Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1992, 7 4 , 467-472.

O Perceptual and Motor Skills 1992

INTENSITY A N D DIRECTION AS DIMENSIONS OF

COMPETITIVE STATE ANXIETY A N D
RELATIONSHIPS W I T H COMPETITIVENESS '

GRAHAM JONES AND AUSTIN SWAIN

Department, of Physical Education, Sports Department of Sport and Human Sciences

Science and Recreation Management C r m e and Alsager College of
Loughborough University Higher Education

Summary.-This study examined differences in intensity and direction of symp-

toms of competitive state anxiety in high and low competitive subjects from the sports
of rugby union, basketball, soccer, and field hockey. The 69 men were dichotomized
via a median-split into high and low competitive groups based on their scores on the
Sport Orientation Questionnaire. All subjects completed a modified version of the Com-
petitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 30 minutes prior to competition. This inventory
included the original intensity scale plus a direction scale on which subjects rated the
extent the experienced intensity of each symptom was either facilitative or debiitative
to subsequent performance. There were no significant group differences on intensity of
cognitive anxiety or of somatic anxiety or on direction of somatic anxiety; however,
the highly competitive group of 34 subjects reported their anxiety as more facilitative
and less debilitative than the low competitive group (n = 35). This supports the propos-
al that sports performers' directional perceptions of their anxiety symptoms may pro-
vide further understanding of the competitive state-anxiety response.

This paper reports a follow-up investigation of Swain and Jones' study

(in press) in which levels of multidimensional competitive state anxiety dif-
fered as a function of sport orientation. I n their study, competitive state anx-
iety was measured via the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (Martens,
Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1990), which assesses cognitive anxiety,
somatic anxiety, and self-confidence. Sport orientation was measured by Gill
and Deeter's (1988) Sport Orientation Questionnaire, a test of competitive-
ness, win orientation, and goal orientation. Swain and Jones' findings show-
ed competitiveness (i.e., the desire to enter and strive for success in sport
competition) to be the dominant predictor of both anxiety and confidence.
Consequently, they dichotomized their sample of male athletes into high and
low competitive groups. The low competitive group scored higher on both
cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety and also lower on self-confidence 30
minutes before competition than the high competitive group.
Swain and Jones (in press) emphasized, however, that it could not be
assumed that the higher anxiety of the low competitive group was necessar-
ily more debilitating than that for the high competitive group. Indeed, inves-

'Address correspondence to Graham Jones, Ph.D., Department of Physical Education, Sports

Science and Recreation Management, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire
LEI1 3TU, UK.
468 G . JONES & A. SWAIN

tigators have recently identified certain limitations associated with the mea-
surement of anxiety in this respect (Burton, 1990; Jones, 1991; Jones, Swain,
& Hardy, submitted; Parfitt, Jones, & Hardy, 1990). Jones (1991) argued
that the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 essentially measures the 'in-
tensity' of certain symptoms whlch are purported to signify the presence of
anxiety. However, the inventory does not measure what might be referred to
as the 'directional perceptions' of the symptoms. The concept of anxiety has
largely been viewed as negative and detrimental to performance. However,
Mahoney and Avener's (1977) findings indicated that anxiety does not neces-
sarily have negative connotations. In their study of gymnasts competing in
the trials for the 1976 US Olympic team, 'anxiety' was negative and debili-
tating for the unsuccessful gymnasts, but positive and facilitating for the suc-
cessful ones. Indeed, as far back as 1960 in the literature on test anxiety,
Alpert and Haber distinguished between debilitating and facilitating anxi-
ety and found that a scale which measured both types of anxiety (i.e., the
Achievement Anxiety Test) provided a significantly stronger predictor of aca-
demic performance than a conventional debilitating anxiety scale. The vast
majority of subsequent work concerning the issue of debilitating and facil-
itating anxiety has been undertaken in the area of test anxiety and has
employed the Achievement Anxiety Test. Investigations reported by, among
others, Munz, Costello, and Korabek (1975), Hudesrnan and Wiesner
(1978), Gaeddert and Dolphin (1981), Couch, Garber, and Turner (1983),
and Carrier, Higson, Klimoski, and Peterson (1984) are examples of studies
which have indicated the value of distinguishing between debilitating and
facilitating anxiety. Surprisingly, very little structured empirical research has
pursued this issue within sport psychology. Moorman and Knoop's (1987)
study is an exception, although the authors acknowledged that their inves-
tigation was limited by the lack of a suitable psychometric instrument for
the sporting context. They employed Hermans' (1967) Dutch equivalent of
the Achievement Anxiety Test, the Prestatie Motivatie Test, but the scores
showed low predictive value in the context of ice dancing performance.
The studies discussed above have examined an undifferentiated, unidi-
nensional anxiety state as opposed to the more recently favoured multicom-
ponent conceptualization of anxiety (Davidson & Schwartz, 1976; Liebert &
Morris, 1967). The availability of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2
invites the examination of debilitating and facilitating aspects of cognitive
and somatic components of competitive state anxiety. Indeed, in view of the
fact that the subscales of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 merely
measure the intensity of certain cognitive and (perceived) physiological symp-
toms, Jones (1991) proposed that researchers should examine how sports
performers perceive these 'anxiety' symptoms in terms of their likely effects
upon performance.
 INTENSITY, DIRECTION IN COMPETITIVE STATE ANXIETY 469

The study reported here then examined differences in 'intensity' and

'direction' (i.e., debilitating versus facilitating) of competitive state anxiety
symptoms of subjects who were high and low in competitiveness. Given the
largely exploratory.nature of the investigation, no specific hypotheses were
formulated.

Subjects were drawn from the men's intramural program at Loughbor-

ough University. The 69 subjects (M age = 20.93 yr., SD = 2.55) comprised
rugby union (n = 24), basketball (n = 16), soccer (n = 16), and field hockey
(n = 12) players, aU of whom had at least four years' experience in their par-
ticular sports. The unequal numbers of subjects in the sports represented
was due to the desire to achieve the largest sample size possible.
The Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 has 27 items with nine
items in each of the three subscales of cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety,
and self-confidence. Responses to each item are on a scale in Likert format,
ranging from 1 ("not at all") to 4 ("very much so"), so that possible scores
on each of the subscales range from 9 to 36. The inventory was modified to
include a 'direction' scale in which each subject rated the extent to which
the experienced intensity of each symptom was either facilitative or debili-
tative to subsequent performance on a scale from -3 ("very debilitative") to
+ 3 ("very facilitative"). The possible direction scores on each subscale
ranged from -27 to + 27, with a negative score representing an over-all neg-
ative (debilitating) perception and a positive score representing an over-all
positive (facilitating) perception of the symptoms in terms of their conse-
quences for subsequent performance. Following the procedure of Swain and
Jones (in press), this inventory was administered to the subjects 30 minutes
before the competition.
The Sport Orientation Questionnaire has three subscales, competitive-
ness, goal orientation, and win orientation. Following the findings of Swain
and Jones (in press), in which competitiveness was the dominant predictor of
the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 subscales, only the competitive-
ness subscale of the questionnaire was considered for the purposes of this
study. This subscale has 13 items, each of w h c h is scored from 1 ("strongly
agree") to 5 ("strongly disagree") so possible scores ranged from 13 to 65.
Subjects responded to t h s inventory during the week preceding the competi-
tion. As in Swain and Jones' (in press) study, the median-split technique was
adopted to dichotomize subjects into high (n = 34; M = 58.53, SD = 4.16) and
low (n = 35; M = 44.67, SD = 5.52) competitive groups. I t should be noted
that, although two distinct groups were formed, the means of both groups
are relatively high on the competitiveness scale.
RESULTS
One-way analyses of variance were carried out for each of the subscale
470 G. JONES & A. SWAIN

dimensions, intensity and direction, of the Competitive State Anxiety Inven-

tory-2 to examine differences between the high and low competitive groups.
The results are summarized in Table 1, which shows that the groups did not
differ significantly on intensity of cognitive anxiety or somatic anxiety or on
direction of somatic anxiety. However, the highly competitive group reported
their cognitive anxiety as being significantly more facilitative (M= 7.00, SD =
9.68) than the low competitive group (M =2.45, SD = 6.56). Further, the
groups differed on both intensity and direction of self-confidence. Specifi-
cally, the low competitive group (M = 22.67, SD = 4.04) reported lower self-
confidence than the high competitive group (M = 25.71, SD = 4.97) and also
reported their self-confidence as less facilitating (M= 8.51, SD = 8.34) than
the high competitive group (M = 13.91, SD = 6.85). Interestingly, all of the
direction means are positive, signifying an over-all positive perception of the
symptoms in both groups.

TABLE 1
ANXIETY,SOMATIC
ANNYSIS OF VARIANCEOF COGNITIVE
(N= 69)
ANXIETY,A N D SELF-CONFIDENCE
- -

Measures High Competitive Low Competitive df F p

M SD M SD
Cognitive Anxiety
Intensity 17.83 3.93 19.41 5.26 1,68 2.01 .16
Direction 7.00 9.68 2.45 6.56 1,68 5.23 .02
Somatic Anxiety
Intensity 14.56 4.21 15.91 5.17 1,68 1.42 .23
Direction 7.23 9.95 4.88 7.29 1,68 1.25 .26
Self-confidence
Intensity 25.71 4.97 22.69 4.04 1,68 7.69 ,007
Direction 13.91 6.85 8.51 8.34 1.68 8.59 ,004

DISCUSSION
Dealing firstly with the dimension of 'intensity' on the Competitive
State Anxiety Inventory-2, the results showed no differences between the
two groups in cognitive and somatic anxiety reported 30 minutes prior to the
competition. These findings are contrary to those of Swain and Jones (in
press) who reported that highly competitive individuals were lower on both
cognitive and somatic anxiety at the same precompetition period. The failure
of the present analyses to support these findings could be a function of both
the differing abilities of the athletes and of the differing nature of the com-
petitions examined in the two studies. Swain and Jones investigated elite
intercollegiate athletes before a prestigious athletics meeting, while the pres-
ent study examined generally less able sports in a lower standard
of competition. Perhaps the lower standard and less importance of the com-
petition examined in the present study was not sufficiently anxiety-provok-
 INTENSITY, DIRECTION IN COMPETITIVE STATE ANXIETY 471

ing to produce group differences. Further, the different sports examined in

the two studies may also be an important factor in the inconsistent findings.
However, the highly competitive group were higher on self-confidence than
the low competitive group. This supports Swain and Jones' (in press) find-
ings and suggests that in competitive situations confidence is an important
distinguishing factor in athletes differing in competitiveness.
The findings concerning the dimension of 'direction' on the Competi-
tive State Anxiety Inventory-2 are interesting. I n the case of cognitive anx-
iety, there was no group difference on intensity or level but the highly com-
petitive group perceived their cognitive anxiety as more facilitating and less
debilitating than the low competitive group. The highly competitive group al-
so perceived their self-confidence as more facilitating than the low competi-
tive group. However, this is clearly not surprising since this group's intensity
scores were also higher, but it does support the idea of high self-confidence
being desirable.
The findings of this study support the proposal that sports performers'
directional perceptions of their 'anxiety' symptoms may provide further un-
derstanding of the competitive state-anxiety response. These clearly suggest
that symptoms associated with anxiety do not necessarily have negative con-
notations and can actually be perceived as necessary and positive to effective
performance. Indeed, the direction means for both cognitive and somatic
anxiety were positive, indicating an over-all positive and facilitating percep-
tion of the symptoms. I n this case, the symptoms of 'positive anxiety'
probably would not be labelled as anxiety at all, but rather as some positive
state such as "excitement," "arousal," or "motivation." This issue is worthy
of attention and could be addressed by asking sports performers to not only
rate their cognitive and physiological states in terms of their debilitating1
facilitating consequences for performance, but also by asking them to label
these in terms of positive versus negative affect (Jones, in press; Jones, et al.,
submitted). Measurement instruments such as Thayer's (1978) Activation-
Deactivation Checklist or Hardy and Whitehead's (1984) Cognitive-Somatic
Activation Questionnaire might be useful in this case if included with the
modified Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. This research direction
could be further enhanced by employment of qualitative approaches, and
particularly interviews as advocated by Gould and Krane (in press).
REFERENCES
ALPERT,R., & HABER,N. N. (1960) Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 207-215.
BURTON,D. (1990) Multimodal stress management in sport: current status and future direc-
tions. In G. Jones & L. Hardy (Eds.), Shess and performance in sport. Chichester, U K :
Wiley. Pp. 171-201.
CARRIER,C., HIGSON, V., KLLMOSKI, V., & PETERSON, E. (1984) The effects of facilitative and
debllitative achievement anxiety on notetaking. lournal of Education Research, 77, 133-
138.
472 G. JONES & A. SWAIN

COUCH,J. V., GARBER,T. B., & TURNER,W. E. (1983) Facilitating and debilitating test anxi-
ety and academic achievement. The Psychological Record, 33, 237-244.
DAVIDSON,R. J., & SCHW~IRTZ, G. E. (1976) The sychobiology of relaxation and related
states: a multiprocess theory. In D. I. ~ o s t o f (Ed.), s ~ ~ Behavior control and rnodfia-
tion ofphysiological activity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pp. 399-442.
GAEDDERT, W.P., & DOLPHIN,W. D. (1981) Effects of facilitating and debilitatin anxiety on
performance and study effort in mastery-based and traditional courses. Psycaologicol Re-
ports, 48, 827-833.
, L., & DETER, T. E. (1988) Development of the SOQ. Research Quarterly for Exer-
G ~ LD.
cise and Sport, 59, 191-202.
GOULD,D., & KRANE,V. (in press) The arousal-athletic performance relationship: current sta-
tus and future directions. In T. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
HARDY,L., & WHITE~EAD, R. (1984) Specific modes of anxiety and arousal. Current Psycho-
logical Research and Reviews, 3, 14-24.
HERMANS,&I.J. M. (1967) Motiuatie en Prestatie. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
HUDESMAN, J., & WIESNER,E. (1978) Fac~Litatingand debilitating test anxiety among college
students and volunteers for desensitization workshops. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
34, 485-486.
JONES,G. (1991) Recent developments and current issues in competitive state anxiety research.
The Psychologist, 4, 152-155.
JONES,G . (in press) Competitive anxiety and performance. I n S. Biddle (Ed.), Exercise and
sport psychology: a European perspective. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
JONES,G., SWAIN,A , , & HARDY,L. (1992) Intensity and direction dimensions of competitive
state anxiety and relacionships with performance. (Manuscript submitted)
LIEBERT,R. M., & MORRIS,L. W. (1967) Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety:
a distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20, 975-978.
MAHONEY,M. J., & AVENER,A. (1977) Psychology of the elite athlete: an exploratory study.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 135-141.
MARTENS,R., BURTON,D., VEALEY,R. S., BUMP,L. A , , & S M ~ ID,. E. (1990) Development
and validation of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). In R. Martens,
R. S. Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive anxiety in sport. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics. Pp. 117-213.
MOORMAN, P P, & KNOOP,A. V A N DER (1987) Effects of physical and psychological responses
to stress on motor performance in competitive sport. I n Wissenschaftlichen Rat beim
Staatssekretariat fur Korperkultur und Sport (Eds.), Proceedings of the Vllth Congress of
the European Federation of Sport Psychology. Vol. 3. Leipzig: Deutsche Hochschule fiir
Korperkultur Pp. 910-923.
MUNZ,D. C., COSTEUO, C. T., & KORABEK,K. (1975) A further test of the inverted-U relat-
ing achievement anxiety and academic test performance. Journal of Psychologv, 89, 39-
47.
PARFITT,C. G., JONES,J. G., & HARDY,L. (1990) Multidimensional anxiety and performance.
GJ. G. Jones & L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and performance in sport. Chichester, UK:
ey. Pp. 43-81.
SWAIN,A., & JONES, G . (in press) Relationshi s between sport achievement orientation and
competitive state anxiety. The Sport ~ ~ c R o l o g i s t .
THAYER,R. E. (1978) Toward a psychological theory of multidimension31 icuvation (arousal).
Motivation and Emotion, 2, 1-34.

Accepted February 19, 1992.