Temporal patterning of competitive emotions: A critical review

Abstract

An interactional model of stress that integrates current research on competitive affects and emphasizes the temporal dimensions of the stress process is forwarded. The literature reveals that the study of athletes' affective responses to competition has been narrowly focused on pre-competitive anxiety. Equivocal findings on temporal patterning of competitive anxiety suggest that a fundamental change in the empirical approach is needed because the current conceptualization of anxiety and other complex emotions is imprecise. The analysis of secondary emotions as patterns of discrete basic emotions, as suggested by differential emotions theorists, is proposed for consideration in future research. In this view, competitive anxiety is considered as a set of patterns of emotions rather than a unitary affect. The adoption of this approach could result in better operationalization of competitive anxiety as well as other secondary performance-related emotions. We propose that research on competitive affects should follow two parallel lines. The first should focus on the description of complex emotional states that reflect the idiosyncratic emotional experience and vocabulary of the athlete. The second should examine the sets of basic emotions experienced throughout competition, and focus on individual differences and factors determining those differences. The integration of the two approaches could lead to a better understanding of whether, how and why individuals differ in the interpretation of specific secondary emotions and their effect on performance. Moreover, it would permit the analysis of intra-individual variations in labelling secondary emotions with respect to different competitive contexts and temporal aspects.

Competing Under Pressure: State Anxiety, Sports Performance and Assessment

“…This is a somewhat awkward approach and is particularly troublesome in light of the psychometric weaknesses revealed about the CSAI-2. Related to the findings discussed in previous sections, Figure 1 elaborates on previous models (e.g., Cerin et al, 2000;Lazarus, 1991) to provide a summary and clarification of some of the issues regarded as central in the debated issue of debilitative and facilitative interpretations of anxiety symptoms. Considering the questionable methodological and statistical procedures applied in previous research (cf.…”

“…A primary explanation is that, although physical indicators are direct measures of physiological processes within the individual, they are indirect measures of anxiety or other related emotional states. Basically, no generally accepted physiological index is present today in which specific physiological patterns of different emotions, such as anxiety, have been specified (Burton, 1998;Cerin et al, 2000). Hence, even if two athletes demonstrate approximately similar patterns of psychophysiological indices, they can still interpret the physiological arousal or the stressful situation differently and therefore experience qualitatively different emotional states (e.g., anxiety versus excitement or being "psyched up").…”

“…Moreover, tests of the underlying theoretical assumptions and comparisons of findings across studies or over time will be increased. The athlete-generated expressions provided by the IZOF are a valuable source of descriptive data that could also be used, for example, to screen out, categorise and later confirm discrete emotions identified as vital for athletes (Cerin et al, 2000;Jones et al, 2005). Thus, the IZOF and the perspective of discrete emotions are not necessarily competing alternatives.…”

“…Hence, a crucial limitation of the model is its lack of explanation as to why athletes might identify emotional states as functional or dysfunctional and how different emotions can occur (cf. Cerin et al, 2000;Jones & Uphill, 2004a). Furthermore, criticism has also been voiced concerning the lack of precise definition with regard to the adjectives used to identify emotional experiences within IZOF (Jones & Uphill, 2004a;Lazarus, 2000a).…”

“…Building on work by Lazarus and colleagues (Lazarus, 1999;Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and applying it more specifically onto sports situations, Cerin, Szabo, Hunt, and Williams (2000) further underline the complexity involved. They suggest that the interplay between variables such as (a) demands, constraints and opportunities within the competitive situation, (b) temporal and stable situational and personal factors (e.g., age, gender, experience, a variety of personality dispositions, the nature of the sport), and finally (c) the athlete's appraisal of the situation and coping behaviours, are all important variables to consider in order to understand the athlete's emotional responses and subsequent behaviour (Cerin et al, 2000).…”