“Pleasant and unpleasant emotions in sport:
How I should I feel if I want to perform well?”
Andrew M. Lane
School of Sport, Performing Arts and Leisure, University of Wolverhampton, UK
Abstract
The present review examined relationships between emotions and performance. Evidence
indicated that successful performance is associated with both pleasant emotions (happiness,
calmness, and vigour) and unpleasant emotions (anger & anxiety). Data were presented from
a recent study that investigated recent and optimal emotions and the intended direction of
emotion regulation strategies. Results suggest that athletes are motivated to increase emotions
associated with high action-tendencies regardless of whether these are pleasantly-toned (i.e.,
excitement) or unpleasantly-toned (i.e., anger and/or anxiety). Results show that; a) athletes
hold beliefs that emotions such as anxiety and anger can be motivational; b) athletes actively
engage in self-regulating strategies to increase these emotions; c) Ideal emotional states
comprise a mix of pleasant and unpleasant emotions typically associated with high actiontendencies. Results are discussed using evolutionary perspectives on the function of emotion.
Future research should look at the effectiveness of training packages designed to help athletes
regulate their emotions.
Key words: affect, emotions, mood, psychological skills, self-regulation
Introduction
Emotions are omnipresent constructs that vary in intensity from moment to moment
and between situations. Emotions have powerful effects on thoughts and behaviours
(Baumeister, Vohs, DeWall, & Zhang, 2007; Lane, Beedie, Jones, Uphill, & Devonport,
2011; Lench, Flores, & Bench, 2011). Situations in which people typically experience intense
emotions represent natural research environments to study the construct. One area of
application associated with intense emotions is participating in competitive sport. Evidence
shows that athlete’s experience intense emotions before, during and following competition
(Allen, Jones, & Sheffield, 2009; Hanin, 2010; Lane et al., 2011; Lane & Terry, 2000; Terry
& Lane, 2000). Lazarus (2000) argued that the importance athletes place on the outcomes of
competition can magnify the effects of changes in situational factors on emotional states.
Evidence from four meta-analytic studies demonstrates significant relationships between precompetitive measures of emotions and sport-performance (Beedie, Terry, & Lane, 2000;
Craft, Magyar, Becker, & Feltz, 2003; Jokela & Hanin, 1999; Woodman & Hardy, 2003).
However, evidence on the strength of emotion-performance relationships, indicates that the
direction of relationships varies between studies (see Lane et al., 2011 for a review).
Pleasantly-toned emotions (see Figure 1) such as happiness and vigour have been
found to associate with both successful and unsuccessful, with a similar pattern occurring for
unpleasant emotions, particularly for anxiety and anger (see Beedie et al., 2000; Jokela &
Hanin, 1999; Hanin, 2010). Researchers focusing on anxiety and performance have sought to
examine how people believe emotions influence performance (Hanin, 2010). Research has
asked when someone feels anxious, does he believe this feeling will help performance or
hinder it (Hanton, Neil, & Mellalieu, 2008). The notion that pleasant emotions are not always
helpful and unpleasant emotions always unhelpful is not restricted to sport. Evidence suggests
that unpleasant emotions associate with a causal search for factors triggering the emotions and
if these are performance-related, then the person might alleviate their depression but
performing well (Brinkmann & Gendolla, 2008; Staw & Barsade, 1993).
The present article examines emotions in sport and particularly emotions experienced
within an hour before competition which is the standard time to assess emotion in research
(Martens, Vealey, Burton, Bump, & Smith, 1990). Emotions in this timeframe are likely to be
an intensity that makes the individual conscious of them, and they are in a period of time
when the individual has multiple opportunities to try to do something about them. It is
proposed that emotion regulation is an organic process in which individuals actively monitor
their emotional states and develop strategies to change or maintain emotion to desirable
levels; if there is a sufficient discrepancy between one’s experienced and one’s desired
feelings, then regulatory efforts are engaged (Carver, 2004; Gross & Feldman-Barrett, 2011;
Higgins, 1999). With this in mind, the aim of this article is to examine the question: “If I want
to perform better, then which emotion should I try to increase and which emotion should I try
to decrease? In the present article, we use Russell’s (2003) model (see Figure 1) as a guide to
describing discrete emotions in terms of their activation and valence. I am intentionally not
using terms such as positive emotions and negative emotions. The terms positive and negative
can be confusing as they imply that not only is the affective content of the emotion pleasant,
but also, that there are positive effects associate with it. The present article makes no
assumptions regarding the direction of emotion-performance relationships based on whether
they are pleasant or unpleasant.
Measures of emotions
Research and practitioners typically assess emotions using a self-report scale.
Research in sport has used different conceptualizations of emotions and as consequence a
number of measures have been used. A great deal of the early research examined used the
Profile of Mood States (McNair, Lorr, & Droppleman, 1971) which assesses six factors
(anger, confusion, depression, fatigue, tension and vigour). Early studies found that successful
performance was associated with high scores of vigour coupled with lower scores of anger,
confusion, depression, fatigue and tension (Morgan, 1980). The implication from this model
in terms of emotion regulation is that athletes seek to increase how vigorous and reduce how
tense, depressed, confused, fatigue and angry they feel. However, subsequent research found
evidence to show anger and tension associated with successful performance (see Beedie et al.,
2000; Lane et al., 2011 for reviews). Lane and Terry (2000) proposed that whether anger and
tension would help or harm performance would depend on its interaction with other emotional
states, particularly other unpleasant emotions. Lane and Terry argued that when anger was
coupled with feeling depressed, that feelings of anger would be turned inwards, and the
person would withdraw; that is, sensations of anger would intensify feelings of depression,
with the likelihood that the individual will not perform to her capability in sport. Lane (2007)
reviewed tests of Lane and Terry’s model and argued that there is a great deal of evidence in
support of this proposal.
Although Lane and Terry (2000) offered a theoretical framework for using the POMS
in sport, sport psychologists were critical of the scale because it was initially validated for use
in clinical settings. Recent research has led to the development of a sport-specific measure of
emotion (Jones, Lane, Bray, Uphill, & Catlin, 2005). However, Jones et al. found close
relationships between scores on their Sport Emotion Questionnaire, and a version of the
POMS called the Brunel Mood Scale (Terry, Lane, & Fogarty, 2003), relationships that are
strong enough to suggest that the two scales share a great deal of common variance. Lane
(2007) argued that the choice of scale should be driven by the research question and that both
the Brunel Mood Scale and Sport Emotion Questionnaire provide valid measures of emotions
for use in sport.
In addition to the aforementioned scales, researchers have used the Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule which has two broad measures; positive affect and negative affect
(Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Positive affect contains all pleasantly-toned emotions and
negative affect contains all unpleasantly-toned emotions (see Figure 1). Examples of
unpleasant emotions include anger, tension, and depression. Lane and Terry (2000) argued
that researchers interested in examining relationships between emotion and performance
should use discrete measures. They suggested that conceptualizing anger, anxiety, and
depression individually rather than globally as negative emotion has had greater
predictability. It is argued that using a two-dimensional measure of emotion such as positive
affect and negative affect (Watson et al., 1988) results in a substantial loss of information. For
example, if anger associates with good performance and depression associates with poor
performance (Beedie et al., 2000; Jokela & Hanin, 1999), then an aggregate measure of angerdepression would show no relationship with performance (see Table 1). To emphasise why
researchers should look for discrete relationships, I have created a fictional dataset in which
anger and depression have perfect relationships with performance. As the data in Table 1
show, anger has an inverse relationship with performance (r = -1) and depression has a
positive relationship (r = 1). If the data are added together to create a measure of negative
affect, as advocated by some researchers (Watson et al., 1988), then the relationship with
performance for each emotion is hidden. It should be noted that although I used anger and
depression as examples, this argument could apply to other emotions within each factor.
Table 1.
Hypothetical data showing why researchers should conceptualize anger and
depression.
Cas
e
An
ger
Depr
ession
Negative affect (anger
+ depression
Performan
ce
1
1
10
11
10
2
2
9
11
9
3
3
8
11
8
4
4
7
11
7
5
5
6
11
6
6
6
5
11
5
7
7
4
11
4
8
8
3
11
3
9
9
2
11
2
10
10
1
11
1
Relationship between anger and performance = r = -1
Relationship between depression and performance r = +1
Relationship between negative affect and performance r = 0
Recent research has begun to use much shorter and direct measures of emotion.
Brevity has been proposed as an important quality in a self-report scale (Lane, 2007). Our
recent work has used single items to assess each quadrant of the circumplex (Russell, 2003
see Figure 1). Importantly, this approach allows the researchers to examine emotions in terms
of their relative degree of activation-deactivation and pleasure-displeasure (Matthews, Jones,
& Chamberlain, 1990).
Figure 1. Structure of emotion (Russell, 1980).
Emotions and performance: So how should I feel?
In a recent study, Lane, Stanley and Davis (2012) surveyed emotional states of 578
athletes. Athletes completed single item measures of emotional states (see Figure 2).
Participants were asked them to describe their emotional state when they performed at their
best and compared this emotional profile with a recent performance. Results of this survey are
contained in Figure 2. Emotions were rated on a 1-7 scale where 1 = not at all to 7 = a great
deal. Figure 2 illustrates that the ideal emotional profile for sport is characterized by feeling
highly energetic, moderately clam and happy, somewhat anxious, a little angry and very little
in terms of feeling downhearted and sluggish. This emotional profile is consistent with metaanalysis results of studies that examine emotion-performance relationships (Beedie et al.,
2000).
However, Lane et al. (2012) also examined the preferred direction of emotion
regulation of athletes. For example, if a athlete gave a score that best performance associated
with a happiness score of 7 and was feeling quite happy (a score of 5), he indicated he wished
to increase the intensity of this emotion; he wanted to feel happier. However, this could occur
at relatively low intensities of emotions. If, for example, he believed ideal performance was
associated with a happiness score of 4 and was feeling not feeling overly happy (represented
by a score of 2), he would also wish to increase how happy he felt. The key part to this
proposal is that researchers and practitioners should consider the discrepancy between ideal
and experienced emotions. In the example above, both athletes wished to increase how happy
they felt, but if we did not her optimal emotional state, then we might assume that the first
athlete might be sufficiently happy, which is not the case if performance-enhancement is the
goal.
Figure 2
Lane et al. (2012) examined the direction of preference to regulate emotions (see
Figure 3). As Figure 3 illustrates, the majority of athletes were close to their optimal
emotional state and wish to sustain the current intensity of each emotion. If an athlete is
feeling excited and recognizes this to be the optimal level of excitement, he might have to
engage in actions to sustain this emotional state. He might need to engage in cognitive
strategies such as imagery or self-talk or physical strategies that promote physiological
arousal. The key aspect is that athletes seek to self-regulate their emotional state to one that
they believe will help performance, and an aspect of emotion regulation is maintaining an
optimal state (see Lane et al., 2011). As Figure 3 also illustrates, athletes wished to increase
and decrease the intensity of the full range of emotions; from pleasant to unpleasant. It is
important to examine Figures 2 and 3 collectively. On first appearance, it could be concluded
from observing differences between ideal and experienced as presented in Figure 2, that
athletes wanted to feel happier, calmer, more energetic, less anxious, sluggish, angry and
downhearted. However, Figure 3 illustrates that this is not exactly the case. Figure 3
illustrates that some athletes wished to increase high action unpleasant emotions such as
anxiety and anger and low action unpleasant emotions such as sluggish and downhearted. It is
findings showing that athletes wished to increase the intensity of feeling downheartedness and
sluggish, emotional states not typically associated with athletic success.
Figure 3
Findings of the study by Lane et al (2012) seem contradictory at first glance. It is
almost paradoxical that an athlete might wish to feel more downhearted or sluggish and wish
to perform successfully. However, there is evidence in the literature to support the findings
present above ((Brinkmann & Gendolla, 2008; Staw & Barsade, 1993). Hanin (2010) has
provided a wealth of evidence to show that emotion-performance relationships are highly
individualized. It is possible that an athlete anticipates how he will feel post performance and
then if he anticipates that he will feel downhearted, and does not want to feel this way, then
this provides a signal to raise effort. It could be that anticipating feeling downhearted and
sluggish provide triggers to regulation. Stanley, Beedie, Lane, Friesen and Devonport (2012)
demonstrated that many strategies athletes use to change their emotions also could be
described as strategies to improve performance; for example, warming up. Thus, unpleasant
emotions experienced one hour before competition might be a signals to the individual that all
is not well in her environment and that action is needed. If this is the case, then it is feasible to
see how unpleasant emotions might help performance. It should be noted that there are other
literature (Brinkmann & Gendolla, 2008; Staw & Barsade, 1993) that support the notion that
emotional states are not inherently good or bad. It should be remembered that I intentionally
labeled emotions as pleasant or unpleasant to avoid such confusion from the outset.
Evolutionary perspectives on emotions tend to promote the argument that if certain emotions
were inherently dysfunctional that evolution would have de-selected these from subsequent
generations.
Emotions, like most psychological factors exist in part to inform behaviour in some
way and have pervasive effects in all domains of human functioning (Baumeister et al., 2007).
Moreover, this influence would have to be mainly benign and adaptive. As Baumeister et al.
described; “If the total net effect of emotion were to cause behaviours that were maladaptive,
such as by reducing survival and reproduction, then natural selection would likely have
phased emotion out of the human psyche." Evolutionary psychologists propose that emotions
are modes of functioning, shaped by natural selection, that coordinate physiological,
cognitive, motivational, behavioural, and subjective responses in patterns that increase the
ability to meet the adaptive challenges of situations that have recurred over evolutionary time
(Nesse, 1990). They are adaptations that are useful only in certain situations and identifying
person-situation interaction is complex. Like pain and sweating, they remain latent until an
evolved mechanism detects cues associated with the situation in which they are advantageous.
A key point to evolutionary psychologists is the notion that all emotions are helpful. Many
evolutionary psychologists are critical of the use of terms such as ‘positive’, ‘negative’,
‘pleasant’, ‘unpleasant’, ‘helpful’, ‘unhelpful’, ‘functional’ and ‘dysfunctional’ when
describing emotions (Nesse & Ellsworth, 2009). The idea that, because an emotion such as
depression or anxiety is usually subjectively experienced as unpleasant, and is therefore
‘negative’, ‘unhelpful’ or ‘dysfunctional’ is questionable as each emotion serves to provide a
signal to the individual. Sweating is a functional response and helps prevent over-heating, and
over-heating can be fatal. Sweating is seen as dysfunctional in social settings, hence the
development of a huge industry to help control it, but sweating itself is not necessarily a
negative response.
Although depression is associated with maladaptive behaviours, even suicide,
evolutionary psychologists argue that it does necessarily have negative effects on behaviour.
Whilst such a suggestion seems ludicrous on first observation, careful examination of the
underlying issues might suggest that there might be some logic to this line of thinking.
Depression serves to inform the individual that he has insufficient resources to cope with the
demands of the task, and that withdrawal is required. Depression is associated with low-levels
of activation (see Figure 1) and therefore, signals to the individual that not doing much is the
best course of action to take. In evolutionary terms, withdrawal might be best course of action
rather than suffer humiliating loss that could influence chances of mating, or physical
damage, which could mean loss of life or an inability to gather food through injury. When an
athlete feels depressed, the emotion is signaling that at that moment he does not have the
resources to cope with the demands of the task. The motivational signal coming from this
emotion is not to take part. If feelings of depression represented a biological reality, that is,
depression provided an accurate index of available physiological resources, then it is entirely
reasonable to listen to these symptoms. If an individual said that he had not eaten within a
week, we would not expect him to run a marathon. If feeling depressed signals that
performance is not likely to be at the standard required and humiliation might follow, then not
participating represents a plausible emotion regulation strategy.
However, many athletes attempt to override this emotional state and as a consequence,
perform poorly in terms of trying to achieve the goal. In terms of efforts to regulate emotions,
it is necessary to consider the concordance between the individual’s goals and the signal from
the emotion being experienced. If a person believes that want to achieve X, and is feeling
excited and energized, which is signaling that sufficient resources are available or could be
made available, then there is concordance between the emotion and the goal. If the person
wishes to achieve X, but feels depressed which is signalling withdrawal and preservation of
resources, then there is discordance between the emotion and the goal. In this instance, the
individual needs to identify the cause of the emotion and challenge whether that information
is accurate, or re-evaluate his or her goals. The emotion is providing a signal to inform the
individual that the situation warrants attention. Whilst research in sport tends to show
depression is associated with poor performance, mainly because its effects on motivation and
accompanies other emotions (Lane, 2007), research in other sub-disciplines of psychology
indicates it has utility and associates with detailed planning and analysis of task demands
(Staw & Barsade, 1993). If a depressed person identifies a reason for the depression and
attending to this aspect was seen as sufficiently important, then depression might help
performance (Brinkmann & Gendolla, 2008). However, as indicated by Baumeister, Zell, and
Tice (2007), depression characterized by low-activation can hamper self-regulatory efforts.
Depression sends a signal that regulatory efforts are futile as beliefs in being able to complete
the task are futile.
Conclusions and recommendations
The present article reviewed emotion-performance relationships. I proposed that
emotion-performance are highly individualized and that each emotional state is functional.
The affective content of an emotion is sending a signal to the individual; this might be helpful
to the individual in terms of goal pursuit. However, the signal might say that the goals
selected that are activating the emotions warrant withdrawal. I suggest that practitioners
should begin by firstly identifying emotional states and beliefs surrounding these emotions
associated with best and worst performance. These should be likely to vary from athlete to
athlete. An important aspect is that practitioners and researchers alike should consider the
possibility that there could be athletes holding beliefs that experiencing intense unpleasant
emotions such as anxiety or anger could be helpful. Equally, an athlete feeling downhearted
might believe such feelings are useful to performance. That athlete might feel downhearted
because he anticipates emotional states experienced following poor performance and as such
increases effort to prevent such a situation occurring. In short, it is feasible that all emotional
states might be helpful for performance. However, practitioners should consider the
possibility that states of depression signal that withdrawal is required and that not competing
is the best course of action.
In terms of interpreting ratings of emotions, practitioners should be cognizant of the
difference between current and optimal emotional states and the direction in which regulation
should be encouraged. For example, consider two athletes reporting a moderate intensity of
pre-competition excitement. If athlete A believes that a low intensity of excitement helps
performance, and athlete B believes that a high intensity of excitement helps performance,
then Athlete A would follow strategies to reduce excitement, and athlete B.
Second it is suggested that practitioners help athletes examine the perceived cause of
their feelings. If change is desired, help them re-appraise the causes. Exploration of the
proposed cause of the emotion facilitates the implementation of strategies designed to prevent
low intensity undesired emotions increasing in intensity.
References
Allen, M. S., Jones, M. V., & Sheffield, D. (2009). Causal attribution and emotion in
the days following competition. Journal of Sports Sciences, 27(5), 461-468.
Baumeister, R. F., Zell, A. L., & Tice, D. M. (2007). How emotions facilitate and
impair self-regulation. In J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. xvii + 654426): Guilford Press.
Beedie, C. J., Terry, P. C., & Lane, A. M. (2000). The Profile of Mood States and
athletic performance: two meta-analyses. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 12(1), 49-68.
Brinkmann, K., & Gendolla, G. H. E. (2008). Does Depression Interfere With Effort
Mobilization? Effects of Dysphoria and Task Difficulty on Cardiovascular Response. Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology, 94(1), 146-157.
Carver, C. S. (2004). Self-regulation of action and affect. In R. F. Baumeister, & K. D.
Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory and applications (pp. 13-39).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Craft, L. L., Magyar, T. M., Becker, B. J., & Feltz, D. L. (2003). The relationship
between the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 and sport performance: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25(1), 44-65.
Gross, J. J., & Feldman Barrett, L. (2011). Emotion generation and emotion
regulation: One or two depends on your point of view. Emotion Review, 3, 8-16.
Hanin, Y. L. (2010). Coping with Anxiety in Sport. In A. R. Nicholls (Ed.), Coping in
Sport: Theory, Methods, and Related Constructs (pp. 159-175): Nova Science Publishers.
Hanton, S., Neil, R., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2008). Recent developments in competitive
anxiety direction and competition stress research. International Review of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 1(1), 45-57.
Higgins, E. T. (1999). Self-discrepency: A theory relating self and affect. In R. F.
Baumeister (Ed.), The self in social psychology: Key readings in social psychology (pp. 150181). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.
Jokela, M., & Hanin, Y. L. (1999). Does the individual zones of optimal functioning
model discriminate between successful and less successful athletes: a meta-analysis. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 17(11), 873-887.
Jones, M. V., Lane, A. M., Bray, S. R., Uphill, M., & Catlin, J. (2005). Development
and validation of the Sport Emotion Questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
27(4), 407-431.
Lane, A. M. (2007). The rise and fall of the iceberg: development of a conceptual
model of mood-performance relationships. In A. M. Lane (Ed.), Mood and human
performance: Conceptual, measurement, and applied issues (pp. 1-34.). Hauppauge, NY:
Nova Science.
Lane, A. M., Beedie, C. J., Jones, M. V., Uphill, M., & Devonport, T. J. (2011). The
BASES Expert Statement on emotion regulation in sport. The Sport and Exercise Scientist,
29, 14-15. www.bases.org.uk/BASES-Expert-Statements
Lane, A. M., Stanley, D. M., & Davis, P. A. (2012). Emotion regulation and emotional
states: Effects of situational and individual factors.
Lane, A. M., & Terry, P. C. (2000). The nature of mood: development of a conceptual
model with a focus on depression. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 12 (1), 16-33.
Lazarus, R. S. (2000). How emotions influence performance in competitive sports.
Sport Psychologist, 14(3), 229-252.
Lench, H. C., Flores, S. A., & Bench, S. W. (2011). Discrete emotions predict changes
in cognition, judgment, experience, behavior, and physiology: a meta-analysis of
experimental emotion elicitations. Psychological Bulletin, 137(5), 834-855.
Martens, R., Vealey, R. S., Burton, D., Bump, L., & Smith, D. E. (1990).
Development and validation of the Competitive Sports Anxiety Inventory-2. In R. Martens, R.
S. Vealey & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive anxiety in sport (pp. 117-178). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics. .
Matthews, G., Jones, D. M., & Chamberlain, A. G. (1990). Refining the measurement
of mood: The UWIST Mood Adjective Checklist. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 17-42.
Morgan, W. P. (1980). Test of champions: The iceberg profile. Psychology Today, 14,
92-108.
McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1971). Manual for the Profile of
Mood States. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Services.
Nesse, R. M. (1990). Evolutionary explanations of emotions. Human Nature, 1(3),
261-289.
Nesse, R. M., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2009). Evolution, emotions, and emotional
disorders. American Psychologist, 64(2), 129-139.
Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion.
Psychological review, 110(1), 145-172.
Stanley, D.M., Beedie, C. J., Lane, A.M., Friesen, A. P., & Devonport, T. J. Emotion
regulation strategies used by runners prior to training and competition. International Journal
of Sport and Exercise Psychology.
Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A test of
the sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly,
38(2), 304-331.
Terry, P. C., Lane, A. M., & Fogarty, G. (2003). Construct validity of the Profile of
Mood States-A for use with adults. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 125-139.
Terry, P. C., & Lane, A. M. (2000). Normative values for the Profile of Mood States
for use with athletic samples. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 12(1), 93-109.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Woodman, T., & Hardy, L. (2003). The relative impact of cognitive anxiety and selfconfidence upon sport performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(6), 443457.