Person. ~rt&i~. D$/. Vol. 20, No. I. pp.

109-I 14, 1996

Copyright ‘(_ 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Pergamon Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0191-8869(95)00140-9 0191~8869/96 $15.00+0.00

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT AS PREDICTORS OF

COMPETITIVE ANXIETY

Graham Jones, Austin Swain and Chris Harwood

Sport Psychology Research Group, Department of Physical Education, Sports Science and Recreation
Management, Loughborough University, Loughborough LEI I 3TU, England

(Received 17 Nocember 1994; veceiced,for publication 10 Augur 1995)

Summary-This study investigated relationships between the intensity (i.e. level) and direction (i.e.
interpretation of anxiety as either debilitative or facilitative) dimensions of multidimensional competitive
trait anxiety and the two mood structures of Positive (PA) and Negative Affect (NA). The Competitive
Trait Anxiety Inventory-2, minus the self-confidence subscale and modified to include a directional
subscale. and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule were administered to a sample of sports performers
(n = 309). Correlation analyses revealed that NA was more related to anxiety intensity than was PA. In
contrast. levels of PA were more strongly related than NA to the directional interpretations that individuals
tended to attach to their cognitive and somatic anxiety symptoms. PA and NA scores were then di-
chotomized as individual difference variables into high and low categories via the median split technique.
Two two-way MANOVA’s were carried out using the CTAI-2 intensity and direction subscales respectively
as dependent variables. Both MANOVA’s were significant (P < 0.01) and follow-up means comparison
tests showed the importance of NA alone in mediating the intensity of cognitive and somatic anxiety.
whilst PA played a more significant role than NA in the interpretation of both cognitive and somatic
anxiety. These results support the need to distinguish between the intensity and direction dimensions of
competitive anxiety. whilst providing information on dispositional antecedents of these subscales.

INTRODUCTION

The measurement of anxiety in the sport psychology literature has traditionally been limited to the
assessment of the ‘intensity’ or level of certain cognitive and perceived physiological symptoms
which are deemed to reflect anxiety (Martens, Burton, Vealey Bump & Smith, 1982, 1990). This
work has largely been based upon the assumption that anxiety is negative and detrimental to
performance. However, following on from the work in test anxiety which has distinguished between
debilitating and facilitating dimensions of the anxiety response (e.g. Alpert & Haber, 1960; Couch,
Garber & Turner, 1983; Munz, Costello & Korabek, 1975) the notion of ‘direction’ of anxiety has
recently been introduced into the competitive anxiety literature (Jones, 1991, 1995). This refers to
assessing how sports performers label the ‘intensity’ of cognitive and perceived physiological symp-
toms they experience on a debilitative-facilitative continuum. Thus, this approach recognizes that
anxiety can have both negative and positive consequences. For example, one performer might be
‘very concerned’ about an upcoming event, to the extent that s/he is worried and in a near-panic,
debilitative state. Another performer who is also ‘very concerned’ might view such a state as very
necessary since it signals the importance of the event and means that s/he will invest effort in it, thus
constituting a motivated, facilitative state. Similarly, two performers experiencing almost identical
symptoms of physiological arousal prior to competition might label those symptoms at completely
opposite ends of the debilitative-facilitative continuum.
Support for the distinction between ‘intensity’ and ‘direction’ of anxiety symptoms has been
provided in several recent empirical investigations. For example, Jones, Swain and Hardy’s (1993)
study of female gymnasts found no differences in cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety intensity,
or in somatic anxiety direction, between a ‘good performance’ and a ‘poor performance’ group.
However, the ‘good performance’ group reported their cognitive anxiety intensity as more facilitating
and less debilitating than the ‘poor performance’ group. Recently, Jones, Hanton and Swain (1994)
found no differences in the intensity of state cognitive and somatic anxiety intensity between elite
and non-elite swimmers, but the elite performers interpreted both anxiety states as being more
facilitative to performance than the non-elite performers. Such differences between elite and non-

109
110 Graham Jones et al.

elite performers in the interpretation of anxiety symptoms have been replicated in the context of
trait cognitive and somatic anxiety (Jones & Swain, 1995). Finally, Swain and Jones’ (1995) study
of the relative contributions of intensity and direction dimensions of competitive anxiety to pre-
dicting sports performance showed direction to be the better predictor in the cases of both cognitive
and somatic anxiety.
There exists, therefore, a growing body of research evidence which corroborates the need to
distinguish between intensity and direction of competitive anxiety symptoms. In posing questions
to be addressed in future research in this area, Jones et al. (1994) proposed that individuals may
have a predisposition to report anxiety symptoms as being either facilitative or debilitative. They
suggested that an important individual difference variable in predicting directional responses may
be Positive and Negative Affect (Watson & Clarke, 1984; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). In the 1980’s,
Positive Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA) emerged as two dominant and relatively independent
dimensions in social psychological studies of affective structure (e.g. Tellegen, 1985; Watson &
Clark, 1984; Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988). These two mood factors characterize an individual’s
tendency to display adaptive or aversive mood states. PA reflects the extent to which a person feels
enthusiastic, active or alert, with high PA being characterized by full concentration, eagerness and
pleasurable engagement; low PA, on the other hand, corresponds to sadness and lethargy (Watson
et al., 1988). NA is a general dimension of subjective distress with high NA being reflected by
unpleasurable mood states, including anger, contempt, guilt, fear and nervousness; low NA, on the
other hand, would be a state of calmness and serenity (Watson et al., 1988). Recently, Watson et
al. (1988) developed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) as a reliable, valid and
efficient means of measuring these two important dimensions of mood at state and trait levels.
Several studies have linked PA and NA to an individual’s intensity of anxiety (Tellegen, 1985;
Watson & Clark, 1984; Watson et al., 1988). These studies demonstrate how NA tends to correlate
with anxiety to a much greater extent than PA. The independence of the two dimensions and the
role played by NA are emphasized by Watson (1988) who stated, “It is important to emphasize
that perceptions of stress correlate only with Negative Affect and remain independent of variations
on Positive Affect” (p. 1029). In applying this work to competitive anxiety, Jones et al. (1994)
recognized that whilst PA may not be important in predicting the intensity of the response, it may
predict the direction of the response in addition to NA. Specifically, they proposed that performers
high on trait NA and low on trait PA will perceive their symptoms, irrespective of intensity, as
debilitative; conversely performers high on PA and low on NA will interpret them as more faci-
litative. To date, relationships between PA and NA and competitive anxiety have not been examined
in the sport psychology literature. This study examined, therefore, Jones et al.‘s (1994) proposals in
a sample of sports performers who completed trait PANAS and competitive anxiety scales.

METHOD

Subjects
The Ss (n = 309) were male (n = 172) and female (n = 137) undergraduate university students
(mean age = 20.2; SD = 2.54) drawn from a variety of sports.

Measures
Positive And Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). The PANAS (trait version) consists of two lo-
item scales. Items on the PA scale include ‘interested’, ‘excited’ and ‘alert’; while items on the NA
scale include ‘distressed’, ‘nervous’ and ‘afraid’. The S is required to indicate to what extent s/he
generally experiences that ‘feeling’ or ‘emotion’ on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (“very
slightly/not at all”) to 5 (“extremely”). Thus, possible scores on both scales range from 10 to 50.
Watson et al. (1988) have shown the scales to be high on internal consistency (a = 0.86 to 0.90 for
PA; 0.84 to 0.87 for NA), largely uncorrelated (intercorrelations ranging from -0.12 to -0.23)
and stable over a two month period (test-retest reliability = 0.68 for PA, 0.71 for NA).
ModiJied Competitive Trait Anxiety Inventory-2. The Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2
(Martens et al., 1982, 1990) was developed as the first sport-specific multidimensional competitive
state anxiety scale. Albrecht and Feltz (1987) modified the scale to form a trait measure of mul-
 Competitive anxiety 111

tidimensional competitive anxiety and referred to it as the ‘Competitive Trait Anxiety Inventory-
2’ (CTAI-2). The CTAI-2 asks about the ‘intensity’ of the cognitive and somatic symptoms, and
also self-confidence, usually experienced immediately prior to competition. The CTAI-2 has been
modified by Jones and Swain (1995) to include a ‘direction’ response scale to the cognitive and
somatic anxiety subscales (see Jones & Swain, 1992; Jones et al., 1993). This version of the CTAI-
2, minus the self-confidence subscale, was employed in the study reported here. The “Modified
CTAI-2”, therefore, was an l&item questionnaire, with nine items for each of the subscales of
cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety. Responses on the ‘intensity’ scale are on a Likert format
ranging from 1 (“not at all”) to 4 (“very much so”). so that the possible scores for each subscale
range from 9 to 36. On the ‘direction’ scale, each S was asked to rate the extent to which the
experienced intensity of each cognitive and somatic anxiety symptom is usually either facilitative
or debilitative to their subsequent performance. With a response scale ranging from -3 (“very
debilitative”) to + 3 (“very facilitative”), the direction scores on each subscale range from - 27 to
+27.

Procedure
The Ss were required to complete the two questionnaires in their own time. Each S was given
clear instructions and was assured that all individual responses would be kept in the strictest
confidence.

RESULTS

The data from this study were analysed by means of correlations and multivariate analyses of
variance.

Correlation analyses
Correlation analyses were employed to examine the relationships within and between the intensity
and direction subscales of the CTAI-2 and PA and NA. As may be seen in Table 1, the moderate
correlation between cognitive and somatic anxiety intensity supports previous research employing
the CSAI-2 (e.g. Martens et al., 1990; Jones & Cale. 1989). Furthermore, the very low and non-
significant correlation between PA and NA reinforces the independent nature of these two affective
dimensions (Watson et ul., 1988). Looking more closely at relationships between the CTAI-2
subscales and PA and NA, cognitive anxiety intensity displayed a significant and positive correlation
with NA (P < O.OI), but no significant relationship emerged with PA; these results were replicated for
somatic anxiety intensity. In terms of the direction subscales, cognitive anxiety direction displayed a
significant and positive correlation with PA (P < O.Ol), with no significant relationship emerging
with NA. Somatic anxiety direction was also positively correlated to PA (P < 0.01); however. in
this case, a marginally significant negative correlation (P < 0.05) arose between somatic anxiety
direction and NA.
Further intercorrelations between the CTAI-2 subcomponent scores are also represented in Table
1. A significant and positive correlation emerged between cognitive and somatic anxiety direction
(P < 0.01). Significant and negative correlations were evident between cognitive anxiety intensity

Table I. Correlations within and between the CTAI-2 abscale\ dnd Posiuve and
i%gative Affect

CA1 CAD SAI SAD PA NA

CAI -0.25** 0.49** -0.25** -0.04 0.42**

CAD -0 13 0 59** 0.23** -0.09
SAI -0.21** -0.04 0.46”
SAD 0.16** -0.141
PA 0.01
NA

*P < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

CA1 Cognitive Anxiety Intensity: CAD Cogmuve Anxiety Dwztion: SAI Somatlc
Anxiety Intensity; SAD Somatic Anxiety Direction; PA Positive Affect: NA
Negative Affect.
112 Graham Jones e/ ul.

Table 2. Summary of MANOVA and means for CTAI-2 mtensity subscales

CTAI-2 HiNA HiNA LoNA LoNA

Effect subscale HiNA LoNA HiPA LoPA LoPA HiPA LoPA HIPA P

NA CAI 23.92 20.06 Pi 0.001

PA CA1 21.46 22.52 N.S.
NAxPA CAI 24.68 23.16 20 31 19 76 N.S.
NA SAI 22.26 17.64 P < u.001
PA SAl 19.33 20.58 N.S.
NAxPA SAI 22.99 21.54 18.17 17 16 N.S.

and direction, and also somatic anxiety intensity and direction (P < 0.01). However, the magnitude
of these correlations (-0.25 and -0.21 respectively) show both intensity and direction subscales
to share less than 7% common variance, supporting their separate measurement.

Multitlariate Analyses of Variance (MAN0 VA)

The raw PA and NA scores were separately dichotomised into high/low categories via the median
split technique. In order to assess the separate and interactive effects of PA and NA levels on the
intensity and direction of cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety, two separate two-way MANOVA’s
were performed. With PA and NA as independent variables, the first MANOVA employed the
CTAI-2 intensity subscales as dependent variables, whilst the direction subscales were used as
dependent variables in the second MANOVA.
The ‘intensity’ MANOVA failed to show a significant interaction [Wilk’s i = 0.79;
F(2,304) = 2.99; P > 0.051 or main effect of PA [Wilk’s 2 = 0.99; F(2,304) = 0.36; P > 0.051.
However, it did reveal a significant main effect of NA [Wilk’s 1. = 0.98; F(2,304) = 40.1; P < O.OOl].
All mean scores and the results of follow-up univariate analyses (where appropriate) are shown in
Table 2, which highlights the significant mean differences in intensity of cognitive and somatic
anxiety within individuals who possess high or low NA. Individuals high in NA tend to experience
higher levels of both cognitive and somatic anxiety than those low in NA, regardless of PA levels
which seem to be unrelated to the intensity of anxiety experienced.
The ‘direction’ MANOVA revealed significant main effects for both PA [Wilk’s i = 0.93;
F(2,304) = 11.7; P < O.OOl] and NA [Wilk’s 1. = 0.98; F(2,304) = 3.48; P < 0.051. However, there
was no significant interaction [Wilk’s i = 0.99; F(2,304) = 1.25; P < 0.051. All mean scores and the
results of follow-up univariate analyses (where appropriate) are shown in Table 3, which depicts
the significant mean differences in direction of cognitive and somatic anxiety for individuals high
and low in PA and NA. These results show that individuals high in PA or low in NA tend to
perceive both their cognitive and somatic anxiety symptoms as more facilitative and less debilitative
than those low in PA and high in NA, respectively.

DISCUSSION

The correlations between the ‘intensity’ subscales for the CTAI-2 and PA and NA supported the
primary hypothesis that NA would correlate more closely to the intensity of cognitive and somatic
anxiety symptoms generally experienced than would PA. This was clearly demonstrated since the
correlation between NA and both modes of anxiety intensity were significant at the one per cent

Table 3. Summary of MANOVA and means for CTAI-2 dlrectlon subscales

CTAI-2 HiNA HiNA LoNA LoNA

Effect subscale HiNA LoNA HiPA LoPA LoPA HiPA LoPA HiPA P

NA CAD 0.17 2.34 P < 0.05

PA CAD 3.58 - I .06 P 4 0.001
NAxPA CAD - 2.38 2.72 0 24 4.45 N.S.
NA SAD 1.41 3.65 P i 0.05
PA SAD 4.24 0.82 P < 0.001
NAxPA SAD -0.99 3.81 2.62 4.68 N.S.
 Competitive anxiety 113

level; the corresponding correlations for PA, on the other hand, were only just above zero. This
finding is corroborated by the MANOVA which revealed a significant main effect for NA on both
the cognitive and somatic anxiety subscales, in the absence of any main effect of PA or an interaction
effect between NA and PA. Specifically, individuals with the trait of high or low NA tended to
experience high or low competitive anxiety intensity regardless of their levels of PA. These results,
within a sport context, support established findings that have been reported previously (Watson et
al., 1988), thus reinforcing the robust nature of NA as an individual difference variable in the
experience of anxiety intensity across a variety of ‘real life’ contexts.
The second hypothesis proposed that both PA and NA would predict directional interpretations
of anxiety. More specifically, performers high on NA and low on PA should perceive their symptoms,
irrespective of intensity, as debilitative; whilst performers, low on NA and high on PA, should
report a more facilitative interpretation. Although an examination at the descriptive level of the
mean scores for both cognitive anxiety direction and somatic anxiety direction shows support for
this hypothesis (see Table 3), the interaction effect did not reach statistical significance. This finding,
together with the significant main effects of NA and PA on direction of cognitive and somatic
anxiety, shows that both NA and PA predict direction, but in a relatively independent fashion. The
results of the correlation analyses, combined with the MANOVA for direction, suggest, however,
that PA may have a more dominant role in predicting direction of both cognitive and somatic
anxiety. Levels of PA were significantly correlated to both cognitive and somatic anxiety direction
at the 1% level, whereas NA only featured in a marginally significant correlation with direction of
somatic anxiety. Furthermore, the mean differences in direction of cognitive and somatic anxiety
for PA were greater and at a higher level of significance that those for NA.
In conclusion, this study has revealed the roles of PA and NA as individual difference variables
which predict the ways in which sports performers experience and interpret their competitive anxiety.
Whilst the trait of NA is more apparent in the determination of intensity levels of cognitive and
somatic anxiety, levels of both PA and NA appear to be important in the positive or negative
interpretation of that anxiety. These findings again demonstrate the growing need to distinguish
between intensity and direction of multidimensional competitive anxiety in sport psychology
research, and for the need to examine individual differences in these responses.

REFERENCES

Albrecht. R. R. & Feltz, D. L. (1987). Generality and specificity of attention related to competitive anxiety and sport
performance. Journal of Sport Ps~cholo,q,v, 9. 23 l-248.
Alpert. R. & Haber. N. N. (1960). Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journal of’ Abnormal and Social P.q’chu/ogJ,.
61,207-215.
Couch, J. V.. Garber, T. B. & Turner, W. E. (1983). Facilitating and debilitating test anxiety and achievement. The
Psychological Record. 33, 237-244.
Jones, G. (1991). Recent developments and current issues in competitive state anxiety research. The Psychologisr. 4. 152-
155.
Jones, G. (1995). More than just a game: Research developments and issues in competitive anxiety in sport. British Journal
~l’P.~yholog~, 88, 449478.
Jones, G. & Cale, A. (1989). Relationships between multidimensional competitive state anxiety and cognitive and motor
subcomponents of performance. Journal qfSport.c Sciences, 7, 229-240.
Jones. G.. Hanton. S. & Swain, A. B. J. (1994). Intensity and interpretation of anxiety symptoms in elite and non-elite sports
performers. Personulit~~ und Individual Difjtrrnces. 17, 657-663.
Jones, G. & Swain, A. B. J. (1992). Intensity and direction dimensions of competitive state anxiety and relationships with
competitiveness. Perceptual rmd Motor Skills. 74, 467472.
Jones, G. Swain, A. B. J. (1995). Predispositions to experience debilitative and facilitative anxiety in elite and non-elite
performers. The Sporr P.~~~chologist, 9. 202-2 12.
Jones, G., Swain, A. B. J. & Hardy, L. (1993). Intensity and direction dimensions ofcompetitive state anxiety and relationships
with performance. Journal of SporrsSciences, II, 525-532.
Martens, R.. Burton, D.. Vealey, R. S.. Bump. L. A. & Smith, D. E. (1982). Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2.
Symposium conducted at the Amwal Corzference of’ihe North American Societ) for the Psychology of’Sport and Phjasical
Ac/ivi/j,.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R. S.. Bump, L. A. & Smith, D. W. (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,Ill: Human Kinetics.
Munz. D. C.. Costello. C. T. & Korabek, K. (1975). A further test of the inverted U relating achievement anxietv and
academic test performance. Journal q/ Psychology; 89, 3947.
Swain, A. B. J. & Jones. (in press). Explaining performance variance: The relative contributions of intensity and direction
dimensions of competitive state anxiety. An.uie!y, Stress and Coping.
114 Graham Jones (‘I al.

Tellegen. A. (1985). Structures of mood and personalit) and their relationship to assessing anxiety, with an emphasis on self-
report. In A. H. Tuma & J.D. Maser (Eds.). iln.~ier?. crtxl I/F an.xie/~~ diso~fers. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
Watson, D. (1988). Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of Positive and Negative Affect: Their relationship to health
complaints. perceived stress, and daily activities. Jorr~~rl c~ff’c~.\or~u/i~,~and Social Psycholog). 54, 1020-1030.
Watson. D. &Clarke L. A. (19X4). Neaatlve Affecti\ it!: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Ps~~chological
BU//rti/l. 96. 46.5 490.
Watson. D.. Clarke. L. A. & Tcllegen. A. (198X). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative
affect: The PANAS Scales. Jo~/xal of’Pc~.sorlc///n. N& Soc~irrl P.~~~/ro/o,q~, 54, 1063-1070.
Watson. D. & Tellegen. A. (19X5). Toward a consensual structure of mood. P.y&olqqical Bulletin, 98. 219-235.