amount of stress can be placed on an athletic performance and it starts gradually and increases step by step. In case, it is not controlled, it rises and irritates athlete. The main reasons of anxiety are business travel, smoking, and alcohol, overweight, fear of failure, inappropriate physical appearance etc. Anxiety indications may be bone pains, being tired, headache, nervousness, inadequate sleeping, forgetting, hesitation,

hypochondriacs etc. (Link, 1993). It is a kind of signal, a premonition of

impending danger, an indicator that something is not going well in the

life of the affected individual. It was also stated that when the ego is

forced to acknowledge its weakness, it breaks in to anxiety (Freud, 1949).

Anxiety is a psychological and physiological state characterized by

cognitive, somatic, emotional, and behavioral components. These

components combine to create the painful feelings that an athlete’s

typically recognize as anger, fear oppression, or worry. Anxiety is often

accompanied by physical sensations such as heart palpitation, nausea,

Introduction chest pain, shortness of breath, stomach aches, or head ache. The

cognitive components entail expectation of a diffuse and certain danger.

Somatically the body prepares the organism to deal with threat, heart rates are increased, sweating is increased, blood flow, immune and

digestive system functions are inhibited. Externally, somatic signs of

anxiety may include pale skin, sweating, trembling, and papillary

dilation. Emotionally, anxiety causes a sense of dread or panic and

physically causes nausea, diarrhea, and chills. Behaviorally, both

voluntary and involuntary behaviors may arise directed at escaping or

avoiding the source of anxiety and often maladaptive, being most extreme

in anxiety disorders. However, anxiety is not always pathological or

maladaptive. It is a common emotion along with bear, anger, sadness, and

happiness, and it has a very important function in relation to survival.

Spielberger (1966) was the first person who separated anxiety into

two dimensions, first trait anxiety, and second state anxiety. State anxiety

is applied to temporary excitements and immediate emotional state that

are accompanied with anxiety and tension, fear, and an increase in

physiological arousal, and trait anxiety is a relative stable and acquisitive

behavioral attitude that is often described as a personality characteristic

(Roberts, Covin, & Sinthial, 2004).Foremost, it has been believed that

Introduction competitive state anxiety determines success in fulfillment (Jarvis, 2002) and there exists a direct relationship between competitive trait anxiety

and competitive state anxiety (Weinberg & Hunt, 1976) but some studies

conclude that competitive state anxiety exists in all athletes (Passand,

1997; Shamshiri, 2000; Elgin, 2000).

State anxiety generally follows a pattern of personal feelings of

tension and inadequacy, combined with heightened arousal of the

autonomic nervous system. It is an immediate emotional state of an

individual that is characterized by apprehension, tension, fear, and an

increase in physiological arousal. The level of the anxious state alternates

according to the amount of stressful stimuli the athlete encounters, and

the period of subjective threat created by the stimuli (Hackfort &

Schwenkmezger, 1989). In competitive situation an athlete can react both

physically (somatic) and mentally (cognitive) in a manner which can

negatively affect his/her performance abilities. Competitive state anxiety

consists of cognitive (cognitive anxiety) and behavioural (somatic

anxiety) components that form a multi-dimensional construct (Martens,

Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1990). Cognitive anxiety refers to

negative expectations and the concerns a person may have, whereas

somatic anxiety refers to the person’s physiological arousal. The

Introduction relationship between anxiety and athletic performance is somewhat equivocal. Many theories and models have tried to clarify the relationship between anxiety and sport performance. It has been suggested that cognitive anxiety might influence all forms of athletic performance in a

negative linear fashion, whereas somatic anxiety tends to disrupt fine

motor skill in a quadratic way (Lavallee, Kremer, Moran, & Williams,

2004). More recently, it has been suggested that the interpretation of anxiety symptoms is also of importance in the experience of anxiety. That is, the way an athlete perceives his or her arousal may result in the situation being judged as either (a) positive and challenging or (b) negative and overwhelming (Mellalieu, Hanton, & Fletcher, 2006). The assertion that the interpretation of anxiety symptoms can be either facilitative or debilitative has received some support in the sports literature (Jones & Swain, 1992). It influences on performance continues to be one of the main research interests for sport psychologists

(Woodman & Hardy, 2001). Anxiety is postulated to occur as a result of threat and is related to the subjective evaluation of a situation with regard to one’s self-esteem (Eysenck, 1992). Several theorists have suggested that the negative performance effects of anxiety are due to the manner in which worry and other forms of cognitive interference occupy attention

(Kahneman, 1973; Sarason, 1988). One theory that provides an 11

Introduction explanatory account of the mechanisms involved in the anxiety performance relationship, and that has been the focus of recent research

in sports settings, is processing efficiency theory (Eysenck & Calvo,

1992).

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy is fundamentally a situational-specific form of self-

confidence. It is a belief that one has the capabilities to execute the

courses of actions required to manage prospective situations. In other word, self-efficacy is the perception of one’s ability to successfully perform a particular behavior. Self-efficacy is at the center of Bandura

(1977) social cognitive theory, which views human functioning as a result of the interactions between personal factors, behavior, and environment influence (Pajares, 1997). Unlike efficacy, which is the power to produce an effect, self-efficacy is the belief that one has the power to produce that effect. For example, an athlete with high self-efficacy may cross the high jump bar or clear the hurdles and engage in a more such type of health

related activity when an unskilled occurs, whereas an athlete with low

self-efficacy would harbor feelings of hopelessness.

Introduction

The concept of self-efficacy was proposed by Bandura (1977) as a means of explaining behavioral change. In the realm of physical activity, it can apply to an individual’s belief in her/his ability to initiate an activity, maintain an exercise program, perform at a certain level, win a game or attempt difficult skills or actions. Highly efficacious individuals seek out new and challenging tasks; intensify their efforts when their performance fall short of their desired goals, and persevere despite repeated failure. It is an individual’s belief in his/her capability to successfully perform a particular task with a positive attitude in defined situation. Together with the goals which set by other people, it is one of the most powerful motivational predictors of how well an individual will perform at almost any endeavor. So an individual’s self-efficacy is a strong determinant of their effort, persistence, strategizing, as well as their subsequent training and athlete’s performance. Besides being highly predictive, self-efficacy can also be developed in order to harness its performance enhancing benefits. Mills, Munroe and Hall (2001) suggest those athletes who are high in self-efficacy in competition situations tend to use more motivational imagery than their low self-efficacy counterparts.

Introduction

Perceived self-efficacy is defined as athlete’s belief about their capabilities to produce designate level of performance that exercise influence over events that affect their level. Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave. Such beliefs produce this diverse effect through four major processes. They include cognitive, motivational, affective and selection process.

Bandura (1977; 1986) cautions that while self-efficacy is domain- specific, it is also task- and situation-specific; that is, percepts of efficacy pertain to criterion tasks and situations in which they are studied. This perspective enables researchers to gain a deeper understanding of the interactive relationship between self-efficacy and performance.

Self-efficacy is the individuals’ assessment of their capabilities to organize and execute actions required to achieve successful levels of performance (Bandura, 1986).Therefore, it makes a difference in how people feel, think and act. In terms of feeling a low sense of self efficacy is associated with depression, anxiety and helplessness. In terms of thinking, a strong sense of competence facilitates cognitive processes and performance in a variety of settings, including quality of decision-making and related performance with comparison to low self-efficacy athletes.

Athletes with high self-efficacy choose to perform more challenging

Introduction tasks; they set for themselves higher goals and stick to them. Actions are reshaped in thoughts, and people anticipate either optimistic or

pessimistic scenarios in line with their level of self- efficacy.

According to Litt (1988) self-efficacy expectations affect

performance beyond what would have been expected from past

performance alone. Changes in self-efficacy expectations predict changes

in cold pressure tolerance. It affects an athlete’s behavior in different

ways: First, self-efficacy influences choice of behavior. People are likely

to engage in tasks in which they feel competent and confident and avoid

those in which they do not. Second, self-efficacy may help to determine

how much effort people will expand on an anxiety and how long will they

persevere. Third, self-efficacy beliefs influence individuals’ thought

patterns and emotional reactions. Athletes with low self-efficacy may

believe that things are tougher than they really are, as belief that may

foster stress and narrow vision of how best to go about a problem.

Efficacy beliefs difficulties are the foundation of human agency. Unless

people believe that they can produce desired results by their actions, they

have little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties.

Bandura distinguishes between the two components of self-efficacy: an

efficacy expectation and an outcome expectation refer to a person.

Introduction

Self-efficacy beliefs are constructed from four fundamental sources of information: performance Self-efficacy, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states (Bandura, 1977). Bandura suggested that performance accomplishments are the most influential source of efficacy information, as they provide the most authentic evidence of an individual’s.

Factors affecting self-efficacy

According to Albert Bandura's (1966) social cognitive theory there are four important and major behavior sources of self-efficacy which directly and indirectly influencing an athlete’s competitive sports. First self-efficacy beliefs can be enhanced through personal experience or an individual feedback, as far as success or failure is attributed internally and can be repeated. A second source is vicarious experience. When a model or demonstrator who is similar to the individual successfully masters a difficult situation, social comparison process can enhance self-efficacy beliefs. Third is symbolic experience, which influence through verbal persuasion by other people. For example, A coach reassures a trainer that he/she will certainly give a good performance due to his/her academic competence, the last source of influence is emotional arousal that is , the

Introduction person experiences anxiety in a threatening situation and they feel in capable of mastering the situation .

Performance Experience (Mastery experience)

It is the most important factor deciding an athlete’s self-efficacy.

Basically follow, success raises self-efficacy in a positive manner,

failures have a lower self-efficacy. Athletes cannot be fooled by empty

praise and condescending encouragement. They may have to accept

artificial bolstering of their self-efficacy in lieu of something better, but

their accruing ego identity gains real strength only from wholehearted and

consistent recognition of real accomplishment, that is, achievement that

has meaning in their sporting culture and past performances.

Vicarious Experience (Modeling)

If they can do it, I can do it as well. This is a process of comparison between a person and someone else. When an athlete sees someone succeeding at something, their self-efficacy will increase; and where they see other unsuccessful athletes, their self-efficacy will decrease. This process is more effectual where athletes observe themselves as similar to his or her model. If a peer who is perceived as having similar ability succeeds, this will likely increase an observe self-efficacy. Although not

Introduction as influential as past experience, modeling is a powerful tool to influence when an athlete is particularly unsure of himself.

Social Persuasions

Social persuasions relate to encouragements/discouragements.

These can have a strong influence on athletes’ performance. Athletes remember times where something said to them significantly altered their confidence. Where positive motivational persuasions increase self- efficacy, negative persuasions decrease it. It is generally easier to decrease individual self-efficacy than it is to increase it.

Physiological Factors

In unusual, stressful situations, athletes commonly exhibit signs of distress; shakes, aches and pains, fatigue, fear, nausea, etc. A person's perceptions of these responses can markedly alter a person's self-efficacy.

If an athlete becomes anxious, gets butterflies in the stomach, an athlete with low self-efficacy may take this as a sign of their own inability, thus decreasing their efficacy. Further in contrast, a person with high self- efficacy is likely to interpret such physiological signs as normal and unrelated to his or her actual ability, which will continue to be seen as a disregard for trembling hands etc. Thus, it is the person's belief on the

Introduction implications of their physiological response that alters their self-efficacy, rather than complete power of the response.

Statement of the Problem

The present study deals with some selected psychological variables i.e. Competitive State Anxiety (cognitive state anxiety, somatic state anxiety and self confidence) and General Self Efficacy in relation to

the performance of track and field athletes; it may help to find out the

differences among high and low performers with regard to the selected

psychological variables. Therefore, the present empirical investigation has been conducted entitled as “A Comparative Study of State Anxiety and self - Efficacy among Athletes”.

Objectives of the Study

The main objectives of the present investigation are:

1. Determine difference between high and low performance athletes

on competitive state anxiety and its sub-variables namely,

cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence.

2. Examine difference between high performance track and field

athletes on competitive state anxiety and its sub-variables namely,

cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence. 19

Introduction

3. Determine difference between low performance track and field

athletes on competitive state anxiety and its sub-variables namely,

cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence.

4. Examine difference between high and low performance track

athletes on competitive state anxiety and its sub-variables namely,

cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence.

5. Determine difference between male and female high performance

track athletes on competitive state anxiety and its sub-variables

namely, cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence.

6. Examine difference between male and female low performance

track athletes on competitive state anxiety and its sub-variables

namely, cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence.

7. Determine difference between high and low performance field

athletes on competitive state anxiety and its sub-variables namely,

cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence.

8. Examine between male and female high performance field athletes

on competitive state anxiety and its sub-variables.

9. Examine difference between male and female low performance

field athletes on competitive state anxiety and its sub-variables.

10. Determine difference between high and low performance athletes

on self-efficacy. 20

Introduction

11. Determine the difference between high performance track and

field athletes on self efficacy.

12. Determine the difference between low performance track and

field athletes on self efficacy.

13. Examine the difference between high and low performance track

athletes on self efficacy.

14. Determine the difference between male and female high

performance track athletes on self efficacy.

15. Determine the difference between male and female low

performance track athletes on self efficacy.

16. Examine difference between high and low performance field

athletes on self efficacy.

17. Determine the difference between male and female high

performance field athletes on self efficacy.

18. Examine the difference between male and female low

performance field athletes on self efficacy.

Introduction

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses have been formulated for athletes’ performance in their respective event:

1. Athletes of high competitive state anxiety record holders would be

low performers in their respective event.

2. Athletes having low competitive state anxiety would be high

performers in their respective event.

3. High performance male and female athletes would differ

significantly on competitive state anxiety.

4. There would be insignificant difference between male and female

low performance athletes on competitive state anxiety.

5. High self-efficacy record holders would be high performers.

6. Athletes of low self-efficacy record holders would be low

performers in their respective event.

7. There would be insignificant difference between male and female

high performance athletes on self-efficacy.

8. Low performance male and female athletes would insignificantly

differ on self-efficacy.

Introduction

Limitations of the Study

1. Questionnaire research had its own limitation, which biasness that

might have come into the mind of the athletes at the time of

responding to the statements in questionnaire.

2. Test was administered in different point of time, considering the

availability of the subjects depending on competitions. This will be

affecting the responses, which was considered as the limitations of

the study.

3. There was no time barrier to fill up the questionnaire but 5 to 7

minutes is required to complete.

Delimitations of the Study

The study was delimited to:

1. Only track and field athletes were taken.

2. Athletes of both genders with the chronological age of 18-25 years

were selected.

3. The study would be carried out on All-India Intervarsity level

athletes.

4. The study was delimited to the sample of 400 athletes.

Introduction

5. The study was further delimited to the following psychological

parameters, (a) Competitive state anxiety (Cognitive anxiety,

Somatic anxiety, and Self-confidence) and (b) Self efficacy.

Definitions and Explanation of Technical Terms

Anxiety:

Anxiety is an uneasiness and feeling of foreboding often found when person is about to embark on a hazardous venture. It often accomplished by strong desire to excel. State anxiety refers to the tendency of a person to become anxious in a particular arousal situation.

Cognitive anxiety:

Cognitive anxiety is the anxiety where the acquired knowledge by use and reasoning, intuition and perception as soon as normal abilities of knowledge, is being disturbed before competition.

Somatic anxiety:

Somatic anxiety is the tension or arousal felt in the body. when the tension is reduced the mind had no reason to search foe as explanation of the way the body is energized the most common complaint is inability to

Introduction relax because of tens muscles, then having difficulty unmaking skillful movement need to perform well (Msters,1987).

Self-confidence:

Self-confidence is a state of a person which makes him attentive about his/her positive abilities making him, to feel with full energy for executing any operation successfully undertaken by him in any situation.

Rigorous practices boast it enormously, over and above success in

concerned field leads to its zenith.

Self-efficacy:

Self-efficacy is an individuals’ assessment of their capabilities to

organize and execute actions required to achieve successful levels of

performance (Bandura,1986) that mean, it is an athlete’s belief about their

capabilities to produce designate level of performance that exercise

influence over events that affect their level.

Introduction

Significance of the Study

The present empirical investigation may be considering some meaning full significant as a following manner.

1. Present study would provide the opportunity for research in the

area of athlete’s self-efficacy.

2. The present investigation would be useful to ascertain the level of

somatic tension, cognitive worry and self-confidence of the track

and field athletes.

3. Athletes to formulate an ideal, affected and meaningful training

programs for attainment of desirable performance taking into

account the relationship of psychological variables.

4. The coaches can work with cognitive anxiety in a positive manner

for increasing the performance of the athletes

5. Results may indicate competitive anxiety and self-efficacy of

athletes belonging to selected track and field athletes by comparing

these dimension i.e. somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, self-

confidence and self-efficacy of track and field athletes.

6. To understand the nature and symptoms of anxiety in athletes and

help the coaches in identifying the right type of talent for a

particular event.

Introduction

7. Coaches can work with self-confidence variable for enhancing the

track and field athlete’s performance.

8. The knowledge about self-efficacy of an athlete and his subsequent

behavior will provide a clear understanding to the coaches and

trainer to adapt their belief.

9. The outcome of present investigation would also helpful to the

trainer and coaches to formulate an ideal training schedule to

achieve the crest performance taking into account the effect of

stated psychological variables.

10. The study would be also beneficial and provide a proper guidance

to the researchers to undertake similar problem in different games

and sports.

CHAPTER–II Review of Related Literature

Chapter-II

Review of Related Literature

The reviews of related study, certain reports of experts, a host of eminent researchers evidences and their findings provide substantial background not merely in selecting unexplored area of research, it provides a logical, meaningful, innovative and scientific feedback which helps the researcher in updating his area of knowledge and highlights the direction to carry out the current investigation.

Competitive State Anxiety

Competitive anxiety and the effect it can have on a participant in

sport performance has been the source of many research investigations

(Burton, 1988; Krane & Williams, 1987; Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump

& Smith, 1990). How an athlete copes with competitive anxiety and how it affects his/her performance is important for the success of that athlete.

It is important to help athletes reach a level of precompetitive arousal that will result in the best possible performance and also minimize harmful anxiety. Additionally, coaches and athletes could take advantage from research and clarifies the relationship between competitive anxiety and performance. Review of Related Literature

Lenamar, Cesar, Jose and Albertino (2011) conducted a study and analyzed self-efficacy in relation to anxiety level in young track and field

athletes from Parana state. The total sample consisted of seventy five (75)

athletes of both genders with a mean age of 16.76 years old. The

Competitive State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2) was used to assess

competitive state anxiety and a structured questionnaire was used to

identify self-efficacy. Their results showed that there was no significant

difference found in anxiety levels between men and women. For women,

no significant differences were observed between outcome expectancy

and anxiety level. Men who achieved a better result than expected

presented a higher anxiety level.

Patel (2011) made a study and compared the competitive state anxiety

levels of individual sports, dual sports and team game players. Sixty (60)

male students of LNUPE, Gwalior were selected as the participants for

the study. All subjects were divided into three main group’s individual

sports, dual sports and team games depending on their activities. They

conclude that individual, dual and team games did not differ significantly

in competitive state anxiety components from each other, no significant

difference between individual sports, dual sports, and team games and

finally the interaction effect with regard to the individual, dual and team

games indicates insignificant difference. 29

Review of Related Literature

Khan and Ali (2011) conducted a study on twenty five (25) male and

female elite wrestlers, carried out and examine possible significant

differences in cognitive state anxiety, somatic state anxiety, and self

confidence among elite male and female wrestlers. Twenty five (N=25)

medalist (12 male and 13 female) randomly selected in different weight

categories from All India interuniversity wrestling competition.

Competitive State Anxiety Inventory - 2 (CSAI-2) was used for data collection, after collected data was analyzed by using t- test to find out

the significance differences between male and female elite wrestlers on above mentioned sub-psychological variable. The obtain result advocated that each sub-variable (cognitive state anxiety, somatic state anxiety, and self confidence) findings in contrast and that found insignificance difference among elite male and female elite wrestlers.

Nigam (2011) examined the effects of self-efficacy on sports competition anxiety. A total of Forty (40) students of psychology belong to D. P.

Vipra College, Bilaspur (CG) affiliated to Guru Ghasidas University,

Bilaspur were randomly selected for the purpose of study. Sports

Competition Anxiety and the Physical Self-Efficacy Scale were administered upon all subjects who volunteers to participate in the experiment. The results of their study revealed that females who are high in self-confidence will have low levels of competitive trait anxiety. The 30

Review of Related Literature findings of their study also indicated that private and public self-

consciousness and social anxiety are all contributing factors in predicting

competitive trait anxiety.

Murtaza, Imran, Bari and Najeeb (2011) made a study and compare the

anxiety state on different levels of weight lifters. Total hundred (50 State

level and 50 All- India intervarsity level) male weight lifters were

selected for this study. The age of the subjects were ranged between 18 to

25 years. The data on anxiety state of the subjects were obtained by using

a questionnaire developed by Neary and Zuckerman (1976).They found

that there was a significant difference between different levels of weight

lifters at 0.05 level of significant with 98 degree of freedom. Study

showed that All- India intervarsity level weight lifters have higher level

of anxiety state as compared to State level weight lifters.

Tsopani, Dallas and Skordilis (2011) conducted a study on competitive

state anxiety and performance in young female rhythmic gymnasts and

examine the competitive state anxiety and self-confidence of rhythmic

gymnasts participating in the Greek national competition. Only eighty six

(N=86) participants selected, ages 11 and 12 years, completed the

Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2, 1 hr. before competition. Subject

were categorized by performance (high and low performance) and

Review of Related Literature participation in the finals (finalists and no finalists), responded to the 3 subscales e.i. Cognitive Anxiety, Somatic Anxiety, and Self-confidence.

Statistical analyses indicated differences in Self-confidence between high versus low performance groups and finalists versus no finalists, and no significant differences were found on Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety. In a regression analysis, Self-confidence was the only significant predictor of performance for this sample.

Yadav (2011) investigated pre-competitive state anxiety of university badminton players. Ninety one (91) badminton players (54 men and 37 women) who participated in the West Zone University Badminton

Tournament held at Jabalpur University were randomly selected as subjects for this study. The men and women badminton players who participated in any of their matches from their teams from I round to quarter finals, were randomly selected for the study. The criterion measure for testing the hypothesis was the scores obtained in the Sports

Competition Anxiety Test (SCAT) by Rainer Martens. Pre-competitive state anxiety had significant difference between winners and losers of

West Zone University women badminton players in semi-final league matches and had no significant difference between winners and losers of

West Zone University men and women badminton players in semi-final league and I round to quarter final matches. 32

Review of Related Literature

Sharma (2011) had studied on multidimensional pre-competitive state anxiety of university badminton players. The sample consisted of 49 male players and 41 female players who had competed in the badminton competition organized by the Manipur University, Imphal. The revised

Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) was used to examine their multidimensional pre-competitive state anxiety and they found that there was no gender difference in pre-competitive somatic anxiety, however, gender difference was found with male players experienced higher than female players in pre-competitive cognitive anxiety.

Khan and Ali (2010) examined the competitive state anxiety (cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self confidence) in elite and non elite Indian university high jump athletes prior to competition and to investigate any possible differences between elite and non elite high jump athletes, as well as in relation to their athletic experience, among 30 elite and non elite high jumpers. Measuring instruments was used for this investigation

Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2).The finding of the statistical analysis has been revealed that each encounters finding in contrast and that found a significance difference among elite and non elite high jumpers.

Review of Related Literature

Esfahani and Soflu (2010) conducted a study on “The Comparison of Pre-

Competition Anxiety and State Anger between Female and Male

Volleyball Players”. The statistical population consisted of all male and female volleyball players (N=214) who participated in Iran volleyball university matches. It must be noted that the questionnaires were distributed among whole population either 30 minutes before competition started in the hall where competition was supposed to be held or at the time the athletes went to the hall to start the competition and finally 88 questionnaires were collected from male volleyball players and 82 questionnaires were collected from female ones. In this research, the

CSAI-2 questionnaire was used to measure cognitive state anxiety, somatic state anxiety and self-confidence. The State-Trait Anger

Expression Inventory (Spielberger, 1991) was also used to provide a measure of the anger experience as an emotional state (state anger), the disposition towards anger as a personality trait (trait anger) and the expression of anger. K-S (p=0.05) was used to ascertain data normality.

Descriptive statistics (mean, standard error), t test and Pearson coefficient were used to analyze the data (p=0.05). The results showed a significant difference in all pre-competition anxiety subscales: cognitive state anxiety (t=3.62), somatic state anxiety (t=4.76) and self-confidence

(t=3.06) (p=0.05).

Review of Related Literature

Vincent and Mahamood (2010) examined competitive anxiety level as influenced by gender, levels of skills, and performance. The main aim of the study was to describe and compare the anxiety differences before and during competition among different categories of skills of athletes and genders. All data were collected from nine hundred two (902) athletes using a 27 item Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. After analysis of collected data, their results showed that national level and male athletes obtained the lowest score on competitive state anxiety variable. Based on the current results, it is recommended that sport psychologists, sport counselors, and coaches in Malaysia use the findings to design appropriate training programmed to help athletes acquire suitable coping strategies so as to reduce their state anxiety levels and enhance their performance.

Powell (2009) investigated the impact of pre-competition anxiety on athlete’s performance in track runners and found that the nature of the event (sprint, mid-distance, long distance) differentially predicted the relationship between precompetitive anxiety and performance. Results showed that the interpretation of anxiety intensity as either facilitative or debilitative, the directional component of anxiety, is a more sensitive predictor of performance than anxiety intensity alone. Findings indicated that best predictor of performance for sprinters and distance runners were 35

Review of Related Literature their somatic anxiety direction. The performance of the mid-distance runners was best predicted by self-confidence direction. The results are interpreted as lending support to the multidimensional model of anxiety.

Mullen, Lane and Hanton (2009) examined the intensity and direction of the competitive state anxiety response in collegiate athletes as a function

of four different coping styles: such as high-anxious, defensive high-

anxious, low-anxious and repressors. Specifically, this study predicted

that repressors would interpret competitive state anxiety symptoms as

more facilitative compared to high anxious, defensive high-anxious and

low-anxious performers. Separate Multivariate Analyses of Variance

(MANOVA) was performed on the intensity and direction subscales of

the modified Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). A

significant main effect was identified for trait worry revealing that low

trait anxious athletes reported lower intensities of cognitive and somatic

anxiety and higher self-confidence and interpreted these as more

facilitative than high trait anxious athletes. The prediction that performers

with a repressive coping style would interpret state anxiety symptoms as

more facilitative than performers with non-repressive coping styles was not supported.

Review of Related Literature

Awolframm and Micklewright (2008) examined the effects of anxiety and self-confidence on equestrian performance. Forty riders (12 male, 28 female; 15 elite, 25 non-elite; 12 dressage, 17 show jumping and11 eventing) completed the Revised Competitive Sport Anxiety Inventory-2

(CSAI-2), which measures the levels of somatic and cognitive anxiety as well as levels of self-confidence. Two-way between-subjects MANOVA

tests were used to examine competence-by-discipline interactions and gender-by-discipline interactions in CSAI-2 scores. Post hoc analysis was conducted using one-way univariate ANOVA tests. Spearman’s rank correlation tests were conducted between each of the CSAI-2 subscales according to competence, discipline and gender. Most important findings include lower somatic arousal and higher self-confidence in elite compared with non-elite riders. Negative correlations between cognitive arousal and self-confidence were found among elite riders, non-elite riders, show jumpers and female riders. Greater riding-specific skills in the elite rider may result in increased self-confidence. Lower levels of somatic anxiety may further increase fine motor skills in elite riders.

Practical implications are that non-elite riders would benefit from sport psychological interventions increasing levels of self-confidence and reducing symptoms of somatic arousal to improve performance.

Review of Related Literature

Neil, Mellalieu and Hanton (2006) examined the intensity and direction of competitive anxiety symptoms and psychological skill usage in rugby union players of different skill levels. Total 115 (Elite and non elite) elite

(N=65) and non elite (N=50) participants selected and completed

measures of competitive anxiety, self-confidence, and psychological

skills. The elite group reported more facilitative interpretations of competitive anxiety symptoms, higher levels of self-confidence, lower relaxation usage, and greater imagery and self-talk use than their no elite counterparts. The findings suggest that no elite performers primarily use relaxation strategies to reduce anxiety intensity. In contrast, elite athletes appear to maintain intensity levels and adopt a combination of skills to interpret symptoms as facilitative to performance. Potential mechanisms for this process include the use of imagery and verbal persuasion efficacy-enhancement techniques to protect against debilitating symptom interpretations.

Mellalieu, Neil and Hanton (2006) examine whether self-confidence mediated the relationship between competitive anxiety intensity and direction. Elite (N=102) and no elite (N=144) participants completed the

self-confidence subscale of the Competitive Trait Anxiety Inventory-2

and the worry and somatic subscales from the Sport Anxiety Scale. The

findings for elite athletes revealed worry intensity to significantly predict 38

Review of Related Literature self-confidence and worry direction. However, when self-confidence was controlled, worry intensity did not predict worry direction over that which was significantly predicted by self-confidence. Within the analysis for

somatic symptoms, only self-confidence was found to predict somatic

symptom direction. For the no elite athletes, worry and somatic symptom intensity predicted both self-confidence and direction, and direction when

self-confidence was controlled. The findings for the elite athletes suggest

self-confidence mediates the relationship between performers' worry

symptoms and subsequent directional interpretations. However, the

findings suggest that high levels of self-confidence and low symptom

intensity are needed for no elite athletes to demonstrate a less debilitative

interpretation.

Bekiari, Patsiaouras, Kokaridas and Sakellariou (2006) examine the

relation of verbal aggressiveness and state anxiety (somatic, cognitive,

and self-confidence) in sports settings based on the ratings by volleyball

coaches and their athletes. The sample consisted of volleyball athletes

(N=208; 98 men and 110 women) and their coaches (N=20; 16 men and 4

women). Analysis showed that male volleyball players rated somatic

anxiety higher and were more affected by the verbal aggressiveness of their coaches than female volleyball players. No mean differences were significant for male and female coaches on somatic or cognitive anxiety, 39

Review of Related Literature self-confidence, or verbal aggressiveness. Also, correlation between subscale scores for male and female volleyball players and coaches was found. The correlations of verbal aggressiveness with self-confidence and anxiety were positive for these athletes, leading them to better behavior.

This relationship needs further examination in sport settings.

Kais and Raudsepp (2005) examined the relationship between the intensity and direction of competitive state anxiety, self-confidence, and performance in basketball and volleyball players prior to different matches. Male basketball (N=12) and volleyball players (N=12) completed a modified version of the Competitive State Anxiety

Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) prior to 11 different matches, and 132 questionnaires overall. The inventory included an intensity subscale as well as direction sub-scale for somatic and cognitive anxiety. The findings revealed a moderate level of state anxiety and very high self- confidence of the players before the matches. The cognitive and somatic anxiety and self-confidence were stable prior to the different matches.

Correlation analysis showed that the intensity and direction of somatic and cognitive anxiety and self-confidence of the players were not related to their athletic performance. However, the intensity of cognitive anxiety was positively.

Review of Related Literature

Jones and Uphill (2004) conduct a study and examine the capability of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 in distinguishing between anxious and excited states. Total athletes (N=188) were randomly assigned to one of two groups and asked to complete the CSAI-2 as if they were either excited (excited group) or anxious (anxious group) prior to the most important competition of the season. Data were initially analyzed using Multivariate Analyses of Covariance, with gender as the covariate. Participants in the anxious group reported higher scores on the cognitive and somatic anxiety intensity subscales, while the participants in the excited group reported a more facilitative perception of their symptoms on the somatic anxiety subscale. A logistic regression correctly classified 62.9% of the participants as belonging to either the anxious or excited group on the basis of the scores from the CSAI-2. It is possible to observe differences in scores on the CSAI-2 from participants asked to complete the inventory as if they were either excited or anxious.

However, differences in scores were typically small with 37.1% of participants incorrectly classified on the basis of these scores.

Accordingly, caution is advised in interpreting the results of the CSAI-2 in research and applied settings.

Review of Related Literature

Thatcher, Thatcher and Doring (2004) conducted a study on “Gender differences in the pre-competition temporal patterning of anxiety and hormonal responses”. Six (male) and 6 (female) field hockey players completed the modified Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2, including both intensity and direction subscales, and provided saliva and urine samples 24, 2, and 1 hour before the competition. These samples were analyzed for cortisol, and nor adrenaline and adrenaline, respectively.

Two x 3 repeated measures ANOVA revealed significant gender x time interactions for cognitive and somatic anxiety intensity and adrenaline and nor adrenaline, but not cortisol. While males' anxiety and hormonal responses demonstrated no significant changes, significant increases in females' anxiety, and significant decreases in their adrenaline and nor adrenaline were observed over time. Moreover, while males' anxiety and hormonal responses mirrored each other, this was not the case for the females with increases in females' cognitive and somatic anxiety intensity levels accompanied by decreases in adrenaline and nor adrenaline.

Although this study has extended this line of research by adopting a psycho-physiological approach and measuring anxiety intensity and direction in male and female athletes, replication is required with larger samples from a greater diversity of sports.

Review of Related Literature

Zeng (2003) conducted a study with four intercollegiate athletes' teams from a Division III college. Sixty-nine (69) varsity athletes from team and individual sports participated in this study. It targeted the constructs of three self-confidence variables State Self-Confidence, State Sport-

Confidence, and Trait Anxiety as well as levels of Cognitive State

Anxiety, Somatic State Anxiety, and Competitive Trait Anxiety variables.

The results demonstrated for college varsity athletes, team sport athletes had lower levels of cognitive state anxiety and somatic state anxiety compared to individual sports in a competition. On the other hand, the level of competitive anxiety demonstrated similar results. The increased levels of state self-confidence, state sport-confidence, and trait sport- confidence were found in the team sports during competition

Jones and Hanton (2001) examined differences in feeling states indicated by performers who reported being facilitated or debilitated by symptoms associated with competitive anxiety before completion. A sample of high standard swimmers (N=190) competed a modified version of competitive state anxiety inventory 2, including both intensity and direction subscales, and an exploratory checklist of feeling state levels, which compare positive and negative feeling state labels these finding supported the general hypothesis that facilitator’s report significantly more positive feeling than debilitator’s, who report significantly more negative feelings. 43

Review of Related Literature

Descriptive frequency counts of the largest percentage differences between facilitator’s and debilitator’s resulted in the in the selection of the confident feeling state level of the positive sub scales with it being, identified most frequently by the facilitators. Furthermore, of the negative feeling, the groups indicated the label MGS most frequently this study has extended previous research into the nation of positive and negative anxiety and has revealed individual differences in the combination of feeling states experienced by performers during competition.

Kirkby and Liu (1999) had studied on pre-competition anxiety and self confidence in a sample of 132 male and 103 female Shanghai college athletes. The participants were administrated the competitive state anxiety inventory- 2 of marten, at al. 30 to 40 minute before the competing important track and field events and basketball games. Analysis by independent t- test shows that there were no sex differences in scores on the cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, or self confidence sub scales; however, compared to those in team sports (Basketball), athletes competing individually (track and field) scored significantly higher on the somatic anxiety scale and significantly lower on the self confidence sub scale. Comparisons with data form comparable North American samples indicated that Chinese athletes reported lower score on cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety but similar score on self confidence. 44

Review of Related Literature

Parfitt and Pates (1999) conducted a study to consider the influence of competitive anxiety and self-confidence state responses upon components of performance. Basketball players (n = 12) were trained to self-report their cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self-confidence as a single response on several occasions immediately before going on court to play.

Performance was video-recorded and aspects of performance that could be characterized as requiring either largely anaerobic power (height jumped) or working memory (successful passes and assists) were

measured. Intra-individual performance scores were computed from these

measures and the data from seven matches were subjected to regression

analyses and then hierarchical regression analyses. The results indicated

that, as anticipated, somatic anxiety positively predicted performance that

involved anaerobic demands. Self-confidence, and not cognitive anxiety,

was the main predictor of performance scores with working memory

demands. It would appear that different competitive state responses exert

differential exerts upon aspects of actual performance. Identifying these

differences will be valuable in recommending intervention strategies

designed to facilitate performance.

Barr (1997) examined in twofold: first to examine the effects of a

nontraditional sport course on the general physical self-efficacy and

components of competitive state anxiety of participants and second to 45

Review of Related Literature examine the association between nontraditional sport performance, general physical self-efficacy and components of competitive state anxiety. Eighteen males (18) (54.5%) and 15 females (45.5%) enrolled in noncredit whitewater kayaking courses constituted the subjects in this study. Each participant completed a short questionnaire along with the

Physical Self-Efficacy and Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 as pretest measures. Next, participants received 17 hours of whitewater kayaking instruction as the treatment. During a river experience, participants' whitewater kayaking performance was measured using the

Kayaking Performance Checklist (KPC). Following the treatment, participants completed the pretest inventories, excluding the questionnaire, as posttest measures. Paired samples t tests and Pearson product correlations were performed to test twelve null hypotheses. Two of the twelve null hypotheses tested for significance were rejected.

Findings suggest a significant increase in cognitive state anxiety for participants after receiving the treatment. In addition, findings suggest a significant association between physical self-efficacy and whitewater kayaking performance.

Wiggins and Brustad (1996) conducted a study to examine acceptation of performance and the directionality of anxiety. Directionality refers to the facilitative or debilitative aspect of anxiety. Subjects were 91 athletes 46

Review of Related Literature competing in soccer, swimming and track and field. Competitive state anxiety inventory- 2 with an added facilitative and debilitative scale and expectation of performance scale was employed. Analysis shows that athletes with lower scores on cognitive and somatic anxiety and higher score on self confidence perceived their anxiety as more facilitative of performance these athletes also had significantly higher scores on the expectation of performance scale.

Bejek and Hagtvet (1996) examined between two existing groups of females gymnasts, Top level (N=20) and lower level (N=50), were

administered the Martens Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 and a

reduced version of the Spielberger State-anxiety scale prior to a national

competition. The study was carried out to examine in what respect pre-

competitive state anxiety is different in top level and lower level

gymnasts. The results displayed no differences in mean values of the

included anxiety-oriented state measures. However, the top level group

reported higher mean value of self- confidence. A most salient finding

indicated a positive relationship between pre-competitive state anxiety

and gymnastic performance in the top level group, while no relation could

be detected in the lower level group. A path analysis within each group of

gymnasts suggested that their pre-competitive state anxiety was

Review of Related Literature differently composed in terms of the state parameters cognitive anxiety and self-confidence.

Swain and Jones (1993) investigate the intensity and frequency of symptoms of competitive state anxiety. Total, Forty-nine track and field athletes (27 males, 22 females) responded to a modified version of the

Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) on four occasions during the period leading up to an important competition: 2 days, 1 day, 2 h and within 30 min of competing. The questionnaire included the existing CSAI-2 (intensity) scale as well as a frequency scale for each of the 27 items of the CSAI-2. The intensity and frequency dimensions of each of the CSAI-2 sub-scales were then compared between the four conditions by means of two-way analyses of variance (gender x time-to- competition). In the case of cognitive anxiety, time-to-event effects were observed for intensity and frequency for both males and females. The intensity of the response was significantly greater at the final stage of testing than it was 2 days before competition, while the frequency of the response increased progressively throughout the experimental period.

This dissociative patterning for the cognitive anxiety dimensions is discussed in the light of multidimensional anxiety theory predictions. For somatic anxiety, the time-to-event effects that emerged for intensity and frequency revealed that both values increased progressively as the time to 48

Review of Related Literature compete neared, for both male and females. The results for self- confidence revealed no effects for intensity or frequency for either gender. The findings from structured follow-up interviews served to corroborate these quantitative findings by providing information that supported the conclusions drawn from the questionnaire data. In particular, the athletes reported that they experienced considerable increases in the frequency of intrusive anxiety cognitions. While these findings clearly need to be substantiated, they do provide evidence of the existence of an additional dimension of anxiety that may assist our understanding of this complex concept.

Finkenberg, Dinucci, McCune and McCune (1992) conduct a study on 77 cheerleader participating in a national collegiate championship competition were administered the competitive state anxiety inventory 2 immediately prior to the performance significant correlation were found between cognitive and somatic state anxiety, a finding consistent with previous research. Negative correlation was found between both

cognitive and somatic anxiety and self confidence, also as previously

reported. Canonical discriminate analysis indicated that significant

discrimination between the teams could be accomplished by a

combination of the state anxiety variables. Groups, 36 men and 41

women, differed significantly from normative scores on the somatic 49

Review of Related Literature subscale.

Matheson and Mathews (1991) examine the changes in cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self confidence as measured by the competitive state anxiety inventory 2 in a sample of fifty (50) female high school gymnasts

prior to their performances at a practice session, dual meet, and district

championship meet. Analysis shows that the dual meet athletes

experienced significantly greater cognitive and somatic anxiety and lower

self confidence than at the practice or district championship. State anxiety

did not vary significantly with the athletes over all experience or the

difficulty of the routines which they performed. The unexpected finding

that the dual meet was most anxiety-provoking was attributed to the

greater uncertainty of outcome in a competition and that fact that the dual

meet occurred yearly in the session.

Rodrigo, Lusiarod and Pereira (1990) examined how the component of

the Spanish version of the competitive state anxiety inventory (CSAI-2)

are related to each other and their relationship with performance in 51

male soccer players from our professional team. The results indicate a

moderate relationship between cognitive worry and somatic anxiety,

confirming that these are separate, but related components of state

anxiety. Also, cognitive worry was the more consistently and inversely

Review of Related Literature related to performance. Finally, alpha coefficients of this Spanish version indicate that it is an internal reliable measure.

Caruso, Dzewaltowski, Gill and McElroy (1990) confirmed that state

anxiety is multidimensional and revealed that its psychological and physiological components change over time. Somatic anxiety tends to increase rapidly as the start of an event approach, while cognitive anxiety increases more gradually. Self-confidence tends to decrease in females on the day a competitive event is to occur (Jones &Cale, 1989 as cited in

Swain & Jones, 1992). As an event approaches, negative thoughts and feelings associated with competition increase (Swain and Jones, 1992).

This accounts for the increase in cognitive anxiety.

Bowger (1989) conducted a study and compares the state anxiety levels, age, gender and skill at practice and pre-competition. The study included

137 athletes. Each subject completed the Spielberger State Anxiety

Inventory, A- State twice, one just prior to a practice session and again just prior to the state age group swimming meets. Mean comparisons were made using the Newman Keuls Multiple Range Test which indicated that 15-18 age groups. Females had significantly higher state anxiety than males and significantly higher state anxiety was found at the pre- competition situation than at the practice situation.

Review of Related Literature

Taylor (1987) examine the ability of certain psychological attributes to

predict performance in six National Collegiate Athletic Association

Division I collegiate sports Eighty-four (84) athletes from the varsity sports teams of cross country running, alpine and nordic skiing tennis, basketball, and track and field at the University of Colorado completed a questionnaire adapted from Martens (1977, Martens et al 1983) that examine their trait levels of self-confidence (Bandura, 1977), somatic anxiety and cognitive anxiety (Martens, 1977 Martens et al, 1983) In addition, at three to six competitions during the season, the members of the cross country running and tennis teams filled out a state measure

(Martens et al 1983) of the three attributes from one to two hours prior to the competition Following each competition, subjective and objective ratings of performance were obtained, and for all sports coaches' ratings of performance and an overall seasonal team ranking were determined as seasonal performance measures .The sports were dichotomized along motor and physiological dimensions, Results indicate that all three psychological attributes were significant predictors of performance in both fine motor anaerobic sports and gross motor, aerobic sports. Further, clear differences in these relationships emerged as a function of the dichotomization In addition, unexpected sex differences emerged.

Review of Related Literature

Scalan (1978) assessed perceptions and responses of high and low competitive trait-anxious males to competition. He assessed competitive

A–state in 27 high and 27 low competitive a trait men performing a ring peg task in three conditions, Based (at rest) non competitive (performance evaluation deemphasized), and competitive (competitive against an opponent of equal ability).a significant interaction was obtained between situation and competitive A- trait, as competitive A–state was higher in the competition condition that in the basal and non competitive, A-trait subjects exhibited the greatest increase in competitive A-state in competitive conditions

Self-Efficacy

Khan and Ali (2012) examined the psychological differences between high and low performance track and field athletes. Total (N=200) athletes who were randomly selected from the 70th all India inter university

Championship. The tool used for this General Self- Efficacy Scale (Ralf

Schwarzer, & Matthias Jerusalem (1995) was developed to assess how dose athletes generally believe in different condition. The collected data was analyzed using t-test to find out the significance of difference among the high and low performance track and field athletes on self-efficacy.

The finding of their study shows that significant difference between high

Review of Related Literature and low performance athletes. High performance track and field athletes have higher level of self efficacy than low performance athletes.

Kumar (2011) conducted a study on self-efficacy between National and

International basketball player. A total of 40 (fourth) basketball players

(20 National and 20 International) from different states of India were randomly selected as subject of the study during Sr. National Basketball championship and the range of age were 20 to 30 years. To asses an athlete’s general self-efficacy, the tool constructed and developed by S.

Sud, R. Schwarzer along with M. Jerusalem (1995) was used. The results of their study shows insignificant difference between international and national level basketball players with regard to self efficacy and expose that both the groups of players had same level of self -efficacy

Jackson (2011) examined the effects of increased self-efficacy on three separate jump tests. Total 47 students (18 females & 29 males) from Utah

State University were randomly allocated to a treatment or control group.

Subject performed a vertical jump test, a standing broad jump test, and a

30-s Bosco test on three separate days over a span of 1 week. The treatment group (N = 24) were given false, positive feedback about their performance while the control group (N = 23) were told their true results.

Self-efficacy was measured pre and post using the Physical Self- Efficacy

Review of Related Literature scale (PSE) and was found to increase more for the treatment group than the control group. A 3 x 2 ANOVA showed a significant improvement for the Bosco test but no significance for the other two tests, suggesting that self-efficacy has an effect on power endurance but not explosive

power.

Khan and Khan (2010) conducted a study and find out the difference

among high and low performer athletes. Total number of athletes who

were randomly recruited from the 68th All India Inter University Athletic

Championship, Trait Sports Confidence Inventory (R. S. Vealey, 1986)

was developed to assess how confident athletes generally feel when they compete in sport. The collected data was analyzed using t-test to find out the significance of difference among the high and low performance female athletes on mentioned psychological variable. Their finding shows that significant difference in both track and field among high performance and low performance of University athletes when compared to different condition of participants. High performance athletes are greater sports self efficacy than low performance athletes.

Maryam (2010) examined the efficacy of relaxation training and imagery training (motivational general-mastery imagery) on self-efficacy, competitive anxiety and performance in (skate) athletes. The procedure of

Review of Related Literature this study is experimental (pretest, post-test with control group). Total 75 skate adolescence athletes in three groups (relaxation training, imagery

training and control group) randomly displaced. The instruments of study

are self-efficacy, competitive anxiety and performance scales. For group

1 relaxation training and for group 2 imagery training applied and for

group 3 not applied any training. Results of analysis of variance indicated

that meaningful different between three groups in post-test scores of self efficacy, competitive anxiety and sportive performance (p<0.05).That means, the scores of self efficacy and performance in group 2 (mental imagery training) higher than group 1 and in group 1 higher than group 3

(control group), and the scores of competitive anxiety in group 1 lower than group 2 and in group 2 lower than group 3.

Chu and Tingzon (2009) conducted a study and investigate the effect of coaching efficacy on athlete’s self-efficacy and hope, and whether self- efficacy of the athlete’s mediate the effect of coaching efficacy on their hope. The subjects were the athletes from different varsity teams in Metro

Manila schools. There were three instruments used: Coaching Efficacy

Scale, the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale, and the Hope Scale. The study was based on the social cognitive theory since it provides a framework for explaining athletes’ behavior. A longitudinal panel design was used to account for the effect of coaching style on self efficacy and 56

Review of Related Literature hope. Path analysis was used to determine the effect of coaching efficacy on self-efficacy, and hope. The goodness of fit of the model was also being tested.

Singh, Bhardwaj and Bhardwaj (2009) made a study and investigated the effect of the psychological trait self-efficacy on the sports performance of

the male and female athletes in the age group of 13 to 19 yrs from the schools of Punjab and Chandigarh. The subjects comprised of 200 athletes from the disciplines of Cricket, Kho-Kho, Volleyball, Softball and Athletics. Out of them 100 belonged to Inter-School level and 100 to

School National level. The data was collected using Self-efficacy

Questionnaire developed by Bandura (1977). The result showed that

School National Level athletes were significantly better on perceived physical ability and self-efficacy than the School District Level athletes.

Fraser and Polito (2007) examined the difference in the level of self- efficacy between men and women with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and progressive forms of multiple sclerosis (MS). A quantitative, descriptive, comparative design was used. The convenience sample included 556 individuals with MS, of which 124 were men (73

RRMS and 51 progressive MS) and 432 women (348 RRMS and 84 progressive MS). Participants completed the Multiple Sclerosis Self-

Review of Related Literature

Efficacy Scale (MSSE), and found gender differences in self-efficacy among those living with MS. The women had a significantly greater belief in their ability to function with MS. The women also had a greater belief in their ability to control their MS than the men, although the difference was not significant. This study also found significant differences in self-efficacy between those with RRMS and those with progressive forms of MS. When men were compared by type of MS, those with RRMS had significantly greater belief in their ability to control their disease and function with it than those with progressive forms of MS. For women, those with RRMS had significantly greater belief in their ability to control their MS and function with it than women with progressive forms of MS. Individuals with MS could benefit from strategies that enhance self-efficacy. Such strategies include providing skills for self management of MS, providing education and support of the

patient and family, introducing the patient to a role model with MS,

encouraging physical reconditioning, and referring to a support group that

will meet individualized needs.

Hale (2006) conducted a study on Sixteen (16) University Students (8

male, 8 female) volunteered for this study which purpose was determine

the influence of stretching before exercise on affective states such as state

anxiety and acute self-efficacy. Participants completed two experimental 58

Review of Related Literature trials which included a maximal effort cycling time trial. Each subject

completed sessions, one with a stretching intervention and one with a

control intervention. Subjects completed an STAI questionnaire to

measure state anxiety during pre- and post- the cycling time trial on both

experimental sessions. An Acute Self-Efficacy questionnaire was also

administered before the cycling time trial in both experimental sessions

within subjects’ differences were analyzed using a general linear model

ANOVA and a paired samples t-test. There was no influence of pre-

exercise stretching on state anxiety and acute self-efficacy. Therefore,

acute stretching before a bout of exercise does not influence self-efficacy

and/or state anxiety.

Luszczynska and Gutierrez-Dona (2005) examined whether perceived

self-efficacy is a universal psychological construct that accounts for

variance within various domains of human functioning. Perceived self-

efficacy is not only of a task-specific nature, but it can also be identified

at a more general level of functioning. General self-efficacy (GSE) is the

belief in one’s competence to tackle novel tasks and to cope with

adversity in a broad range of stressful or challenging encounters, as

opposed to specific self-efficacy, which is constrained to a particular task

at hand. The study aimed at exploring the relations between GSE and a

variety of other psychological constructs across several countries. 59

Review of Related Literature

Relations between general self-efficacy and personality, well-being, stress appraisals, social relations, and achievements were examined among 8796 participants from Costa Rica, Germany, Poland, Turkey, and the USA. Across countries, the findings provide evidence for associations between perceived general self-efficacy and the selected variables. The highest positive associations were with optimism, self-regulation, and self-esteem, whereas the highest negative associations emerged with depression and anxiety. Academic performance is also associated with self-efficacy as hypothesized. The replication across languages or cultures adds significance to these findings. The relations between self- efficacy and other personality measures remained stable across cultures and samples. Thus, perceived general self-efficacy appears to be a universal construct that yields meaningful relations with other psychological constructs.

Jones, Bray, Mace, Macrae and Stockbridge (2002) examined the impact of an imagery script intervention on the levels of perceived stress, self- efficacy and climbing performance of volunteer female participants.

Novice climbers were randomly select to either a control group, or to an imagery intervention group. Every individual attended four sessions,

during which they practiced basic climbing techniques and took part in either a light exercise program (control group) or a scripted imagery 60

Review of Related Literature training program (experimental group). The imagery script comprised both motivational general-mastery and motivational general-arousal types

of imagery. During the testing session the participants climbed a 5.1

meter climbing wall following a designated route. Pre-climb levels of

self-efficacy and perceived stress were measured. Perceived stress levels

were also assessed on three occasions during the climb itself. The

experimental group reported significantly lower levels of perceived stress

before and during the climb and higher levels of self-efficacy in their

ability to execute the correct technique during the climb. There was no

significant difference in climbing performance between groups.

Mills, Munroe and Hall (2001) examined whether a relationship exists

between self-efficacy and the use of imagery by athletes involved in

individual sports. It was expected that athletes who were high in self-

efficacy would more likely use imagery than those who were low in self-

efficacy. Fifty (50) varsity athletes involved in wrestling, rowing, and

track and field completed both the Sport Imagery Questionnaire [1] and a

self-efficacy questionnaire. Results revealed that athletes who are high in

self-efficacy in competition situations tend to use more motivational imagery than their low self-efficacy counterparts. No such differences were found for cognitive imagery use in competition, or for the use of either motivational or cognitive imagery in practice. 61

Review of Related Literature

Treasure, Monson and Lox (1996) examined the relationship between self-efficacy, wrestling performance, and affect prior to competition.15

minutes prior to competition, 70 male high school wrestlers (M = 16.03

years) completed a self-efficacy assessment, the Positive and Negative

Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, &Tellegen, 1988), and the Cognitive

and Somatic Anxiety Inventory-2 (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, &

Smith, 1990). Self-efficacy was found to be significantly associated with

positive and negative affect and cognitive and somatic anxiety. Consistent with social cognitive theory, self-efficacy was a stronger predictor of performance when the measure was process oriented rather than win-loss.

The findings suggest that confusion and equivocality in the literature could be removed if researchers assessed self-efficacy in a micro analytical fashion. Future research investigating the affective antecedents of performance should go beyond merely assessing negative stress and

recognize the potential role positive affect may play in sport behavior.

CHAPTER–III Methodology

Chapter-III

Methodology

It is customary in behavioural sciences to illustrate, explain, prognosticate, and control the phenomena which they treat. Scientists use observation as a basis of answering questions of interest (Selltiz, Marie,

Deutich, & Cook, 1964; Stollak, Guerncy, & Rothberg, 1966; Shontz,

1965; Lindzey, 1954; Festinger & Katz, 1953). In another way we can say that scientists find out facts and analyze them in a scientific and systematic way for suggest conclusions. In the present study, Research design as a vital role to anxiety observation on the track and field events related to specific group which making prediction about the self efficacy and anxiety level behaviour of larger group represented by the subjects and the choice of methodology of research determined by the nature of the study, because every specific research demands and requires a particular process and operation to be under taken for carrying out the investigation. In carrying out any scientific research, it is necessary to carefully adopt appropriate research design, selecting standardized tools, choosing a good strength of sample through appropriate sampling technique, undertaking sound procedure for collecting data, tabulating Methodology them, and then analyzing the data by applying most suitable statistical technique to establish meaningful conclusions.

The present research design is the general structure of the experiments and its specific contents (Myers, 1980). Mahoney (1984) suggested that the research design describe speculate relation between

observed facts and figures on the basis of which conclusions are to be

drawn. Thus, the above observation is governed by the aims of the

present study; the variables are dissecting the nature of the data. Edwards

(1968) signified that in research we do not haphazardly make

observations of any and all kinds but rather our vigilance is directed

towards those observations that we believe to be relevant to the questions,

we have previously formulated. Mainly this chapter focuses on the

concept of methodology of the present study, which included and

describes the sample, their strength, research regarding tools, procedure

of data collection, and statistical technique. This study is conduct entitled

“A comparative study of state anxiety and self-efficacy among athletes”.

The abbreviations used in this study are Competitive State Anxiety

Inventory-2(CSAI-2) and General Self-Efficacy (GSE). The details of the

methodological steps are as follow.

Methodology

Sample

In general, sample is a small portion of a specific population or universe as representative of that particular population or universe.

Mohsin (1984) stated that sample is a small part of total existing events, objective, or the information for selecting appropriate sample for the type of research the random sampling technique is found to be more suitable in conducting the investigation. In this sampling technique, every athletes gets the equal opportunity of being selecting in the sample, this sampling method was an appropriate in the every context of the present research

endeavour.

The subjects for the present study consisted of 400 University level

track and field athletes (270 track and 130 field) with their high and low

performances who were randomly selected from the 70th All India Inter

University Athletic Competition held at Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium

Chennai (27th to 31st December, 2009) under the auspicious of Madras

University, Chennai. The sample was categorized into certain groups in terms of track and field athletes included both male and female sections with their high and low performances. The high performance athletes are those who had succeeded in achieving first eight positions in their own respective events and low performers were those athletes who unable to fight for the final round. The age of the subject ranged from 18 to

25years.

Methodology

Name of the Universities and their selected participants:

S. Track Field Name of Universities Total No. Athletes Athletes 1 Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh. 10 5 15 2 Anna University-Coimbatore. 5 1 6 3 Annamalai University, Chidambaram. 0 5 5 Bhartidarshan University 4 6 2 8 Tiruchirappalli. 5 Bunndelkhand University, Jhansi (UP). 6 2 8 6 Bangalore University-Bangalore. 3 2 5 7 Banaras Hindu University, Banaras. 15 2 17 8 Calcutta University. 4 2 6 9 Dr. B.R.A. University Agra. 9 0 9 10 Dr. B.A.U Aurangabad. 4 2 6 11 Dr. N.T.R-U H S. 6 1 7 12 D.D. University, Gorakhpur. 3 8 11 13 Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. 4 7 11 Hemachandra Acharya North Gujarat 14 8 7 15 University, Patan. Jawaharlal Nehru Tech. University 15 5 1 6 Kukatpally (A.P.) 16 Jiwaji University Gwalior. 1 3 4 Karnataka State Women’s University 17 4 3 7 Bijapur. 18 Kannur University Kannur 6 1 7 19 Kumaun University Nanital. 7 0 7 20 Kuvempu University Shimoga. 5 2 7 21 Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. 7 5 12 22 L.N.U.P.E Gwalior. 13 0 13 23 Lovely Professional University. 9 4 13 Mangalore University Mangalogangotri 24 0 5 5 (Karnataka). 66

Methodology

Mahatma Gandhi University, 25 12 9 21 Kottayam. Maharshive Dayanand University, 26 7 2 9 Rohtak 27 Osmaniya University, Hyderabad. 5 1 6 28 Punjab University, Chandigarh. 7 4 11 Periyar Maniammai University, 29 7 1 8 Tanjore. 30 Punjabi University, Patiala. 4 7 11 Rashtriya Sanskrit University, 31 3 0 3 Tirupathi. Rajive Gandhi Provdyagiki, 32 3 5 8 Vishwavidyalaya-Bhopal 33 Sardar Patel University, Gujarat. 4 3 7 34 Saurashtra University, Rajkot. 6 0 6 Shivaji University Kolhapur, 35 3 2 5 Maharashtra. Thiruvalluvar University Vellore 36 11 4 15 (Tamilnadu). 37 University of Delhi. 4 1 5 38 University of Calicut-Calicut (Kerala). 7 1 8 39 University of Pune. 2 0 2 40 University of Calcutta-Kolkata. 2 3 5 41 University of Kerala, Thiruvendrum. 10 3 13 42 University of Madras-Chennai. 11 6 17 43 University of Mumbai, Mumbai. 7 2 9 44 V.B.S. Purvanchal University. 1 0 1 45 Vikram University - Ujjain (MP). 8 4 12 Visvesuaraya Technological 46 6 2 8 University, Belgaum (Karnataka). Total 270 130 400

Methodology

Tools

Psychological tests are used to measure and understand human behavior. It is matter of fact that there is not a single tool or psychological instrument, which may understand all aspect of behaviour because of complex and varying psycho - emotional attributes of personality and human behavior dimension.

However, questionnaires since long have been most favored and

convenient tool in psychological research. In the present study two

questionnaires were used and the details of each questionnaire used are as

follows.

1. Demographic Information Form

Demographic information form was prepared by the researcher to

record various demographic information of the responded such as age,

sex, place, event, previous performance, experience, and educational

qualification, which help a lot in drawing inference from the findings.

2. Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2)

Investigator used the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2

Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith (1990).The CSAI-2 contains

Methodology three subscales of cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self confidence and this tool consists of 27 statements. In which 9 items regarding cognitive state anxiety, 9 items for somatic state anxiety and rest 9 items represent self-confidence of athletes. It is a 4 points likert type scale and its reliability is reported to be 0.93. The scoring varies from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much) for each item (range 9 to 36). The item no.14 are scoring

reversed, i.e.1 (very much) to 4 (not at all).

3. General Self- Efficacy Scale (GSES)

The General self efficacy scale is a 10-items psychometric scale

that is designed to assess optimistic self-belief to cope with a variety of difficult demands in life. The scale has been originally developed in

Germany by Matthias Jerusalem and Ralf Schwarzer in 1981, first as a

20-item version and later as a reduced 10- item version by Sud, R.

Schwarzer along and M. Jerusalem (1995), and the test is self-evaluation

questionnaire consisting of 10 statements related to situation. Cronbach’s

alphas ranged from 0.76 to 0.90, with the majority in the high 0.80. It has

been used in many studies with hundred thousands of participants. In

contrast to other scales those were designed to assess optimism. This one

explicitly refers to personal agency, i.e., the belief that one’s actions are

responsible for successful out comes.

Methodology

Procedure of Data Collection

High and low performance track and field athletes selected gender wise for the present study. The athletes who meet the selection criteria were included and persuaded that the information provided by his/her would be kept confidential and would be used for research purpose only.

For collection of data participants, coaches and their manager were contacted and informed the nature of the study in All India Athletics Meet and invited to take part honestly in the investigation. A suitable time and venue for the collection of data were then arranged. In the administration of test, team coaches and managers, university team members, helped the investigator. The athletes were asked to read all instructions carefully without spending too much time and give the answer of questions as truthful as possible. Supervisors, usually the investigator him-self, assisted the subjects in comprehending the meaning of the word or a sentence so that it becomes easier for them to give their proper response.

Researcher made the request to complete all questionnaires such as

Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) and General Self- efficacy Scale (GSES). After the collection of data investigator did scoring of the entire questions. There were instances, where an athlete took part in two events and fortunate to achieve a positive positions in

Methodology both the events in that condition the high performers, no need was felt to test them again: however, their scores in one section of the data were transferred to the other section as it is. After completing the data, researcher took the forms and response sheets and arranged them according to their respective events high and low performance in different conditions.

Statistical Analysis

According to the requirement of proposed hypotheses and the nature of the study, the obtained data were analyzed to examine the difference between the psychological variables in different categories

(track & field, male & female, and high & low performers), z test was applied to find out the significant difference between high and low performance track and field athletes regarding to competitive state anxiety (cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self-confidence) and self- efficacy.

CHAPTER–IV Results and Discussion

Chapter-IV

Results and Discussion

The present study was designed to examine the performance of track and field athletes of different Indian universities under the psychological variables. The main thrusts of variables under the study were the competitive state anxiety (cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self- confidence) and general self-efficacy. The data obtained from athletes on the above psychological variables under track and field condition and statistically analyzed by z test to find out the significance differences above mentioned psychological variables. The analysis was carried out for the scores obtained under track and field event separately at different stages. In the first stage, the researcher compared within high and low performance athletes, in second and third stages compared separately with track and field athletes among psychological variable. The main findings are as follow. Results and Discussion

Table-1

Showing difference between high and low performance athletes on

competitive state anxiety

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

High Performance 140 65.22 8.09 Athletes 2.87* Low Performance 260 67.87 9.16 Athletes

*Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 1.96

From the table 1, it is observed that the difference between high and low performance athletes on competitive state anxiety is significant because obtained z value (2.87) is greater than tabulated z value (1.96) at

0.05 level of significance with 398 degree of freedom.

Results and Discussion

Figure-1

Showing mean difference between high and low performance athletes

on competitive state anxiety

Results and Discussion

Table-1.1

Showing difference between high and low performance athletes on

competitive state anxiety sub-variable

Low Performance Athletes High Performance Athletes (N=140) (N=260)

Sub-variable Mean S D Mean S D Z-value

Cognitive 19.57 3.75 22.21 4.21 6.22* Anxiety Somatic Anxiety 18.33 4.02 20.62 4.66 4.89*

Self-Confidence 27.28 5.01 25.29 5.47 3.56*

*Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 1.96

It is clear from above table 1.1that there are significant differences

exist between high and low performance athletes on the variable of

cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self-confidence. As a result of

computed z values (6.22, 4.89 & 3.56) are greater than tabulated z value

(1.96) at 0.05 level of significance with 398 degree of freedom.

Results and Discussion

Figure-1.1

Showing mean difference between high and low performance athletes

on competitive state anxiety sub-variable

Results and Discussion

Table-2

Showing difference between high performance track and field

athletes on competitive state anxiety

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

High Performance Track 80 65.85 8.97 Athletes 1.06 High Performance Field 60 64.38 6.72 Athletes

Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 1.96

The readings of table 2 show that the calculated z value (1.06) is less than tabulated z value (1.96) at 0.05 level of significance with 138 degree of freedom, that means insignificant difference exists between high performance track and field athletes on competitive state anxiety.

Results and Discussion

Figure-2

Showing mean difference between high performance track and field

athletes on competitive state anxiety

Results and Discussion

Table-2.1

Showing difference between high performance track and field

athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable

High Performance Track Athletes High Performance Field Athletes (N=80) (N=60)

Sub-variable Mean S D Mean S D Z-value

Cognitive 19.77 3.92 19.30 3.53 0.74 Anxiety Somatic 18.95 4.47 17.52 3.19 2.11* Anxiety Self 27.20 5.11 27.38 4.91 0.21 Confidence

*Significant at .05 level, Tabulated z value = 1.96

The readings of above table show that a significant difference exists on the variable of somatic anxiety. It is due to the fact that computed z value (2.11) is more than tabulated z value (1.96) at 0.05 level of significance with 138 degree of freedom. Further insignificant differences exist on remaining two variable i.e., cognitive anxiety and self confidence between high performance track and field athletes.

Results and Discussion

Figure-2.1

Showing mean difference between high performance track and field

athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable

Results and Discussion

Table-3

Showing difference between low performance track and field athletes

on competitive state anxiety

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

Low Performance Track 190 68.30 9.34 Athletes 1.29 Low Performance Field 70 66.71 8.59 Athletes

Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value =1.96

It is indicated from the table 3 that insignificant difference exists between low performance track and field athletes on competitive state

anxiety. Since, calculated z value (1.29) is less than tabulated z value

(1.96) at 0.05 level of significance with 158 degree of freedom.

Results and Discussion

Figure-3

Showing mean difference between low performance track and field

athletes on competitive state anxiety

Results and Discussion

Table-3.1

Showing difference between low performance track and field athletes

on competitive state anxiety sub-variable

Low Performance Track Athletes Low Performance Field Athletes (N=190) (N=70)

Sub-variable Mean S D Mean S D Z-value

Cognitive 22.40 4.23 21.71 4.11 1.17 Anxiety

Somatic 20.68 4.77 20.44 4.37 0.37 Anxiety

Self 25.27 4.48 25.34 7.57 0.09 Confidence

Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value =1.96

It is observed from the table 3.1 that the difference between low

performance track and field athletes is insignificant on competitive state

anxiety sub-variables, as the calculated z value (1.17, 0.37, 0.90) on each

sub-variable (cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self confidence) is

less than tabulated z value (1.96) at 0.05 level of significance with 258

degree of freedom.

Results and Discussion

Figure-3.1

Showing mean difference between low performance track and field

athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable

Results and Discussion

Table-4

Showing difference between high and low performance track athletes

on competitive state anxiety

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

High Performance 80 65.85 8.97 Track Athletes 1.99* Low Performance 190 68.30 9.34 Track Athletes

*Significant at .05 level, Tabulated z value = 1.96

It is observed from above table that there is significant difference

exist between high and low performance track athletes on the variable of

competitive state anxiety. It is due to the fact that calculated z value

(1.99) is greater than tabulated z value (1.96) at 0.05 level of significance

with 268 degree of freedom.

Results and Discussion

Figure-4

Showing mean difference between high and low performance track

athletes on competitive state anxiety

Results and Discussion

Table-4.1

Showing difference between high and low performance track athletes

on competitive state anxiety sub-variable

High Performance Track Athletes Low Performance Track Athletes (N=80) (N=190) Sub-variable Mean S D Mean S D Z-value

Cognitive 19.77 3.91 22.40 4.23 4.75* Anxiety

Somatic 18.95 4.47 20.68 4.77 2.77* Anxiety

Self 27.20 5.11 25.27 4.48 3.09* Confidence

*Significant at .05 level, Tabulated z value =1.96

The difference between high and low performance track athletes on

competitive state anxiety sub-variable(cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety,

and self confidence) is significant because obtained z value (4.75, 2.77 &

3.09) is greater on each variable than tabulated z value (1.96) at 0.05 level

of significance with 268 degree of freedom.

Results and Discussion

Figure-4.1

Showing mean difference between high and low performance track

athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable

Results and Discussion

Table-5

Showing difference between male and female high performance track

athletes on competitive state anxiety

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

Male High Performance Track 50 67.58 7.86 Athletes 2.28* Female High Performance 30 62.97 10.05 Track Athletes

*Significant at .05 level, Tabulated z value = 2.00

For competitive state anxiety, it is evident from the table 5 that

there is significant difference exist between male and female high

performance track athletes. It is due to the fact that the computed z value

(2.28) is greater than tabulated z value (2.00) at 0.05 level of significance

with 78 degree of freedom.

Results and Discussion

Figure-5

Showing mean difference between male and female high performance

track athletes on competitive state anxiety

Results and Discussion

Table-5.1

Showing difference between male and female high performance track

athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable

Male High Performance Track Female High Performance Track Athletes (N=50 Athletes (N=30)

Sub-variable Mean S D Mean S D Z-value

Cognitive 19.92 3.88 19.53 3.02 0.42 Anxiety

Somatic 19.36 4.65 18.27 4.13 1.06 Anxiety

Self- 28.30 4.42 25.37 5.71 2.57* Confidence

*Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 2.00

It is clear from the above table that there is insignificant difference exists between male and female high performance track athletes on the variable of cognitive and somatic anxiety. The computed z value (0.42,

1.06) is less than tabulated z value (1.96). Further significant difference exists on the variable of self-confidence between male and female high performance track athletes at 0.05 level of significance with 78 degree of freedom.

Results and Discussion

Figure-5.1

Showing mean difference between male and female high performance

track athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable

Results and Discussion

Table-6

Showing difference between male and female low performance track

athletes on competitive state anxiety

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

Male Low Performance 130 67.85 9.27 Track Athletes 0.97 Female Low Performance 60 69.27 9.17 Track Athletes

Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 1.96

It is documented from the table 6 that there is insignificant difference between male and female low performance track athletes on competitive state anxiety because calculated z value (0.97) is less than tabulated z value (1.96) at 0.05 level of significance with 188 degree of freedom.

Results and Discussion

Figure-6

Showing mean difference between male and female low performance

track athletes on competitive state anxiety

Results and Discussion

Table-6.1

Showing difference between male and female low performance track

athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable

Male Low Performance Track Female Low Performance Athletes (N=130) Track Athletes (N=60)

Sub-variable Mean S D Mean S D Z-value

Cognitive 22.18 4.25 22.88 4.21 1.19 Anxiety

Somatic 20.20 4.89 21.73 4.11 1.93 Anxiety

Self- 25.48 4.37 24.82 4.66 0.91 Confidence

Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 1.96

When the researcher go through the table 6.1, insignificant differences exist between male and female low performance track athletes with regard to competitive state anxiety sub-variable because calculated z value on each sub-variable (cognitive=1.19, somatic anxiety=1.93 and

self confidence=0.91) is less than tabulated z value (1.96) at 0.05 level of

significance with 188 degree of freedom.

Results and Discussion

Figure-6.1

Showing mean difference between male and female low performance

track athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable

Results and Discussion

Table-7

Showing difference between high and low performance field athletes

on competitive state anxiety

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

High Performance Field 60 64.38 6.71 Athletes 1.70 Low Performance Field 70 66.70 8.59 Athletes

Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 1.96

Since, calculated z value (1.70) is less than tabulated z value (1.96)

at 0.05 level of significance with 128 degree of freedom, thus above data

provide sufficient evidence to ensure that the difference between high and

low performance field athletes is insignificant on competitive state

anxiety.

Results and Discussion

Figure-7

Showing mean difference between high and low performance field

athletes on competitive state anxiety

Results and Discussion

Table-7.1

Showing difference between high and low performance field athletes

on competitive state anxiety sub-variable

High Performance Field Athletes Low Performance Field Athletes (N=60) (N=70)

Sub-variable Mean S D Mean S D Z-value

Cognitive 19.30 3.53 21.71 4.11 3.56* Anxiety

Somatic 17.52 3.19 20.44 4.37 4.29* Anxiety

Self- 27.38 4.91 25.34 7.57 1.79 Confidence

*Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 1.96

The readings of the table 7.1 reveal that there are significant

differences exist between high and low performance field athletes on the

variable of cognitive and somatic anxiety. As a result of computed z

value (3.56, 4.29) is greater than tabulated z value (1.96). Further

insignificant difference examines on the variable of self-confidence as

calculated z value (1.79) is less than tabulated value (1.96) at 0.05 level

of significance with 128 degree of freedom.

Results and Discussion

Figure-7.1

Showing mean difference between high and low performance field

athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable

100

Results and Discussion

Table-8

Showing difference between male and female high performance field

athletes on competitive state anxiety

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

Male High Performance Field 32 64.47 7.04 Athletes 0.10 Female High Performance 28 64.28 6.45 Field Athletes

Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 2.00

It is indicated from the table 8 that there is insignificant difference between male and female high performance field athletes on competitive state anxiety, this is due to the obtained z value (0.10) is less than tabulated z value (2.00) at 0.05 level of significance with 58 degree of freedom.

101

Results and Discussion

Figure-8

Showing mean difference between male and female high performance

field athletes on competitive state anxiety

102

Results and Discussion

Table-8.1

Showing difference between male and female high performance field

athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable

Male High Performance Field Female High Performance Field Athletes (N=32) Athletes (N=28)

Sub-variable Mean S D Mean S D Z-value

Cognitive 19.47 3.21 19.10 3.91 0.39 Anxiety

Somatic 16.91 2.84 18.21 3.46 1.61 Anxiety

Self- 27.75 5.76 26.96 3.77 0.61 Confidence

Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 2.00

Since, calculated z value on each sub-variable of competitive state

anxiety(cognitive anxiety=0.39, somatic anxiety=1.61 and self-

confidence=0.61) is less than tabulated z value (1.96) so insignificant

differences exist between male and female high performance field

athletes at 0.05 level of significance with 58 degree of freedom.

103

Results and Discussion

Figure-8.1

Showing mean difference between male and female high performance

field athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable

104

Results and Discussion

Table-9

Showing difference between male and female low performance field

athletes on competitive state anxiety

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

Male Low Performance Field 35 67.34 9.10 Athletes 0.61 Female Low Performance 35 66.08 8.13 Field Athletes

Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 2.00

There is insignificant difference exist between male and female low performance field athletes on competitive state anxiety because the computed z value (0.61) is less than tabulated z value (2.00) at 0.05 level

of significance with 68 degree of freedom.

105

Results and Discussion

Figure-9

Showing mean difference between male and female low performance

field athletes on competitive state anxiety

106

Results and Discussion

Table-9.1

Showing difference between male and female low performance field

athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable

Male Low Performance Field Female Low Performance Field Athletes (N=35) Athletes (N=35)

Sub-variable Mean S D Mean S D Z-value

Cognitive 21.48 4.27 21.94 3.99 0.46 Anxiety

Somatic 20.08 4.73 20.80 4.02 0.68 Anxiety

Self- 25.77 4.37 24.91 9.84 0.47 Confidence

Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 2.00

From the table 9.1, it is observe that there are insignificant differences exist between male and female low performance field athletes with regard to each variable of competitive state anxiety, it may be due to the fact that calculated z value of each sub-variable (0.46, 0.68, 0.47) is less than tabulated z value (2.00) at 0.05 level of significant with 68 degree of freedom.

107

Results and Discussion

Figure-9.1

Showing mean difference between male and female low performance

field athletes on competitive state anxiety sub-variable.

108

Results and Discussion

Table-10

Showing difference between high and low performance athletes on

self-efficacy

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

High Performance 140 32.96 4.83 Athletes 5.80* Low Performance 260 29.88 5.21 Athletes

*Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 1.96

It is clear from the table 10 that calculated z value (5.80) is greater

than the tabulated z value (1.96) at 0.05 level of significance with 398

degree of freedom, so there is significant difference exist between high

and low performance athletes on the variable of self-efficacy.

109

Results and Discussion

Figure-10

Showing mean difference between high and low performance athletes

on self-efficacy

110

Results and Discussion

Table-11

Showing difference between high performance track and field

athletes on self-efficacy

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

High Performance 80 32.25 4.46 Track Athletes 2.04* High Performance 60 33.92 5.16 Field Athletes

*Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 1.96

It is indicated from the table 11 that computed z value (2.04) is greater than tabulated z value (1.96) at 0.05 level of significance with 138 degree of freedom, thus data provide sufficient evidence to ensure that the difference between high performance track and high performance field

athlete is significant on the variable of self-efficacy.

111

Results and Discussion

Figure-11

Showing mean difference between high performance track and field

athletes on self-efficacy

112

Results and Discussion

Table-12

Showing difference between low performance track and field athletes

on self-efficacy

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

Low Performance Track 190 29.73 5.32 Athletes 0.74 Low Performance Field 70 30.27 4.89 Athletes

Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 1.96

It is observe from the table 12 that insignificance difference exists between low performance track and low performance field athletes on self-efficacy. Since, calculated z value (0.74) is less than tabulated z value (1.96) at 0.05 level of significance with 258 degree of freedom.

113

Results and Discussion

Figure-12

Showing mean difference between low performance track and field

athletes on self efficacy

114

Results and Discussion

Table-13

Showing difference between high and low performance track athletes

on self-efficacy

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

High Performance Track 80 32.25 4.46 Athletes 3.72* Low Performance Track 190 29.73 5.32 Athletes

*Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 1.96

When the researcher critically examines the table 13 than a significant difference exists between high and low performance track

athletes with regard to self-efficacy. It is due to the fact that calculated z

value (3.72) is more than tabulated z value (1.96) at 0.05 level of

significant with 268 degree of freedom.

115

Results and Discussion

Figure-13

Showing mean difference between high and low performance track

athletes on self efficacy

116

Results and Discussion

Table-14

Showing difference between male and female high performance track

athletes on self-efficacy

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

Male High Performance 50 32.30 4.77 Track Athletes 0.13 Female High Performance 30 32.16 4.97 Track Athletes

Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 2.00

It is depicted from the table 14 that there is no significant difference between male and female high performance track athletes on the variable of self-efficacy because the calculated z value (0.13) is less than tabulated z value (2.00) at 0.05 level of significance with 78 degree

of freedom.

117

Results and Discussion

Figure-14

Showing mean difference between male and female high performance

track athletes on self efficacy

118

Results and Discussion

Table-15

Showing difference between male and female low performance track

athletes on self-efficacy

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

Male Low Performance 130 29.57 5.45 Track Athletes 0.77 Female Low Performance 60 30.08 4.92 Track Athletes

Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 1.96

From table 15, it is clear that the resultant value of z (0.77) is less than tabulated value of z (1.96) at 0.05 level of significance with 188 degree of freedom; it means there is insignificant difference between male and female low performance track athletes on self-efficacy.

119

Results and Discussion

Figure-15

Showing mean difference between male and female low performance

track athletes on self-efficacy

120

Results and Discussion

Table-16

Showing difference between high and low performance field athletes

on self-efficacy

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

High Performance Field 60 33.92 5.16 Athletes 4.12* Low Performance Field 70 30.27 4.89 Athletes

*Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 1.96

From the table 16 it is observed that calculated z value (4.12) is greater than tabulated z value (1.96) at 0.05 level of significance with 128 degree of freedom, thus above data provide sufficient evidence to ensure

that the high and low performance field athletes are significantly differ on

the variable of self-efficacy.

121

Results and Discussion

Figure-16

Showing mean difference between high and low performance field

athletes on self-efficacy

122

Results and Discussion

Table-17

Showing difference between male and female high performance field

athletes on self-efficacy

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

Male High Performance 32 34.75 6.16 Field Athletes 1.35 Female High Performance 28 32.96 3.57 Field Athletes

Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 2.00

From the above table, it is observe that calculated z value (1.35) is

lesser than tabulated z value (2.00) at 0.05 level of significance with 58

degree of freedom which shows insignificant difference between male

and female high performance field athletes with regard to self-efficacy.

123

Results and Discussion

Figure-17

Showing mean difference between male and female high performance

field athletes on self-efficacy

124

Results and Discussion

Table-18

Showing difference between male and female low performance field

athletes on self-efficacy

Groups N Mean S D Z-value

Male Low Performance 35 30.43 5.14 Field Athletes 0.27 Female Low Performance 35 30.11 4.71 Field Athletes

Significant at 0.05 level, Tabulated z value = 2.00

When the researcher goes through the table 18, it is observed that there is no significant difference between male and female low performance field athletes on the variable of self-efficacy. It is due to the fact that calculated z value (0.27) is less than tabulated z value (2.00) at

0.05 level of significance with 68 degree of freedom.

125

Results and Discussion

Figure-18

Showing mean difference between male and female low performance

field athletes on self-efficacy

126

Results and Discussion

Discussion

The present empirical research conducted on track and field athletes to determine the differences on the variables of competitive state anxiety

(cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self-confidence) and self-

efficacy. Investigator discuss the result by evaluating the effectiveness of psychological interventions by reaching an individual with differing competitive state anxiety (cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self- confidence) and self efficacy, present investigation also carried to decide that how we could improve our outreach efforts to adapt the psychological demand of athletes. The results of the present study showed a tendency for competitive state anxiety and self efficacy by athletes in the following approach.

It was hypothesized that athletes having low competitive state anxiety would be high performers in their respective event, It may be observed from table 1 that high and low performance athletes significantly differ with each other on competitive state anxiety at 0.05 level of significance. The mean score (M=65.22) of high performance athletes was lower as compared to low performance athletes (M=67.87).

While referencing to the mean value of the table 1.1, it was observed that

high performance athletes recorded higher mean score on self-confidence

127

Results and Discussion

and lower score on cognitive and somatic anxiety sub-variable as compared to low performance athletes.

High performance track athletes have significantly lower level of

competitive state anxiety because the mean score (65.85) of high

performance track athletes was less than low performance track athletes

(68.30). Further significant differences were found on sub-variable of

competitive state anxiety (Table 4 & 4.1), thus the proposed hypothesis is

accepted. High performance athletes reported lower level of competitive

state anxiety.

Insignificant difference existed on the variable of competitive state

anxiety and two sub-variables i.e., cognitive anxiety and self-confidence,

and significant difference found on the sub-variable somatic anxiety

between high performance track and field athletes. High performance

track athletes showed slightly higher level of somatic anxiety as

compared to high performance field athletes (Table 2, 2.1).

Insignificant difference was observed between high and low

performance field athletes on competitive state anxiety. However, the

mean score (M=64.38) of high performance field athletes was lower than

low performance field athletes (M=66.70) on competitive state anxiety

than the proposed hypothesis also partially accepted because high 128

Results and Discussion

performance field athletes had low level of anxiety (Table.7). Further it

was observed from table 7.1 that significant difference was existed

between high and low performance field athletes on the sub-variable of

cognitive, somatic anxiety and insignificant on self-confidence. The mean

score of low performance field athletes on cognitive and somatic anxiety

was significantly higher (M=21.71, 20.44) as compared to high

performance field athletes (M=19.30, 17.52). Hence, it may be concluded

that low level of competitive state anxiety positively contributed to the track and field athletes towards their better and economical performance.

It may be due to the fact that high performance track and field athletes

have active participation in this type of athletic competition as result of

they had more experience, capacity and capabilities to manage such type

of stress, tension and unpleasant feelings that happen in competitive

environment, than low performers or less experience athletes. These

findings greatly support with the findings of Karne and Williams (1994)

suggested that less experience players have higher level of anxiety while

compare to more experienced players. On the other hand, it is in line with

the inverted-U hypothesis that the level of performance decrease when

anxiety is either too low or too high (Burton, 1988; Weinberg & Genuchi,

1980). A moderate or low level of anxiety may be helpful to excel in

higher level of sports, and Wiggins and Brustad, (1996) found that

129

Results and Discussion athletes with lower scores on cognitive and somatic anxiety, and higher score on self confidence perceived their anxiety as more facilitative of performance these athletes also had significantly higher score on the expectation of performance scale.

This falls in accordance with the results of previous studies done by Khan and Ali (2010) found that elite high jumpers indicated higher level of self-confidence and low level of cognitive and somatic state anxiety while compared to non elite high jumpers. Similar study conducted by Mullen, Lane and Hanton (2009) while states that a significant main effect was identified for trait worry revealing that low trait anxious athletes reported lower level of cognitive and somatic anxiety and higher self-confidence and further study done by Awolframm and Micklewright (2008) found that riding-specific skills in the elite rider may have higher self-confidence with lower levels of somatic anxiety as non elite riders,

Table 5 and 5.1 revealed that significant difference existed between male and female high performance track athletes on competitive state anxiety and insignificant differences existed on sub-variables i.e. cognitive and somatic anxiety. Insignificant difference existed between male and female high performance field athletes on competitive state

130

Results and Discussion

anxiety and same result were found on cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety

and self confidence (Table 8 & 8.1). Further significant difference existed

on the level of self confidence between male and female high performance track athletes at 0.05 level of significance. Hence, it may be

concluded that high performance male athletes have higher level of self confidence while compared to high performance female athletes with their respective event. Gender differences affect the self-confidence on higher level of performers but cognitive and somatic anxiety had no difference. These empirical findings supported the observation of Scanlan and Passer, 1979; Wark and Witting, 1979 which indicated that male athletes typically display lower levels of anxiety and higher self- confidence than female athletes. The above findings appear to support the existing theories on intensity (Mellalieu, Neil & Hanton, 2006; Parfitt &

Pates, 1999); Stavrou, Psychoudaki and Zevars, (2006); Woodman and

Hardy, (2003); Wilson and Raglin, (1997) demonstrate that the more experienced athletes showing lower levels of cognitive and somatic anxiety than the less experienced players.

The findings of different tables (6, 6.1 & 9, 9.1) showed insignificant difference between male and female low performance track athletes and male and female low performance field athletes on the variable of competitive sate anxiety and it sub-variables namely cognitive 131

Results and Discussion

anxiety, somatic anxiety and self confidence. The mean value of female

athletes was slightly higher regarding to cognitive anxiety, somatic

anxiety and male showed higher mean score on self confidence but these

differences were negligible. It means male and female low performance

field athletes had same anxiety level. Insignificant difference also found

between low performance track and field athletes on above mentioned

sub-variables of state anxiety. There was insignificant difference on low

level of track and field condition (Table 3 & 3.1), so it may be concluded

that male and female low performers had same level of anxiety, our findings supported by the findings of various researchers such as Khan and Ali, (2011); Finkenberg, Dinucci, McCune, McCune, (1992);

Matheson and Mathews, (1991); Jones, Swain and Cale, (1991) and a

numbers of researches have shown that there was no significant

difference among male and female athletes. Seeley, Storey, Wagner,

Walker and Watts, (2005); Ramella- DeLuca, 2003; Sharma (2011) study supported that there was no gender difference in pre-competitive somatic anxiety. Eric and Kring, (1996) reported that female athletes had higher cognitive and somatic anxiety, and lower self confidence compared to male and these finding are consistent with present findings.

Further it was hypothesized that high self-efficacy record holders would be high performers, It had been reported in table 10 that self 132

Results and Discussion

efficacy came out to be significant (z = 5.80, p > 0.05) at .05 level of significance. High performance athletes had significantly higher mean score (M = 32.96) for self-efficacy when compared to low performance athletes (M = 29.88). Similar result was found between high performance track and field athletes as the mean value (33.92) of high performance field athletes for self-efficacy was significantly higher as compared to high performance track athletes (32.25).

Table 13 revealed that significant difference existed between high as well as low performance track athletes with regard to self efficacy. The calculated z value (3.72) was greater than tabulated z value (1.96) at 0.05 level of significance, same trained was found from table 16 that the difference between high and low performance field athletes was significant. The mean value (33.92) of high performance field athletes was significantly higher as the mean value (30.27) of low performance field athletes. The results clearly suggested that high performance record holders recorded higher level of self-efficacy to execute a particular task in stressful situation while compared to low performance track athletes, thus the proposed hypothesis strongly accepted. Performance accomplishments have proved to be the most influential source of efficacy information because they were based on one's own mastery experiences. Athletes mastery experiences affect self-efficacy beliefs 133

Results and Discussion through the cognitive processing of such information. High performers have highly salient or meaningful mastery experiences over the skill. These findings supported by Bandura (1977a) hypothesized that self-efficacy affects choice of activities, effort, persistence, and achievement. Compared with athletes who doubt their capabilities, those with high self-efficacy for accomplishing a task participate more readily, work harder, persist longer when they encounter difficulties, and achieve at a higher level. The present investigation is in line with the findings of

Khan and Khan, (2010); Khan and Ali, (2012); Treasure, Monsoon, and

Lox, (1996) they found the difference among high and low performance athletes self-efficacy was a stronger predictor of performance when the measure was process oriented rather than win and loss. Singh, Bhardwas, and Bhardwas (2009) showed that School National level athletes were significantly better on perceived within one self. Mills, Munroe & Hall

(2001) suggested who are high in self-efficacy in competition situations tend to use more motivational imagery than their low self-efficacy counterparts.

Male and female high performance track athletes showed higher level of self efficacy. There was no significant difference existed relating to male high performance track athletes (M=32.30) and female high performance track athletes (M=32.16) with regard to self efficacy (z 134

Results and Discussion

=0.13 <, p.05) (Table 14). From the table 12 it was found that

insignificant difference between low performance track and field athletes

with regard to self efficacy (z = 0.74 <, p .05).

Insignificant difference existed between male and female low performance track athletes with regard to self efficacy because the

tabulated z value was more than calculated z value (1.96 > 0.77) and the

mean score of male track athletes (29.57 < 30.08) was less as compared

to female athletes.

Furthermore, it has been monitored through the table17 that insignificant difference existed between male and female high performance field athletes on self efficacy.

There is no significant difference exist between male and female low performance field athletes on the variable of self efficacy (z =0.27

135

CHAPTER–V Conclusions, Suggestions & Recommendations

Chapter-V

Conclusions, Suggestions and Recommendations

Conclusions

On the basis of results obtained from the present investigation, following conclusions have been drawn.

1. High performance athletes had lower level of competitive state

anxiety, cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and higher level of self-

confidence in comparison to low performance athletes.

2. High performance track athletes had same level of competitive state

anxiety, cognitive anxiety and self-confidence but they had higher

somatic anxiety in comparison to high performance field athletes.

3. Insignificant differences were found between low performance track

and field athletes on competitive state anxiety and its sub-variables

(cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self-confidence).

4. High performance track athletes had lower level of competitive state

anxiety and its sub-variables i.e. cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety

with high level of self-confidence when compared to low

performance track athletes. Conclusions, Suggestions and Recommendations

5. Male high performance track athletes had higher level of competitive

state anxiety and self-confidence as compared to female high

performance track athletes. Further male and female high

performance track athletes had same level of cognitive and somatic

anxiety.

6. Male and female low performance track athletes had same level of

competitive state anxiety and its sub-variables i.e. cognitive anxiety,

somatic anxiety and self-confidence.

7. High and low performance field athletes had same level of

competitive state anxiety, self-confidence and lower level of

cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety.

8. Male and female high performance field athletes had same level

competitive state anxiety and its sub-variable (cognitive anxiety,

somatic anxiety, and self-confidence).

9. Low performance male and female field athletes had same level

competitive state anxiety and its sub-variables (cognitive anxiety,

somatic anxiety, and self-confidence).

10. High performance athletes had higher level of self-efficacy when

compared to low performance athletes.

11. High Performance field athletes had higher level of self-efficacy as

compared to high performance track athletes.

137

Conclusions, Suggestions and Recommendations

12. Low Performance track and field athletes reported same level of self-

efficacy.

13. High performance track athletes had higher level of self-efficacy

when compared to low performance track athletes.

14. Male and female high performance track athletes had same level of

self-efficacy.

15. Male and female low performance track athletes had same level of

self-efficacy.

16. High performance field athletes had higher level of self-efficacy

when compared to low performance field athletes.

17. Male and female high performance field athletes had same level of

self-efficacy

18. Male and female low performance field athletes had same level of

self-efficacy

138

Conclusions, Suggestions and Recommendations

Suggestions and Recommendations

The present investigation was conducted on Indian Universities track and field athletes to determine the role of these psychological variables. The findings of this study would be helpful and provide a direction for the future researcher in the field of psychological behaviour as related to sports and games, following suggestions are being put forward for future research.

1. Performance is a continuous process, it is suggested that sport

performance should be more extensively and intensively perused at

different level of competition.

2. Similar study may be conducted among these psychological

variables at different levels of participation, such as Nation,

International and Intercollegiate athletes.

3. Further, it is suggested that some physiological dimensions must be

collaborated along with these psychological variables to predict

performance in different games and sport in future studies.

4. In future a series of studies need to be conducted considering the

important psychological variables and their relationship with

performance.

5. In the present scenario demographic such as socio economic status,

parent’s income, positive or negative support of family, 139

Conclusions, Suggestions and Recommendations

environmental condition, and available sports facilities play a

significant role in performance of athletes. Hence, there is a need to

consider these variables for making meaningful prediction in future

studies.

6. Coaches, teachers and athletes should be made aware about the role

of anxiety and self-efficacy which can help to the athletes at high

level of competition.

Therefore, these suggestions and recommendations are sustainable for the further investigations. It can also make a number of good studies for the different psychological interventions and variables to have a greater impact on athlete’s performance.

140

References

Alexander, V. and Krane, V. (1996). Relationships among performance

exception, anxiety and performance in collegiate volleyball player.

Journal of Sports Behavior, 19: 246-266.

Alison, A. (2004). Eye-movement Desensitization and Reprocessing and

Specific State Anxiety in Female Gymnasts. Published PhD Thesis,

Union Institute and University, Cincinnati 119: AAT 3122853.

Arora, M. (2005). Athletic Coaching Manual. Sports Publication, 1-2.

Awolframm, I. and Micklewright, D. (2008). Pre-competitive levels of

arousal and self-confidence among elite and non-elite equestrian

riders .Comparative Exercise Physiology, 5(3-4):153-159.

Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of

Behavioral Change. Psychological Review, 84(2):191-215.

Bandura, A. (1984). Re-cycling misconceptions of perceived self-

efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8:287-310.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social

cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hal. References

Barr, R. K. (1997). Physical self-efficacy and competitive state anxiety:

An examination of adult participation in a non-traditional sport.

Published PhD Thesis, University of Idaho, 77: AAT 9813709.

Bejek, K. and Hagtvet, K. A. (1996). The content of pre-competitive

state anxiety in top and lower level of female gymnasts. Anxiety,

9(1):19-31.

Bekiari, A., Patsiaouras, A., Kokaridas, D. and Sakellariou, K. (2006).

Verbal aggressiveness and state anxiety of volleyball players and

coaches. Psychology Reports, 99(2):630-40.

Bell, S. and Kozlowski, S. W. (2002). Goal orientation and ability:

Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance, and knowledge.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87:497-505.

Bowger, G. R. (1989). A comparison of state anxiety level among ages,

gender and skill levels at practice and pre-competition in age group

simmers. Dissertation Abstract International, 49:2961-A.

Bray, S. R., Jones, M. V. and Owen, S. (2002).The influence of

competition location on athlete’s psychological states. Journal of

Sport Behavior, 25(3):231-242.

142

References

Brooke, J. D. and Whiting. (1975). Human movements: A field of study,

London: Henry Kimpton Publishers.

Bull, R. (1995). Innovative techniques for the questioning of child

witnesses especially those who are young and those with learning

disability. In M. Zaragoza, M J.R. Graham, G.C.N. Hall, R.

Hirschman & Y.S. Ben-Porath (Eds.), Memory and testimony in the

child witness Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Burton, D. (1988). Do anxious swimmers swim slower? Re-examining

the elusive anxiety-performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 10,

45-61.

Carolina, L. and Peter, H. (2005). Competitive state anxiety inventory-

2(CSAI-2): Evaluating the Swedish version confirmatory factor

analyses. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23:727-736.

Caruso, C. M., Dzewaltowski, D. A., Gill, D. L. and McElroy, M. A.

(1990). Psychological and physiological changes in competitive

state anxiety during noncompetition and competitive success and

failure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12:6-20.

143

References

Chu, R. D. and Tingzon, C. J. (2009). The relationship of coaching

competency on the athlete’s self-efficacy and hope. International

Journal of Research and Review, 1:84-121.

Craft, L. L., Magyar, T. M., Becker, B. J. and Feltz, D. L. (2003). The

relation between the competitive state anxiety inventory-ΙΙ and

sport performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise

Psychology, 25:44-65.

Edwards, A. I. (1968). Experimental Design in Psychological Research,

(3rd Ed). New York : Holt, Rinchart & Winston.

Elgin, S. L. (2000). State anxiety of woman basketball players prior to

competition. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83(2):375-383.

Eric, T. and Kring, J. (1996). Anxiety and self confidence in relation to

individual and team sports. Psi Journal Undergraduate Research.,

1(1-2):33-35.

Esfahani, N. and Soflu, H. G. (2010). The comparison of pre-competition

anxiety and state anger between female and male volleyball

players. World Journal of Sport Sciences, 3(4):237-242.

Ewees, K. A. A. (1980).The Relationship between Athletic Team Psycho-

144

References

Social Environment and State Anxiety. Published PhD Thesis,

University of Oregon, AAT 8017882.

Eysenck, M.W. (1992). Anxiety: The cognitive perspective. Hove, UK:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eysenck, M.W. and Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: the

processing efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409-434.

Feltz, D. and Chase, M. (1998). The measurement of self efficacy and

confidence in sport. In. J. L. Duda (Ed), Advances in sport and

exercise psychology measurement :( 65-80).Morgantown V:

Fitness Information technology.

Festinger, L. and Katz, D. (1953). Research Methods in Behavioural

Sciences, New York: Dryden.

Finkenberg, M. E., Dinucci, J. N., McCune, E. D. and McCune, S. L.

(1992). Cognitive and somatic state anxiety and self confidence in

cheerleading competition. Perceptual Motor Skill, 75(3):835- 839.

Fraser, C. and Polito, S. (2007). A comparative study of self-efficacy in

men and women with multiple sclerosis. Journal of Neuroscience

Nursing, 39(2):102-106.

145

References

Fread, S. (1949): Inhibition Systems and Anxiety. Landon: Hogarth.

Frederick, W. D. (1994). Moderating effects of overtraining and

perception upon competitive state anxiety. Published PhD Thesis,

University of Kansas, 184 AAT 9539472.

George, M. (2008). A Study to Examine the Relationships between Athlete

Anxiety and Perceived Coaching Behaviours among Varsity

Basketball Players. Memorial University of Newfoundland

(Canada), 134 AAT MR47869.

Gill, D. L. (1986). Psychology Dynamics of Sport. Illinois: Human

Kineics.

Hackfort, D. & Schwenkmezger, P. (1989). Measuring Anxiety in Sports:

Perspectives and Problems. In D. Hackfort & C. D. Speilberger

(Eds.), Anxiety in Sports: An International Perspective, 55-74:

Washington, D C: Hemisphere.

Hale, D.W. (2006). Affective State Response to Stretching Before an

Acute Bout of Exercise. Published Master Dissertation, Oklahoma

State University.

146

References

Jackson, J. E. (2011). The Effects of Self-Efficacy on Lower Body Power.

Master Thesis, Utah State University.937.

Jarvis, M. (2002). Sports Psychology, translated by Nour Ali Khajvand,

Kousar.

Jones, G. and Hanton, S. (2001). Pre-competitive feeling states and

directional anxiety interpretation. Journal of Sports Science, 19:

385-395.

Jones, G. and Swain, A. (1992). Intensity and direction of competitive

state anxiety and relationships with competitiveness. Perceptual

and Motor Skills, 74:464-472.

Jones, J. G., Swain, A. and Cale, A. (1991). Gender differences in pre-

competition temporal patterning and antecedents of anxiety and

self-confidence. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,

13(1):1-15.

Jones, M. V. and Uphill, M. (2004). Responses to the competitive state

anxiety inventory-2 by athletes in anxious and excited scenarios.

Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5(2):201-212.

147

References

Jones, M. V., Bray, S. R., Mace, R. D., Macrae, A. W. and Stockbridge,

C. (2002). The impact of motivational imagery on the emotional

state and self-efficacy levels of novice climbers. Journal of Sport

Behavior, 25(1):57.

Joy, C. (2010).The Relationship between Level of Competition and

Competitive Sport Anxiety in Youth Recreational Soccer Players.

East Carolina University, Dissertation, 67.AAT 1476572.

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Kais, K. and Raudsepp, L. (2005). Intensity and direction of competitive

state anxiety, self confidence and athletic performance. Kinesiology

37(1):13-20.

Kamlesh, M. L. (2004). Athletic Personality: A Psychological Probe,

Khelsahitya Kendra, Delhi-2.

Khan, K. S. and Ali, D. (2010). A comparative study of state anxiety

among elite and non elite Indian universities high jumpers. Entire

Research, 2 (1):81-83.

148

References

Khan, K. S. and Ali, D. (2011). Comparison between male and female

elite wrestlers: A psychological study. Journal of Education and

Practice, 2(4):105-110.

Khan, K. S. and Ali, D. (2012). A comparative investigation on self

efficacy in high and low performance athletes. Proceeding of

International Seminar (Akash) on physical Education and yogic

Science .University Of Banaras, ISSN-2250-1358 p. 97-102.

Khan, M. A. and Khan, K. S. (2010). Effect of self efficacy on female in

track and field athletes. Variorum, 1(1):1-4.

Kirkby, R. J. and Liu, J. (1999). Pre competition anxiety in Chinese

athletes. Perceptual Motor Skill, 88(1): 297-303.

Kleine, D., Sampedro, R. M. and Melo, S. L. (1988). Anxiety and

performance in runners: Effects of stress and anxiety on physical

performance, Anxiety Research, 1: 235-246.

Krane, V. and Williams, J. M. (1987). Performance and somatic anxiety,

and confidence changes prior to competition. Journal of Sport

Behavior, 10:47-56.

149

References

Krane, V. and Williams, J. M. (1994). Cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety,

and confidence in track and field athletes: The impact of gender,

competitive level, and task characteristics. International Journal of

Sport Psychology, 25:203-217.

Krohne, H. W. and Hindel, C. (1988).Trait anxiety, state anxiety, and

copingehavior as predictors of athletic performance. Anxiety, Stress

& Coping, 1(3):225-234.

Kumar, R. (2011). A comparative study on self-efficacy of national and

international basketball players. Journal of Sports Psychology,

10(2):778-83

Lavallee, D., Kremer, J., Moran, A. P. and Williams, M. (2004). Sport

Psychology: Contemporary Themes. New York.

Lenamar, F.V., Cesar, L. T., José, L. L. V. and Albertino, O. F. (2011).

Self-efficacy and level of anxiety in young track and field athletes

from Parana. Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria e

Desempenho Humano, 13(3):183-188.

LeUnes, A. and Nation, J. R. (2002). Sports Psychology: An Introduction

(3rd Edition). Pacific Grove: Wadsorth.

150

References

Lindzey, G. (1954). Handbook of Social Psychology (1st Edition).

Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Litt, M. D. (1988). Self-efficacy and perceived control: Cognitive

mediators of pain tolerance. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54:149-160.

Luszczynska, A. and Gutierrez-Dona, B. (2005). General self-efficacy in

various domains of human functioning: Evidence from five

countries. International Journal of Psychology, 40(2):80-89.

Mahoney, M.Y., Avener, J. and Evener, M. (1983) Psychological aspects

of competitive athletic performance. In L.E. Unastahi (Ed.).The

Mental Aspect of Gymnastic Orebro. Vijai Publications.

Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R., Bump, L. and Smith, D. (1990). The

competitive state anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). In R. Martens,

R.S. Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive Anxiety in Sport,

(117-190). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Martens, R., Vealey, R. S. and Burton, D. (1995). Competitive Anxiety in

Sport. Champaign, IL, England: Human Kinetics.

151

References

Martin, J. J. and Gill, D. L. (1995). The relationship of competitive

orientations and self efficacy to goal importance, thoughts, and

performance in high school distance runners. Journal of Applied

Sport Psychology, 7: 50-62.

Maryam, K., Fateme, K., Mohammad, S. and Zahra, C. (2010) .The effect

of relaxation and mental imagery on self-efficacy, competitive

anxiety and sportive performance. British Journal of Sports

Medicine, 44(1):44-57.

Matheson, H. and Mathews, S. (1991). Influence of performance setting,

experience and difficulty of routine on pre competition anxiety and

self confidence of high school female gymnast. Perceptual Motor

Skills, 72(3):1099-1105.

Mellalieu, S. D., Neil, R. and Hanton, S. (2006). Self-confidence as a

mediator of the relationship between competitive anxiety intensity

and interpretation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,

77(2):263-270.

Mellalieu, S.D., Hanton, S. and Fletcher, D. (2006). An anxiety review.

In: Literature Reviews in Sport Psychology. Eds: Hanton, S. and

Mellalieu, S.D. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science, 1-45.

152

References

Meredith, S. L. (2007). The Relationship of Event Performance, Anxiety

Intensity and Interpretations, and the Development of Burnout in

Collegiate Swimmers. Published PhD Theses, West Virginia

University; AAT 1452208.

Miller, M. (1993). Efficacy strength and performance in competitive

swimmers of different skill levels. International Journal of Sport

Psychology, 24:284-296.

Mills, K. D., Munroe, K. J. and Hall, C. R. (2001). The relationship

between imagery and self-efficacy in competitive athletes.

Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 20(1):33-39.

Mohsin, S. M. (1984). Research Methods in Behavioural Sciences. Orient

Longman Limited, Hyderabad, India.

Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, K. R. and Mack, D. E. (2000). The

relation on self efficacy measures to sport performance: A Meta

analytic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,

71:280-294.

Msters, R. (1987). Coaches Guide to Sports Psychology.Hman Kineyics

Publishers Inc .Champein Illenous, p 118-119.

153

References

Mullen, R., Lane, A. and Hanton, S. (2009). Anxiety symptom

interpretation in high-anxious, defensive high-anxious, low-

anxious and repressor sport performers. Anxiety, Stress & Coping,

22(1):91-100.

Murtaza, S.T., Imran, M., Bari, M. A. and Najeeb, N. (2011). A

comparative evaluation of anxiety state among different levels of

weight lifters. Golden Thought, 1(6):1-4.

Neil, R., Mellalieu. S. D. and Hanton, S. (2006). Psychological skills

usage and the competitive anxiety response as a function of skill

level in rugby union. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 5:

415-423.

Nigam, A. K. (2011). Investigation the effect of self efficacy on sports

competition anxiety. International Referred Research Journal,

1(17):32-33.

Ntoumanis, N. and Jones, G. (1998). Interpretation of competitive trait

anxiety symptoms as a function of locus of control beliefs.

International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29:99-114.

154

References

Pajares, F. (1997). Current direction in self-efficacy research. In M.

Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and

Achievement, 10:1-49.

Parfitt, G. and Pates, J. (1999). The effects of cognitive and somatic

anxiety and self-confidence on components of performance during

competition. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17: 351-356.

Passand, F. (1997). Studying and Comparing of Amount of Competitive

State Anxiety in Individual and Team Majors of Women

Participating in the Second Students' Sports Olympiad across the

Country. M.A. Thesis of Tarbiat Moalem University, Iran.

Patel, S. (2011). Comparison of competitive state anxiety components

among individual, dual and team sports. Asian Journal of Physical

Education and Computer Science in Sports, 4(1):148-150.

Powell, K. K. (2009). The Impact of Event Group and Gender on the

Relationship between Sport Anxiety and Performance in Track and

Field Athletes. Thesis (M.A.) Abstract, The American University,

48-02: 1261.

Rachman, S. (1998). Clinical Psychology: Anxiety.

155

References

Radrigo, G., Lusiardo. M. and Pereira, G. (1990). Relationship between

anxiety and performance. International Journal of Sports

Psychology, 21, pp.112.

Ramella-DeLuca, N. M. (2003). Investigating life stress, competitive trait

anxiety and competitive state anxiety with athletic injury

occurrence in NCAA Division I Athletes. Master Thesis.

Rick, L. (1991). Relationship between Physical Self-Efficacy, Anxiety,

and Running Performance with Running Club Members and

University Track Team Members. Dissertation, University of South

Alabama. AAT 1345240.

Roberts, G., Covin, S. and Sinthial, P. (2004). Sports Psychology

Education, translated by Vaez Mussavi and Masoumeh Shojaee,

Roshd, 114-126.

Rodney, W. (2001). The Effects of A Psychological Skills Training

Programme on Selected Psychological Characteristics of High

School Ice Hockey Players. Published PhD. Thesis, University of

Minnesota. AAT 3029116.

156

References

Sanderson, F. H. and Reilly, T. (1983). Trait and state anxiety in male

and female cross-country. British Journal of Sports Medicine,

17(1):24-26.

Sarason, I. G. (1988). Anxiety, self-preoccupation and attention. Anxiety

Research, 1:3-7.

Scalan, T. K. (1978). Perception and responses of high and low

competitive trait anxious males to competition. Research Quarterly

Journal, 49:520-527.

Scanlan, T. K. and Passer, M. W. (1979). Sources of competitive stress in

young female athletes. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1:248-250.

Seeley, G., Storey, J., Wagner, D., Walker, C., and Watts, K. (2005).

Anxiety levels and gender differences in social volleyball players

before and during competition in an Australian setting.

International Journal of Sport Psychology, 37:203-217.

Selltiz, C., Marie, J., Deutich, M. and Cook, S. (1964). Research Methods

in Social Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

157

References

Shamshiri, B. (2000). Relationship between competitive state anxiety and

performance of rock climbers in championship contests of the

country. Olympics, 14:120-128.

Sharma, R. (2011). A comparison of pre-competition anxiety of male and

female badminton players. International Referred Research

Journal, 17(1):10-11.

Shontz, F. C. (1965). Research Methods in Personality. New York:

Appleton Century-Crofts.

Singer, R. N. and Kane, J. E. (1975). Research in sports psychology.

International Journal of Sports Psychology, 10:103.

Singh, T. D., Bhardwaj, G. and Bhardwaj, V. (2009). Effect of self-

efficacy on the performance of athletes. Journal of Exercise

Science and Physiotherapy, 5(2):110-14.

Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Anxiety: Current Trends in Theory and

Research. New York: Academic Press.

Spielberger, C. D. (1989). Stress and anxiety in sports. In D. Hackfort,

and C. D. Spielberger. (Eds.), Anxiety in Sports: An International

Persective, (3-12). New York: Hemisphere.

158

References

Spielberger, C. S. (1966). Theory and research on anxiety. In C. S.

Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and Behaviour, Academic Press, New

York, 3-20.

Stavrou, N. A., Psychoudaki, M. and Zevras, Y. (2006). Intensity and

direction dimensions of competitive state anxiety: a time-to-event

approach. Laboratory of Motor Behavior and Sport Psychology,

Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, University of

Athens, 103(1):91-98.

Stollak, G. E., Guerncy, B. J. and Rothberg, M. (1966). Psychotherapy

Research: Chicago: Rand McNally.

Swain, A. B. J. and Jones, G. (1993). Intensity and frequency dimensions

of competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sports Sciences, 11(6):533-

542.

Taylor, J. (1987). Predicting athletic performance with self- confidence

and somatic and cognitive anxiety as a function of motor and

physiological requirements in six sports. Journal of Personality,

55:139-153.

Thatcher, J., Thatcher, R. and Doring, D. (2004). Gender differences in

the pre-competition temporal patterning of anxiety and hormonal

159

References

responses. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness,

44(3):300-308.

Tholkes, F. (1994). Anxiety and Outdoor Adventure: A Study of State

Anxiety and Activity Performance. Published PhD Theses,

University of Minnesota Twin Cities.

Tielman, J. G., Peacock, L. J., Cureton, K. J. and Dishman, R. K. (2002).

The influence of exercise intensity and physical activity history on

state anxiety after exercise. International Journal of Sport

Psychology, 33(2):155-166.

Treasure, D. C., Monson, J. and Lox, C. L. (1996). Relationship between

self efficacy, wrestling performance, and affect prior to

competition. Journal of Sport Psychologist, 10(1):73-83.

Tsopani, D., Dallas, G. and Skordilis, E. K. (2011). Competitive state

anxiety and performance in young female rhythmic gymnasts.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 112(2):549-560.

Vealey, R. S. (1986).Conceptualization of sports-confidence and

competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation development,

Journal of Sports Psychology, 8:221-246.

160

References

Vincent, A. P. and Mahamood, Y. (2010). Competitive anxiety level

before and during competition among Malaysian athletes.

Pertanika, Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 18(2):399-

406.

Wark, K. A. and Witting, A. F. (1979). Sex role and sport competition

anxiety. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1:248-250.

Watkins, B., Garcia, A.W. and Turek, E. (1994). The Relationship

between self-efficacy and sport performance: Evidence from a

sample of youth baseball players. Journal of Applied Sport

Psychology, 6:21-31.

Weinberg, R. S. and Genuchi, M. (1980). Relationship between

competitive trait anxiety, state anxiety, and golf performance: A

field study. Journal of Sports Psychology, 2:148-154.

Weinberg, R. S. and Hunt, V. (1976).The interrelationships between

anxiety, motor performance, and electromyography. Journal of

Motor behavior, 8:164-174.

Wiggins, M. S. and Brustad, R. J. (1996). Perception of anxiety and

expectations of performance. Perceptual Motor Skill, 83(3):1071-

74.

161

References

Willis, J. D. and Cambell, L. F. (1992). Exercise Psychology. Champaign:

Human Kinetics.

Wilson, G. S and Raglin, J. S. (1997). Optimal and predicted anxiety in 9-

12 year old track and field athletes. Scandinavian Journal of

Medicine and Science in Sports, 2:148-152.

Woodman, T. and Hardy, L. (2001). Stress and anxiety. In Handbook of

Sport Psychology (Edited by R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas and

C.M. Janelle), pp. 290–318. New York: Wiley.

Woodman, T. and Hardy, L. (2003). The relative impact of cognitive

anxiety and self-confidence upon sport performance: A meta-

analysis. Journal Sports Sciences, 21(6):443-457.

Yadav, S. K. (2011). Investigation of pre-competitive state anxiety of

badminton players. International Journal of Physical Education,

4(1):33-35.

Zeng, H. Z. (2003). The differences between anxiety and self-confidence

between team and individual sport college varsity athletes.

International Sport Journal, 7(1):28.

162

Appendices

Appendix-I

Personal Data Form

Name of the Athlete: ......

Events: Track: ...... Field: ......

Gender: Male ( ) Female ( )

Date of Birth: ...... Age ......

Name of the University: ......

Education: ......

Highest Performance: ......

Appendices

Appendix-II

Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2)

Directions: A number of statements which athletes have used to describe their feelings before competition are given bellow. Read each statement carefully and then circle the appropriate number to the right of the statement to indicate how you feel right now-at moment. There are no right or wrong answer. Do not spend too much time on any one statement, but chose the answer that describes your feeling right now.

S. Not at Moderately Very Statements Somewhat No. All So much So I am concerned about this 1 competition 2 I feel nervous

3 I feel at ease

4 I have self-doubts

5 I feel jittery

6 I feel comfortable I am concerned that I may not do as 7 well in this competition as I could 8 My body feels tense

9 I feel self-confident

10 I am concerned about losing

11 I feel tense in my stomach

12 I feel secure

I am concerned abut choking under 13 pressure 14 My body feels relaxed

164

Appendices

I am confident that I can meet the 15 challenge

I am concerned about performing 16 well 17 My heart is racing

I am confident about performing 18 well I am worried about reaching my 19 goal 20 I feel my stomach sinking

21 I feel mentally relaxed I am concerned that others will be 22 disappointed with my performance

23 My hands are clammy

I am confident because I mentally 24 picture I am concerned that I won’t be able 25 to concentrate

26 My boy feels tight I am confident of coming through 27 under pressure.

165

Appendices

Appendix-III

General Self-efficacy (GSE)

S. Not at Barely Moderately Exactly Behaviour No. all True True True True I can always manage to solve 1 difficult problems if I try hard enough. If someone oppose me, I can find 2 ways and means to get what I want I am certain that I can accomplish 3 my goals. I am confident that could deal 4 efficiently with unexpected event. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I 5 can handle things I did not expect. I can solve most problems if I 6 make the effort. I can remain calm when facing 7 difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities. When I am confronted with a 8 problem, I can find several solutions. If I am trouble, I can think of good 9 solution. I can handle whatever comes my 10 way.

166