The Sport Psychologist, 1995, 9,225-241

O 1995 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

Interpersonal Stress, Performance Level, and

Parental Support: A Longitudinal Study
Among Highly Skilled Young Soccer Players

Nico W. VanYperen
University of Groningen
This study of 65 highly skilled young male soccer players (mean age =
16.6 years) employed a 7-month longitudinal design to examine the causal
relationship between performance level and interpersonal stress within the
team. Particular attention was paid to the moderating effect of parental
support. No evidence was found that interpersonal stress within the team
was an important determinant of performance level. Rather, a low perfor-
mance level leads to negative feelings about the social climate within the
team. But this is only true under specific circumstances (i.e., when there is
a perceived lack of parental support). The theoretical and practical implica-
tions of these results are discussed.

"Amity Beats Enmity" was the headline of an article in the sports magazine
Sports Illustrated (August 10, 1992), referring to the gymnastics team of the
"Unified Team" of the former Soviet Union that "showed the Americans at the
Barcelona Olympic Games in 1992 that friendship can be golden" (Swift, 1992,
p. 76). The tenor of the article was that the Unified Team really was unified,
infinitely more so than the team from the United States. In contrast to the gymnasts
of the Unified Team, U.S. gymnasts seldom watched each other's routines or
even applauded them. The obvious consequence of the coherent atmosphere in
the Unified Team was, according to the author, that the Unified Team won 9
out of 14 gold medals, whereas the United States won only one gold medal.
At first glance it seems plausible that poor relationships with teammates-
resulting from low support, disagreements, lack of cooperation, arguments, con-
flicts, and clashing personalities-do have a negative impact upon sports
performances. Sport psychological research on cohesion suggests that satisfying
interpersonal relationships within a team are particularly beneficial in interacting
sports where success depends on the coordination of each player's diverse skills
and interdependence of individuals, such as in hockey, basketball, and soccer
(Carron, 1988; Rees & Segal, 1984; Williams & Widmeyer, 1991; but see also
Mullen & Cooper, 1994). Particularly when a highly competitive atmosphere

Nico W. VanYperen is with the Department of Psychology at the University of

Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 211, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands.
 exists in a team, the nonsupportive relationships can give rise to poor or inadequate
interpersonal communication and can lead to feelings of being threatened by
others, to jealousy, and to arguments (cf. French & Caplan, 1970; Rook, 1984).
For example, the results of the study of Rosenfeld, Richman, and Hardy (1989)
indicated that teammates did not provide either emotional support or emotional
challenge. They explained these results by emphasizing the competition between
team players for the limited number of places and positions in the team. The
longitudinal research to be reported here is designed to develop a better under-
standing of the extent and nature of causal linkages between interpersonal stress
within teams and performance levels, as well as the moderating effect of paren-
tal support.
Sports psychologists are traditionally interested in psychosocial factors that
Downloaded by New York University on 09/20/16, Volume 9, Article Number 2

enhance (or diminish) sports performance. Because performance outcome is an

important issue in sport, actual performance and related outcomes are frequently
considered the ultimate dependent variables. However, there is a stronger ten-
dency both outside and inside sports for poor performances to lead to interpersonal
stress than for interpersonal stress to lead to poor performances (for a recent
review, see Mullen & Cooper, 1994). In addition, empirical evidence indicates
that performance-related variables, including inferior physical competence, poor
performances and achievements, and just being in bad form, are the most severe
stressors athletes can face, more than interpersonal factors such as poor relation-
ships with teammates.
Specifically, results of a study among 130 male and female Australian
basketball players revealed that "My personal form is in a slump," and "My
team is losing" were considered as most stressful by the players (Madden,
Summers, & Brown, 1990). In a similar vein, Pierce and Stratton (cited in Cohn,
1990) demonstrated that "not playing well" (63%) and "making a mistake"
(63%) were most frequently rated as stressful by young players of age 10 to 17
years. In contrast, among a minority of subjects (25%), stress caused by teammates
was perceived as one of their biggest worries in sport (cf. Cohn, 1990; Gould,
Jackson, & Finch, 1993; Scanlan, Stein, & Ravizza, 1991).Particularly in compet-
itive sports, a high value is placed upon achievement and performance success,
which makes it reasonable to assume that the players who perform the best are
more appreciated and accepted (cf. Weiss & ~ u n c a n 1992).
, Performance-related
variables, therefore, are more likely to be predictor rather than outcome variables.
Although there is empirical evidence that a low performance level produces
interpersonal stress, there are no studies that illuminate the role of coping strategies
that may reduce or prevent the negative consequences of a low performance
level. To put it mildly, this is somewhat surprising since the ability to deal with
disappointingperformances is for young athletes an important factor in developing
into a successful elite performer (Jones & Hardy, 1990; Orlick & Partington,
1988).
Coping refers to the efforts of managing stressful situations (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). Two major functions of coping are distinguished: "problem-
focused coping," that is, the management of the problem that is causing the
stress; and "emotion-focused coping," or the regulation of emotional responses
to the problem. Seeking social support is generally considered as mixed problem-
and emotion-focused coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). For example, emotional
support provides the individual with the possibility to turn to others for comfort
 Stress, Performance, and Parental Support 227

and security during times of stress, and informational support represents the
support that helps the individual to find solutions for the problem (Cutrona &
Russell, 1990). When the negative event is uncontrollable, emotion-focused cop-
ing is most effective, whereas in situations where there is potential to change
the outcome, problem-focused strategies are preferable (Folkrnan et al., 1991).
The effectiveness of social support in reducing stress depends especially
on the perceived availability of interpersonal resources that are responsive to the
needs evoked by stressful situations (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Pierce, Sarason, &
Sarason, 1992). Others who are concerned about the welfare of the athlete in
question are particularly important in this respect. In the case of young athletes,
parents are typically the individuals who are supposed to give unconditional
support to their child when a need exists, such as in a stressful situation (cf.
Downloaded by New York University on 09/20/16, Volume 9, Article Number 2

Clark & Mills, 1993). In general, family members apply communal norms-in
contrast to exchange norms-to their mutual relationships. This implies that the
support giver does not expect anything in return for the help, and on the part of
the recipient there are no feelings of guilt and no desire to repay the other.
Children receiving support from their parents take such support as an indication
of their parents' affection or caring (Clark, 1983). Furthermore, the possibility
of falling back on parents is important to adolescents, because they generally
have more limited coping resources than adults (Cutrona & Russell, 1990).
Indeed, there is much anecdotal and empirical evidence that parents are
perceived as playing the most significant role in an athlete's development (cf.
Bloom, 1985; Brustad, 1992; Carlson, 1988; Hill, 1993; Loehr, 1991). On the
other hand, adolescents whose autonomy is evolving during this life stage may
perceive such support with negative feelings. This may be the case when perceived
support of (overinvolved) parents is associated with intrusion and a threat to self-
reliance and independence (cf. Fisher, Nadler, & Witcher-Alagna, 1982; Lehman,
Ellard, & Wortman, 1986).
According to the buffering hypothesis (Cohen & Wills, 1985), a perceived
positive relationship with parents "buffers" or moderates the negative relation
between a stressor (e.g., poor performances) and stress-reactions (e.g., interper-
sonal stress within the team). A buffering effect means that between low- and
high-support players under low stress, no significant difference exists on the
dependent variables, whereas this is rather different for players under high stress
(Cohen & Wills, 1985). A significant difference on the dependent variables
among players under high stress indicates that parental support is relevant only
for subjects under stress. Social inoculation refers to the notion that individuals
who perceive the opportunity for help from others have a resource at their disposal
that makes them relatively immune to stress (Buunk, 1990; Meichenbaum, 1977).
These types of interaction patterns have received very little attention, partic-
ularly as far as (longitudinal) research among youth is concerned, and the few
studies that have been done report inconsistent findings (Compas, 1987; DuBois,
Felner, Brand, Adan, & Evans, 1992; Smith, Smoll, & Ptacek, 1990). In most
studies of young athletes, it is assumed that parental involvement is, in method-
ological terms, a main effect of support. For example, Scanlan and Lewthwaite
(1988) found in their study of 76 young male wrestlers between the ages of 9
and 14 years that if the youngsters perceived their parents as being more personally
involved and supportive in the athlete's sport experience, the athletes reported
greater sport enjoyment. In a similar vein, in a study of 223 youth soccer players
 .aayssa~dw!slow uana p.103ar dyysuo!dmy3 qayl
s a v w y 3 ! y ~'(,,uop!ladwos lalsoj ol,,) lap10 smad 2-1 slam O ~ Ms~uauoddo
~su!eBepade~d d1pn13e slaLv1d aql ' l a n a m o ~- p a ~ a l l o 3alaM vlep aq1 uoseas
ayl u! sdno~BaBe U M O 0~aq1jo sanBt!al iofew ayl jo s u o ! d m y 3 a u m a q s m a l
~
m o j 1 1 -smad 9-91 S E M dno1B p101 ayl jo aBv m a w a u 'saBunod alaM 1sal
aql p w 'aBe jo smad 61 aiaM s ~ a d q daa.1q1' Z Z puv 02 araM sladvld O M L .aBe
dq s m a l lnoj B u o w pap!n!p aJaM p w 'smad p w S I jo saBe ayl uaaMlaq
a1aM sluapuodsa~a u '1ooy3s ay1 01 pay3vlle a1aM m a 1 puoylt!u y3lna a y l l o j
s ~ a d e ~jod Qpoft!w e 'sapesap Maj )sad ay? l a n o -(urep~alswv' x e f v ) uo!lt!lndar
p u o ! ~ v w a ~ uut!! q l ! 100q3s
~ 1a330s e JO spdnd aIew ~9 jo dn apew st!^ a l d m s a u
.palo~dxasy m a 1 ayl U ! ~ I ! M ssails puosladra~u!p w a ~ w u u o p a d
uaamlaq d!ysuoylqal ayl jo Llgesne3 ayl '611au!d 'salnssa~dlornand pan!axad
p w voddns pmamd pan!a3lad uaaMlaq d!qsuo!lqal aql 01 prvd s! u o ! ~ u a ~ ~ t !
'alouuayvnd '(2661 ' u a l a d ~ w '33)
~ y m a q axnlpsqns ay1 l o j sa!lpoud )as put!
'dnauy B u y m s ayl appap 'lalsoi ayl u o salalg~eayl u! saBwy3 aqew dl~t!nsn
'(IOU 10) sladeld 1!ay1 u! a3uapguo3 a ~ v i ~ s u o w asaq3eos p asnmaq ' s l a k l d ay1
loj sa3w1swn3.1!3 Injssaus jo asuasa~dayl roj xapu! p!pa e s! psre~ddt!s,y3vo3
ayl ley1 pawnsst! s! q ' ~ 3 ~ ayl 0 3w o i j pau!e~qos! siadv~djo -[anala ~ w u r r o p a d
a y jo~ xapu! u v -(aBt!lane ~ o ~ s!a lanai q a ~ w u u o p a dayl uayM "a'!) suoylenl!s
s s a m yB!y u! pggauaq d ~ u os! voddns pmamd p a n ~ a ~ aley1 d pal~adxas! I!
'(9361 ' S I I I Mig uayoa) s!saylodAy Bu!.~ajjnqayl q l ! ~au!l U I -voddns pmamd
pan!amd jo 13ajja %u!1e1apowa y X~ ~ m l m ! w d' p a u ! m x a aq 1 1 1 m~ a 1 ayl u ! ~ ! M
ssaas ~vuos.~adralu!p w lanai a ~ w u u o p a du a a ~ l a quoy1e1a.1 ayl ' w n s U I
'(8861 'rlllws f0661 ' B ~ a q u ! ?Ba ~spa) d l a $ a ~ d w o ~
uoyt!dp!wd v o d s dn BuwB u! qnsal d1pug d e w y 3 ! y ~'lno w n q 01 sala~yleBunod
awos asnm w3 pooypl!y3 Buunp s a ~ n s s a ~asualu! d aleuypiou1 .arnssa~dssaI Iaaj
II!M smamd l!aql u o d ~ a lw3 Lay1 Iaaj o y slake~d ~ :suo!lda3.1ad yloq uaarnlaq
sls!xa uo!~e~arro:, angeBau a ley1 palmdxa aq w3 11 . p a ~ o ~ d xaq a II!Mp a u ! ~ v a l u !
am a ~ n s s a ~pluamd
d jo uoylda31ad aql p w voddns p ~ u a m djo uo!lda3iad aql
y 3 1 y ~01 ~ualxaayl 'dpnls luasaid ayl U I '(8861 'al!eMylMa7 ig w l w 3 ~-33)
l p q ~ a y s v qu! 1a3xa p w a l v d p l w d 01 a~nssaldlemamd alom pan!axad 'uosvas ayl
Buunp mawdofua ssal pasuayadxa o y sdoq ~ asoy1 lt!yl punoj (8861) pe1sn.r~
Downloaded by New York University on 09/20/16, Volume 9, Article Number 2

'£1 pue 6 jo saBe ayl u a a ~ l a qslakeld 11eqiayst!q BunoL jo Apnls e u! ' a l d m

-xa iod .1uawdofua ,s~alsBunod ay1 uodn 13ajja aslanpt! w aneq d e w a~nssald
]emand jo uopda3.1ad a u 'IIaM uuopad 01 p w B u y u g ~ ~ $ssnoy j o puads 01 p ~ r y s
paluapl flay1 u o a ~ n s s a ~md d 01 pautpu! slow a m sluamd 'p~!y:,nay1 voddns
m y 1 1aqle1 ley1 awnsse d~qeqolds q d a y s a s a u .ua.~pl!y~ paluala jo sluamd
30 slorneyaq anyvoddns ayi jo p ~ y d a y sIeqMauIos aq Lew aldoad autos
,,'smnodo1p,, p w
,,s.ron!~.~ns,,B u o m paleuywu3s!p voddns pluamd jo aa~Bapayl 1vy) paMoqs
(2861) u o m 3 p w u o s u ! q o ~- s y i o ~ l a utioddns p p o s l!aql uy l a g p lou p!p
sdno~Basaql ley1 punoj put? d n o d ssa.11~MOI p w q%!y e pamdruo~(6861) ?e
la pIajuasox -1uawdofua .1a3ms 01 pawla1 s e s~uamd ~ jo ~uawaa~onuy puoyowa
panla31ad 1eyl paleqsuowap (1661)w n 1 B e ~p w uaspunwwo '(plo smad 9 1 - ~ 1 )
 Stress, Performance, and Parental Support 229

Most players (58%) lived close to the soccer school, 30% had to travel
1-2 hours each day, and 12% traveled more than 2 hours a day. A majority were
still in high school, three players were in college, and only two players were
gainfully employed (part-time). Eighty-three percent of the players lived with
both parents, 14% (nine players) with their mother only (eight mothers were
divorced), and two subjects cohabited. Regarding siblings, 14% had none, 48%
had one sibling, 23% had two, and 15% had three or more. On the question of
race, 64% identified themselves as Caucasian, 28% as Black, and 8% as "mixed."

Procedure
In the week before the season started (after 3 weeks of training: Time I), and
Downloaded by New York University on 09/20/16, Volume 9, Article Number 2

in the last week of the season (Time 2), the youngsters were asked to fill out
the questionnaire at homework sessions.' Some players were absent but responded
one or more days later. The return rate was 100%. To examine the causal
relationship between performance level and intratearn relations, a period of one
season (September to May) was considered the most appropriate time-lag between
the two measurements, since teams usually stay together for one season.
During the same weeks, the coach of each team and the four team managers
were asked to give an overall, as well as a detailed, appraisal for each player on
their team. None of the coaches or team managers refused to participate.

Measures
The Cronbach's coefficient alpha levels, test-retest correlations, means, and
standard deviations for all measures are summarized in Table 1.
Performance Level. The coaches of the four teams were asked to assess
the ability of all players on their own team. Both a detailed and a global judgment
of each player was given. The global measure was, "The ability of the player
relative to other players of the same age at the same club is: 1 (much better) to
7 (much worse)" (cf. Bmstad, 1988, p. 313). The detailed measure consisted of
14 dimensions: including technique, mental toughness, physical condition, effort,
and several specific soccer abilities. The five response categories were 1 (insufi-
cient), 2 (moderate), 3 (sufficient), 4 (good), and 5 (very good). Coefficient alpha
was high: .83 at Time 1, and .90 at Time 2. The correlations between the global
and the detailed measure were .80 (p I .01) at Time 1, and .84 ( p <: .01) at Time
2. The test-retest correlations were, respectively, r = .51 0, I .01), and r = .65
(p 5 .01).
To validate the coaches' judgments of the players, the four team managers
were also asked to give an independent appraisal for each player on their team.
The results show a high agreement between the coaches and the team managers.
The interrater correlations of both the global measure and the detailed measure
varied from .62 to .86 (p I .01).
In the following analyses, similar results were obtained with the global
and detailed appraisals of the coach; both measures are more or less interchange-
able. To produce a more convenient presentation of results, only the global
measure is used as an index of the performance level of the players. To standardize
the mean and the variance of the appraisals of the diverse coaches, the raw scores
were transformed into z scores.
Downloaded by New York University on 09/20/16, Volume 9, Article Number 2

Table 1 Alpha Coefficients, Test-Retest Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations

Time 1 Time 2 Test-retest Time 1 Time 2 t test

a a r M SD M SD df t

1. Perofrrnance" - - .51* 0 1.00 0 1.00 - -

2. Perceived parental support .84 .71 .67* 18.13 1.88 18.06 2.00 61 .31
3. Interpersonal stress within the team .78 .67 .59* 9.26 3.04 9.48 2.67 61 -.59
4. Perceived parental pressurea - -70 .45* 2.10 1.10 6.44 2.60 - -

"Single items; perceived parental pressure was assessed by one item at Time 1. At Time 2 a three-item scale was utilized. bBecause several
coaches were involved, the raw scores were transformed into z scores.
*p < .01.
 Stress, Performance, and Parental Support 231

PerceivedParental Support. This scale consisted of four items, followed

by 5-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The
items included were "My parents are proud of me because I play for this club,"3
"If I have a problem, my parents will help me," "I get on well with my parents,"
"My parents support me in what I do." No evidence was found that differences
existed in the perception of parental support at both points in time (a) between
subjects who lived with two parents and those who lived with one divorced
parent (n = 8), in all cases the mother, F(2, 59) = 1.14, n.s., and (b) between
Black, White, and mixed families, F(4, 116) = .62, n.s.
Interpersonal Stress Within the Team. This was assessed by five items,
using 5-point scales, ranging from did not occur at all (I), to occurred very ofien
(5). The general stem to each item was "Did the following occur lately?" The
Downloaded by New York University on 09/20/16, Volume 9, Article Number 2

items were (a) arguments and/or problems with teammates, (b) discontent about
the achievements of the team, (c) discontent about the performances of teammates,
(d) discontent about the assignment of duties within the team, and (e) discontent
about the lack of support from teammates.
Perceived Parental Pressures. At Time 1, one item was used to assess
parental pressures: "I feel the pressure of my parents to achieve." The response
categories ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). At Time 2,
two items were added: "My parents find that I should be more willing to give
anything for soccer," and "My parents encourage me to spend more time playing
soccer." There were no differences in the perception of pressure at both points
in time between two parents and one parent families, F(2, 59) = .36, n.s., and
between Black, White, and mixed families, F(4, 116) = 1,20, n.s.

Results
The zero-order cross-sectional correlations at Time 1 and Time 2 are presented
in Table 2. All correlations are low and nonsignificant. Of particular interest is
the correlation between perceived parental support and perceived parental pres-
sure. As mentioned earlier, parents are usually the individuals who are perceived
as potential support givers by their child. Concurrently,parents may also pressure
a talented child due to their own personal expectations of fame and financial
rewards, rather than due to concern about the child's personal development and
well-being. However, the nonsignificant correlationssuggest that both perceptions

Table 2 Zero-Order Cross-Sectional Correlations

Time 1 Time 2
1 2 3 1 2 3

1. Performance - - - - - -
2. Perceived parental support .02 - - .14 - -
3. Interpersonal stress within team -.I6 -.lo - .02 -.07 -
4. Perceived parental pressure .06 .03 .16 .05 -.I7 .03
 are independent. A lack of perceived support apparently does not mean that
pressure is experienced by the young athlete. In contrast, support and pressure
can be perceived (or not be perceived) simultaneously.
The central issues addressed in this paper are (a) the relationship between
performance level (the coach's rating) and interpersonal stress within the team,
and (b) the moderating effect of perceived parental support. To examine buffer
effects of social support in the relation between stressor and stress reactions, a two-
way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with the stressor and support as independent
variables, or a regression analysis should be conducted. The advantage of an
ANOVA is that the pattern of results can be produced diagrammatically and can
be easily interpreted (Cohen & Wills, 1985). On the other hand, Baron and Kenny
(1986) argued that testing moderators is best addressed by the use of regression
Downloaded by New York University on 09/20/16, Volume 9, Article Number 2

analysis. Hence, both analyses were executed.

First, a regression analysis was conducted, with Time 1 perceived interper-
sonal stress within the team as the dependent variable and with Time 1 perfor-
mance level (not dichotomized), Time 1 parental support, and the interaction
between both variables as predictors. All three predictor variables were simultane-
ously forced into the equation, resulting in a significant multiple R (R = SO, p
I .01). Most importantly, the interaction appeared to be significant (p < .01),
which supports the moderator hypothesis. The impact of performance level was
also significant (p 5 .01), in contrast to the effect of parental support.
Before executing an ANOVA, groups were created on the basis of the
performance appraisal and the parental support measure. With regard to the
coach's rating of the player's performance level, the low performance group
comprised players with z scores below zero, and the high performance group
players with z scores higher than zero. A median split was conducted to create
subjects high and low in parental support. An analysis of variance was executed
with Time 1 performance level (high vs. low), and Time 1 parental support (high
vs. low) as the independent variables and with Time 1 interpersonal stress within
the team as dependent variable. Identical results were obtained: a clear significant
interaction effect, F(1,56) = 9 . 9 7 , I
~ .01; a significant main effect of performance
level, F(l, 56) = 4.65, p I .05; and a nonsignificant main effect of parental
support, F(l, 56) = 0.14, n.s.
Figure 1 shows the expected interaction effect: Low performance subjects
with low parental support perceived more interpersonal stress than did low perfor-
mance subjects with high parental support, t(34) = 2.44, p I .05. However, the
reverse appeared to be true for high performance subjects. The low support/
high performance subgroup perceived less interpersonal stress than did the high
supportthigh performance subgroup, t(22) = 2.50, p 2 .05.
Identical analyses were conducted at Time 2. The regression analysis with
forced entry of the predictor variables (performance level, parental support, and
the interaction between both variables) resulted in a nonsignificant multiple R
(.18) and three nonsignificant betas. Similarly, the ANOVA revealed nonsignifi-
cant effects only of performance, F(l, 59) = .lo, n.s.; of parental support, F(1,
59) = 1.08, n.s.; and of the interaction, F(l, 59) = 2.29, n.s. Nevertheless, some
evidence was obtained for the buffering effect of parental support on interpersonal
stress within the team (see Figure 2). An additional (one-tailed) t test among the
low performance subgroups revealed a significant difference between the means,
 Stress, Performance, and Parental Support 233
Downloaded by New York University on 09/20/16, Volume 9, Article Number 2

low performance high performance

-0- low parental support (n = I8 vs. n = 11)

-+- high parental support (n = 18 vs. n = 13)

Figure 1 - Relation between the coach's appraisal of the player's performance level,
perceived parental support, and interpersonal stress within the team at the beginning
of the season (Time 1).

t(3 1) = 1.74, p S .05. Moreover, the unexpected difference between the two high
performance subgroups at Time 1 disappeared at Time 2.
Because the analyses conducted were cross-sectional, no conclusions can
be drawn about the causality of the observed relationships. Unfortunately, no
magical methods for ensuring the correctnessof causal inferences from nonexperi-
mental studies are available (Rogosa, 1980; Stone, 1986). However, to achieve
an indication of causality between performance level and interpersonal stress
within the team, including the moderating role of perceived support from parents,
a cross-lagged panel technique was applied (cf. Carron, 1988). Although the
Downloaded by New York University on 09/20/16, Volume 9, Article Number 2

low performance high performance

-13low parental support (n = 17 vs. n = 1 I )

+- high parental support (n = 16 vs. n = 19)

Figure 2 -Relation between the coach's appraisal of the player's performance level,
perceived parental support, and interpersonal stress within the team at the end of
the season (Time 2).

cross-lagged correlationtechnique has been the subject of much criticism (Cook &
Campbell, 1979; Kenny, 1979; Rogosa, 1980), cross-lagged panel correlations
are quite visually accessible and have exploratory utility (Locascio, 1982; cf.
Mullen & Copper, 1994).
Cross-lagged correlations were computed between performance level and
interpersonal stress within the team, separately for the low and the high parental
support group (as observed at Time 14).The results reveal significant differences
between the two cross-lagged correlations in both support groups: r = -.68 versus
r = -.19, z = 4.08 (p I .01) in the low support group, and r = .38 versus r =
.20, z = 1.89 (p I .05) in the high support group (see Figure 3).5
 Stress, Performance, and Parental Support 235

1-ow parental support group {N = 29)

Performance level
Downloaded by New York University on 09/20/16, Volume 9, Article Number 2

High parental rupport group (N = 32)

Pertbrmance level Performance level

.a*-

Figure 3 -Cross-lagged panel correlations between the coach's appraisal of the

player's performance level and interpersonal stress within the team, separately for
low and high parental support groups.

The difference between the two cross-lagged correlations in the low support
group suggests that among low support subjects, a low performance level pro-
duced interpersonal stress instead of the reverse. The partial cross-lagged correla-
tion between the Time 1 performance level and Time 2 interpersonal stress,
controlling for Time 1 interpersonal stress, supports this conclusion (r = -34, p
I .05). The reverse partial cross-lagged correlation between Time 1 stress and
Time 2 performance, controlling for Time 1 performance, does not significantly
differ from zero (r = .05, n.s.).
Among the high support players, the same causal structure, but in the
reverse direction, was found. The results suggest that among these players, a
performance level below average does not lead to more interpersonal stress. In
 contrast, there is evidence that a high performance level in combination with
high parental support produces more problems and difficulties with teammates.
Both partial cross-lagged correlations (respectively, r = .30, p I .06, and r = .18,
n.s.) also indicate that the perception of parental support buffers the adverse
effects of a below average performance level.

Discussion
The most important finding of this study is the buffering effect of parental support,
which is quite stable over the entire season and not related to perceived pressure
from parents, and demographic variables such as ethnic background and marital
status (married or divorced) of the parents. When the coach judges a player's
performance quality as below average, problems with teammates are less likely
Downloaded by New York University on 09/20/16, Volume 9, Article Number 2

to occur as long as the player feels he can rely on support from his parents. An
unexpected result at Time 1 was that among high performance players more
perceived support seems to produce more interpersonal stress within the team.
However, it should be noted that (a) this effect does not appear to be very
consistent since it was not observed at Time 2; (b) the level of interpersonal
stress tends to be higher among the low performance, low support group than
among the high performance, high support group, t(29) = 1.91, p I .07; and (c)
the differences may be attributed to different sources of interpersonal conflicts.
Indeed, contrasting the means of the separate items of the Time 1 intrateam stress
scale revealed that the low performance, low support group reported more lack
of support from teammates than did the low performance, high support group,
t(35) = 3.03, p I .01, whereas the high performance, high support group expressed
more discontent with the individual performances of teammates than the high
performance, low support group, t(22) = 2.71 , p 5 .Ol. Apparently, at the beginning
of the season, social concerns are dominant among the low performing, low
support subjects, and task-related problems are experienced more by the high
performance, high support group.
Cross-lagged panel analyses improve the capacity to make causal inferences
about the relationship between performance and interpersonal stress within the
team. In favor of the generality of the current findings is the agreement with
other studies that also found evidence for the performance-interpersonal stress
causal relationship, both outside and inside sports. Although a recent meta-
analytic study of Mullen and Copper (1994) suggests the existence of a reverse
relationship, they concluded, in line with the present results, that their results
"do suggest that the changes in cohesiveness that can be brought about by
performance are likely to be stronger than the changes in performance that can
be brought about by cohesiveness" (p. 224; cf. Carron, 1988, 1993). Even more
interesting is that this result appears to be true only under specific circumstances,
namely, when there is a perceived lack of parental support to cope with the
stressful situation of a below average performance level. It should be emphasized,
however, that the cross-lagged panel technique only has utility as an exploratory
technique (locascio, 1982).To make stronger inferences about the causal relation-
ship between performance and interpersonal stress, more rigorous quasi-experi-
mental or experimental studies should follow (cf. Kenny, 1979).
This knowledge about the significant roles of parents can be used to educate
parents of young athletes (cf. Scanlan & Lewthwaite, 1988). Unfortunately, on
 Stress, Performance, and Parental Support 237

the basis of the present results, no suggestions can be provided as to how parents
should support their child, or which parent, if any, is most critical in this respect.
Some studies of parental support suggest that the support and encouragement of
the father is most important (cf. Hill, 1993; Robinson & Carron, 1982), whereas
others suggest that the mother plays a more dominant role (cf. Scanlan & Lewth-
waite, 1988). Furthermore, as already noted by Brustad (1988), the specific types
of parental behaviors that the child may perceive as pressure or support needs
to be thoroughly explored. For example, one may examine whether perceived
emotional support, that is, providing the individual the possibility to turn to
others for comfort and security during times of stress, is more appreciated than
informational support, which represents the support that helps an individual to
find solutions for the problem (Cutrona & Russell, 1990).
In future research, attention should be paid to the relative importance of
Downloaded by New York University on 09/20/16, Volume 9, Article Number 2

these dimensions of social support. It is obviously more appropriate to rely on

informational support in situations where there is a potential for actual improve-
ment. When there is little one can do to change an outcome, it is better to try
to change, to control, or to manage an emotional response with the help of parents
(cf. Folkman et al., 1991). A final point to emphasize in this regard is that social
support seems to be most effective when there is a close match between the
actual needs of the recipient and the functions of support that are perceived to
be available (Cohen & Wills, 1985; F o b a n et al., 1991). Particularly with
respect to emotional needs and emotional support, a closer match will generally
exist between parents and their children than between the youngsters and other
individuals (coach, teammates), which might explain the significanceof perceived
parental support.
As an adolescent becomes older, the importance of parental support dimin-
ishes. There is an increasing tendency to rely on close friends and intimate
partners for support, who replace, to a certain extent, parents in the "buffering"
role. For example, in a study among older adolescents, Rosenfeld et al. (1989)
demonstrated that friends were the main group in providing listening support,
emotional support, and emotional challenge. Parents were rated second in this
regard. Coach, teammates, and "others" were less important in this respect.
Coaches in team sports, for example, tend to avoid forms of emotional support
(Rosenfeld et al., 1989). The reasons for this attitude may be that they do not
want to lose the emotional distance necessary to sustain their role as authority
and that they want to avoid affecting morale by singling out particular athletes
with whom to share a more personal or supportive relationship.
The high agreement between the coaches and the team managers with
regard to the ability appraisal of the players of the team suggest that the coaches'
appraisals represent accurate estimations of the players' capabilities. On the other
hand, the high internal consistency of the detailed appraisal and the strong link
between the global and detailed measure suggest a halo error; that is, the tendency
of a strong general impression of the player's performance level to bias the
perception of diverse subdimensions of his performance (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).
Evidently, coaches should be aware of their authority and take responsibility for
making accurate and flexible assessments. In other words, coaches should be
alert to cognitive biases, including halo errors, and should be sensitive to self-
fulfilling prophesies, that is, expectationsorpredictions, initially false, that precip-
itate a series of events that cause the original expectation or prediction to become
 true (Horn, 1984; Merton, 1948). Keeping lines of communication open between
coach and players, and primarily providing players with informational rather than
evaluative feedback, is a way to prevent an expectancy effect occurring (Horn,
1984). On the other hand, the "social hazard" of self-fulfilling prophesies should
not be exaggerated. Research suggests that coaches who exhibit biased instruc-
tional behavior are limited to a specific subgroup, which can be recognized on
the basis of certain personality and characteristics. oreo over,
not
every athlete is susceptible to expectancies from the coach (for a review, see
Horn, 1984).
In conclusion. the author of the Svorts Illustrated article mentioned at the
beginning of this paper may have made a critical mistake by assuming that the
lack of interest of members of the U.S. team for each other's routines led to
winning only one gold medal. An alternative explanation for the poor showing
Downloaded by New York University on 09/20/16, Volume 9, Article Number 2

by the U.S. team was that both the U.S. team and the Unified Team knew that
the Unified Team was superior, which may have produced more mutual interest
and support in this team, whereas the U.S. gymnasts may have lacked the social
resources to cope with their inferior performances.

References
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1 182.
Bloom, B.S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine.
Brustad, R.J. (1988). Affective outcomes in competitive youth sport: The influence of
intrapersonal and socialization factors. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
10, 307-321.
Bmstad, R.J. (1992). Integrating socialization influences into the study of children's
motivation in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14, 59-77.
Buunk, B.P. (1990). Affiliation and helping interactions within organizations: A critical
analysis of the role of social support with regard to occupational stress. European
Review of Social Psychology, 1, 293-322.
Carlson, R. (1988). The socialization of elite tennis players in Sweden: An analysis of
the players' backgrounds and development. Sociology of Sport Journal, 5,241-256.
Carron, A.V. (1988). Group dynamics in sport. London, ON: Spodym.
Carron, A.V. (1993). Group dynamics in sport. In S. Serpa, J. Alves, V. Ferreira, & A.
Paula-Brito (Eds.), Proceedings VIII World Congress of Sport Psychology (pp. 43-
64). Lisbon: Universidade Tkcnica de Lisboa.
Clark, M.S. (1983). Reactions to aid in communal and exchange relationships. In J.D.
Fisher, A. Nadler, & B.M. DePaulo (Eds.), New directions in helping: Vol. 1 .
Recipient reactions to aid (pp. 281-304). New York: Academic Press.
Clark, M.S., & Mills, J. (1993). The difference between communal and exchange relation-
ships: What it is and is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19,684-691.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T.A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.
Cohn, P.J. (1990). An exploratory study on sources of stress and athlete burnout in youth
golf. The Sport Psychologist, 4 , 95-106.
Compas, B.E. (1987). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence. Psychological
Bulletin, 101, 393-403.
 Stress, Performance, and Parental Support 239

Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues
for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cutrona, C.E., & Russell, D.W. (1990). Type of social support and specific stress: Toward
a theory of optimal matching. In B.R. Sarason, I.G. Sarason, & G.R. Pierce (Eds.),
Social support: An interactional view (pp. 319-366). New York: Wiley.
Dale, J., & Weinberg, R. (1990). Burnout in sport: A review and critique. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 67-83.
DuBois, D.L., Felner, R.D., Brand, S., Adan, A.M., & Evans, E.G. (1992). A prospective
study of life stress, social support, and adaptation in early adolescence. Child
Development, 63, 542-557.
Fisher, J.D., Nadler, A., & Witcher-Alagna, S. (1982). Recipient reactions to aid. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 91, 27-54.
Downloaded by New York University on 09/20/16, Volume 9, Article Number 2

Folkman, S., Chessney, M. McKusick, L., Ironson, G., Johnson, D.S., & Coates, T.J.
(1991). Translating coping theory into an intervention. In John Eckenrode (Ed.),
The social context of coping (pp. 239-260). New York: Plenum Press.
French, J.R.P., & Caplan, R.D. (1970). Psychosocial factors in coronary heart disease.
Industrial Medicine, 39, 3 1-45.
Gould, D., Jackson, S., & Finch, L. (1993). Sources of stress in national champion figure
skaters. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 15, 134-159.
Hill, G.M. (1993). Youth sport participation of professional baseball players. Sociology
of Sport Journal, 10, 107-114.
Horn, T.S. (1984). The expectancy process: Causes and consequences. In W.F. Straub &
J.M. Williams (Eds.), Cognitive sport psychology (pp. 199-211). New York: Sport
Science Association.
Jones, J.G., & Hardy, L. (1990). The academic study of stress in sport. In J.G. Jones &
L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress andpe$ormance in sport (pp. 3-16). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
Kenny, D.A. (1975). Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for spuriousness. Psychological
Bulletin, 82, 887-903.
Kenny, D.A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley.
Lazarus, R.S., & Folkrnan, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Lehman, D.R., Ellard, J.H., & Wortman, C.B. (1986). Social support for the bereaved:
Recipients' and providers' perspectives on what is helpful. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 54, 438-446.
Locascio, J.J. (1982). The cross-lagged correlation technique: Reconsideration in terms
of exploratory utility, assumption specification and robustness. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 42, 1023-1036.
Loehr, J.E. (1991). The mental game. New York: Plume.
Madden, C.C., Summers, J.J., & Brown, D.F. (1990). The influence of perceived stress
on coping with competitive basketball. International Journal of Sport Psychology,
21, 21-35.
Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive behavior modtjlcation: An integrative approach. New
York: Plenum.
Merton, R. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193-210.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and perfor-
mance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T.D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration
of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 250-256.
 240 VanYperen

Ommundsen, Y., & Vaglum, P. (1991). Soccer competition anxiety and enjoyment in
young boys players: The influence of perceived competence and significant others'
emotional involvement. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 22, 35-49.
Orlick, T., & Partington, J. (1988). Mental links to excellence. The Sport Psychologist,
2, 105-130.
Pierce, G.R., Sarason, B.R., & Sarason, I.G. (1992). General and specific support expecta-
tions and stress as predictors of perceived supportiveness: An experimental study.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 297-307.
Rees, C.R., & Segal, M.W. (1984). Intragroup competition, equity, and interpersonal
attraction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 328-336.
Robinson, T.T., & Carron, A.V. (1982). Personal and situational factors associated with
dropping out versus maintaining participation in competitive sport. Journal of Sport
Downloaded by New York University on 09/20/16, Volume 9, Article Number 2

Psychology, 4, 364-378.
Rogosa, D. (1980). A critique of cross-lagged correlation. Psychological Bulletin, 88,
245-258.
Rook, K.S. (1984). The negative side of social interaction: Impact on psychological well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1097-1108.
Rosenfeld, L.B., Richman, J.M., & Hardy, C.J. (1989). Examining social support networks
among athletes: Description and relationship to stress. The Sport Psychologist, 3,
23-33.
Scanlan, T.K., & Lewthwaite, R. (1988). From stress to enjoyment: Parental and coach
influences on youth participants. In E.W. Brown & C.F. Brown (Eds.), Competitive
sports for children and youth: An overview of research and issues (pp. 41-48).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Scanlan, T.K., Stein, G.L., & Ravizza, K. (1991). An in-depth study of former figure
skaters: 11. Sources of stress. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13, 103-120.
Smith, R.E. (1988). Athletic stress and burnout: Conceptual models and intervention
strategies. In D. Hackfort & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Anxiety in sports: An interna-
tional perspective (pp.183-201). New York: Hemisphere.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Ptacek, J.T. (1990). Conjunctive moderator variables in
vulnerability and resiliency research: Life stress, social support and coping skills,
and adolescent sport injuries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,
360-370.
Stone, E.F. (1986). Research methods in industrial and organizational psychology:
Selected issues and trends. In C.L. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), International
review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 305-334). Chicester,
U.K.: Wiley.
Swift, E.M. (1992, August 10). Amity beats enmity. Sports Illustrated, 77(6), 76-79.
VanYperen, N.W. (1992). Self-enhancement among major league soccer players: The role
of importance and ambiguity on social comparison behavior. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 22, 1186-1198.
Weiss, M.R., & Duncan, S.C. (1992). The relationship between physical competence and
peer acceptance in the context of children's sports participation. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 14, 177-191.
Williams, J.M., & Widmeyer, W.N. (1991). The cohesion-performance outcome relation-
ship in a coacting sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13, 364-371.
 '(SL61 'Kuuag) palelauo3 sah~aswaqlase
Downloaded by New York University on 09/20/16, Volume 9, Article Number 2

suo!le~a.u03 ayl asne3aq 'z s,Jaqs!d pmpmls aql ueyl 1aqlV.I e~nuuojuol!.~ pue Uosmad
aql q1!m patsal aq lsnw s u o ~ ~ e ~ apaSSel-sso.13
uo~ ayl uaaMlaq a3ua.~a~j!pa u s
.uo!lm.~!p aslaha1 aql u! %I 1 pm 'z aw!L le dno~Spoddns
MOI aqlol 1 aw!L le dno19 poddns q8!q ayl WOJJ %L :sdno~% paZmq3 8 8 1 dluo 'dno.14
poddns q%!q aql y %s+pue 'dno.19 uoddns MOI ayl u! %LE:Z aw!L pm I aw!L qloq le
~=y
hto%ale3a m s aql o~u!pay!ssep a.iaM salalql~ayl jo %zg ' ~ a ~ o a ~-o w .I:q%!q al!nb s!
poddns puamd pah!axad JO UO!~EI~.I.IO~lsalal-~sa1a y l ' ~alqeL q uaas aq ue3 sv*
,;qn13 s!yl,, JO pealsu! pasn SEMqnl3 aqljo a m u p n ~ ae v a*uuo!lsanb ayl UI,
.siadaaypo%pue s~aKeldplay roj paz!l!m aJaM suo!suaw!p luaJag!a,
'way d ~ a q03 aIqel!eAe a~amsraqxal pag!vaa -qnp ayl le y.romawoq aseda~d
03 pm lauu!p amq 01 Ll!~!q!ssod aql pey s1aLeId qlnorC 'suo!ssas 9u!upr, I~IJV,
zvz i: w d d n s Iqualed pue 8axmu.ropa~'ssays