Stress, Anxiety & Performance
Definitions
• Arousal
• Stress
• Anxiety




State
Trait
Cognitive
Somatic
• Physiological Arousal
• Activation
What is somatic anxiety, how does it
differ from physiological arousal, and
does this make sense? (note: William
James thought deeply about this in
1890)
Side note – James & emotion
• James on free will (and perhaps emergence)
• James on emotion
Just a little contrast with what
comes later – see Wenger
Cause and effect might not be
as simple as you imagine
Anxiety, arousal, & Performance
• So, there’s lots of kinds of arousal and anxiety.
• How are they related to performance?



There are several theories
First, how do you think they are related to performance?
Think about it…how do anxiety and arousal regulate
performance for you?
Anxiety & Performance
• Making a start:

Drive theory (Hull & Spence, 1943; Zajonc, 1965)
Anxiety & Performance
• Next (for us, not in the research chronology):

The “Inverted-U hypothesis” & “Zones of optimal
functioning” (ZoF)
Anxiety & Performance
• Multidimensional anxiety theory

based on the distinction between cognitive anxiety and
somatic anxiety. The theory predicts:
 a negative but linear relationship between cognitive anxiety and
performance
 an inverted U relationship between somatic anxiety and
performance
 Somatic anxiety should decline once performance begins but
cognitive anxiety may remain high if confidence is low

...hasn’t really got much support...yet
Anxiety & Performance
• Catastrophe Theory (Hardy & Fazey, 1987)
One example of the many models posited – the general
idea is one of higher order interactions (seems intuitively
appealing to me)
Anxiety & Performance
• Catastrophe Theory/Models
A model showing hysteresis – a non-linear approach to the
arousal performance relationship (this just illustrates one
of the predictions of catastrophe theory)
Anxiety & Performance
• Catastrophe Theory/Models

Current evidence - effect of self-confidence
As self-confidence
increases...
Anxiety & Performance
• Catastrophe Theory/Models

“Cusp
point”
Current evidence - hysteresis effects
“Bifurcation”
factor
“Asymmetry”
factor
Effort?
Anxiety & Performance
• Catastrophe Theory/Models

Current evidence - hysteresis effects
Worry
Explanations fit a processing efficiency
theory approach (see later)
Effort?
Anxiety & Performance
• Reversal theory
This is one of those theories that tend to excite a lot of new age interests
– intuitively appealing and popular in business, but short on explanation
Anxiety & Performance
• Interpretation of anxiety states



Gives rise to measuring both intensity and direction of
anxiety response
Often, the direction predicts more variance (in
performance) than the intensity
Now some look at discrepancies between self-ideals and
actual states...
 Carver, Lawrence, and Scheier’s (1999) interaction selfdiscrepancy framework
 Higgins’ (1987) self-discrepancy theory
Anxiety & Performance
• Interpretation of anxiety states: self-confidence & anxiety

E.g. Beattie, Hardy, Woodman (2004)
Anxiety & Performance
• E.g. Beattie, Hardy, Woodman (2004)
Step 1: identify these
“selves” in terms of levels of
self-confidence
Step 2: identify actual levels
of self-confidence and
anxiety prior to competition
Step 3: calculate
discrepancies
Step 4: association of
discrepancies with
performance & anxiety?
Anxiety & Performance
• Anxiety and self-confidence:

Bandura (1986) high self-efficacy implies trying harder
 Close to ought/ideal high S-C  better performance than those who are
far from ought/ideal (who will have low S-C)

But...Carver & Scheier (1999): discrepancy between actual and ought
level of S-C  extra effort to redress discrepancy

 Those with higher actual/ought discrepancy should outperform those with little
discrepancy
Anxiety & Performance
• Self-confidence and performance, another note:
Anxiety & Performance
• Self-confidence and performance, another note:
Note decrease
in selfconfidence,
but increase in
performance
score (no sig.
change in the
effort
measure)
Explanations/Theories
• Processing efficiency theory (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992)

Worry:
 drains attentional resources (reduced attention available for the
task)
 Signals importance of task, assigning more attentional resources if
deemed necessary
 Thus as worry increases, effort can also increase

Implies that cognitive anxiety can be negative
(unpleasant), but motivating
 (results in extra effort, and thus improved performance, provided
eventual success is still believed possible)
Explanations/Theories
• Conscious processing hypothesis


Reinvestment of declarative knowledge under high anxiety
Tied to ideas of explicit/implicit learning, use of process vs.
outcome goals (see KNR 406) and so on
Anxiety and Performance
• Anxiety types, or intensities

Choking vs. panic
 Kennedy vs. Novotna (New Yorker, 2000)
• Panic is blind fear?
• Choking is considered failure?
• Choking is the domain of everyone (maybe
most spectacularly of the expert?), panic of
the inexperienced, perhaps?
• Stereotype threat (Beilock et at, 2006)
» See conscious reinvestment theories
(Masters, et al.)
Anxiety and Performance
• ...and working memory
Anxiety and Performance
• ...and working memory
Explanations/Theories
• Theory of Ironic processing (Wegner, multiple
citations)

Cool!
 Tricia’s presentation


Ever laid awake in bed and thought: “I mustn't think about
that exam, so I can get to sleep”
What happens next?
Explanations/Theories
• Theory of Ironic processing (Wegner, multiple
citations)


Similar performance expectations to the conscious
processing hypothesis
Based on the notion that “free will” is a lot more
complicated than one might first think
Explanations/Theories
• Theory of Ironic processing (Wegner, multiple
citations)

Mental control: intentional operations + ironic monitoring
 Under increased mental load...monitoring outweighs operating,
people focus on that which they are trying to avoid, and disaster
ensues
 Another area that has taken off, though not in sports psychology
as much as mainstream psychology
Explanations/Theories
• Theory of Ironic processing (Wegner, multiple
citations)
 Operating process: carry out intended actions (conscious/effortful)
 Monitoring process: check that all’s well [if not, renew]
(unconscious/automatic)
• Suppression: operating process searches for distractors, while
monitor searches for the unwanted thought
• mental load lessens operator function but not monitor, so ironic
thoughts pop up even more frequently
Explanations/Theories
• Theory of Ironic processing (Wegner, multiple
citations)