Moderating Effects of Self-Confidence and Sport Self-Efficacyon the Relationship between Competitive Anxietyand Sport Performance

doi:10.4236/psych.2011.27116

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Psychology

2011. Vol.2, No.7, 760-765

Moderating Effects of Self-Confidence and Sport Self-Efficacy

on the Relationship between Competitive Anxiety

and Sport Performance

Mohammad Ali Besharat, Samane Pourbohlool

University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

Email: [email protected]

Received August 22nd, 2011; revised September 24th, 2011; accepted October 13th, 2011.

The aim of this study was to examine moderating effects of self-confidence and sport self-efficacy on the rela-

tionship between competitive anxiety and sport performance in a sample of Iranian athletes. A total of 246 vol-

unteer athletes (149 males, 97 females) were included in this study. All participants were asked to complete

Multidimensional Competitive Anxiety Questionnaire and Sport Self-Efficacy Scale. To measure the athletes’

sport performance, their coaches were asked to complete the Sport Achevement Scale. The results revealed that

self-confidence and sport self-efficacy moderated the relationship between competitive anxiety and sport per-

formance. Analysis of the data revealed that moderating effects of self-confidence for the association of cogni-

tive and somatic dimensions of competitive anxiety with sport performance were partial. On the other hand, the

moderating effects of sport self-efficacy for the association of cognitive and somatic dimensions of competitive

anxiety with sport performance were full.

Keywords: Emotion, Stress, Anxiety, Self-Regulation

Introduction

Competitive anxiety and its effect on the sport performance

is one of the important subjects of sport psychology (Hanton,

Neil, & Mellalieu, 2008; Mellalieu, Hanton, & Fletcher, 2006).

High level of anxiety symptoms (intensity of anxiety) usually is

debilitative and has negative effect on the performance (Burton,

1998; Mellalieu et al., 2006; Woodman & Hardy, 2001). On the

other hand, research findings have challenged this assumption

that anxiety always blocks the sport performance (e.g., Hanin,

1986; Hardy, 1990, 1996; Hardy et al., 2004; Raglin & Hanin,

2000). Limitations related to measuring pure intensity of anxi-

ety lead researchers to perceive anxiety direction including

debilitative and facilitative effects of anxiety.

Several studies on sport psychology have investigated de-

bilitative and facilitative effects of competitive anxiety symp-

toms on sport performance. Jones (1995) proposed a debilita-

tive and facilitative anxiety model based on Carver and

Scheier’s (1988) control-process theory of stress and coping.

This model tries to explain how symptoms related to players’

experienced anxiety in relation to match stressors could be met

as facilitative or debilitative anxiety. If individual’s expectan-

cies of ability for achievement and coping are desirable, anxiety

will be facilitative, and if these expectances are undesirable,

anxiety will be perceived debilitative (Hanton & Connaughton,

2002; Hanton, O’Brien, & Mellalieu, 2003; Jones, 1995; Jones

& Hanton, 2001; Ntoumanis & Jones, 1998). Therefore, inter-

pretation of anxiety symptoms is determined based on indi-

viduals’ cognitive appraisal of ability to control environment

and themselves (Jones, 1995; Jones & Hanton, 2001). In this

direction and based on cognitive activation theory of stress,

Ursin and Eriksen (2004) believe that positive coping expec-

tancy reduces likelihood of sport anxiety. Before this, Lazarus

(1999, 2000) had also confirmed the moderating role of coping

strategies on the relationship between emotions and stressful

situations like sport competitions.

Three distinct dimensions are determined in competitive

anxiety experience: cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and

self-confidence (Hardy, 1990, 1996; Hardy et al., 2004; Mar-

tens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990). Cognitive anxiety is the mental

component of anxiety and is determined by negative expecta-

tions and cognitive concerns about oneself, situation and possi-

ble outcomes (possibility of failure). Somatic anxiety is the

physical component of anxiety and shows individual’s percep-

tion of physiological responses and negative appraisal. Self-

confidence refers to individuals’ belief in ability to control

themselves and environment (Burton, 1998; Martens et al.,

1990; Woodman & Hardy, 2001). Research findings have

showed that the association of cognitive anxiety with perform-

ance is negative, whereas the association of self-confidence

with performance is positive (e.g., Martens et al., 1990; Ro-

bazza & Bortoli, 2007). Further, the butterfly catastrophe model

(Hardy, 1996) revealed that self-confidence moderated the in-

teraction between cognitive anxiety and physiological arousal

in a sample of male golfers. Hardy et al. (2004) found interac-

tions upon actual golf performance. The evidence supports the

notion of moderating models for predicting sport performance

rather than linear models of anxiety-performance.

Self-confidence as one of the most important variables re-

lated to sport performance (Robazza & Bortoli, 2007) increases

perceived ability to emotion management and provides possi-

bility for athlete to control negative emotions more effectively.

Empirical research has shown that in athletes, high levels of

self-confidence are associated with perceived useful ability

(e.g., Martens et al., 1990; Robazza & Bortoli, 2007). Self-

confidence also moderates competitive anger symptoms (Han-

ton & Connaughton, 2002; Hanton et al., 2003), facilitates

coping resources for encountering anxiety (Jones, & Hanton,

2001; Hanton, & Connaughton, 2002; Robazza & Bortoli,

2007), and causes to maintenance and continuation of control

during the match. Self-confidence before and during the match

determines lower level of competitive anxiety and often corre-

M. A. BESHARAT ET AL. 761

lates with better performance (Craft, Magyar, Becker, & Feltz,

2003). One aim of the present study was to examine the moder-

ating effect of self-confidence on the relationship between

competitive anxiety and sport performance in a sample of Ira-

nian athletes.

Self-efficacy refers to individual’s belief in his/her ability to

perform particular behaviors for gaining desired outcomes

(Bandura, 1997). Based on the foundations of social-cognitive

theory, individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy are less

vulnerable to severe emotional arousal and are more susceptible

to adaptive coping with emotional arousal compared to indi-

viduals with lower levels of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997, 2001).

Social-cognitive theory has conceptualized self-efficacy as a

general or global construct. However, empirical evidence sug-

gests that a domain-specific conceptualization of self-efficacy

should be considered. For example, studies on computer self-

efficacy (Compeau & Higgins, 1995) and internet self-efficacy

(Hsu & Chiu, 2004; Papastergiou, 2010; Torkzadeh, Chang, &

Demirhan, 2006) revealed significant differences between indi-

viduals with high computer self-efficacy and individuals with

low computer self-efficacy in terms of learning and utilizing

computer-related skills. Given that sport self-efficacy refers to

how confident an individual is in his/her capability to perform

specific sport tasks, it might have a different effect on the rela-

tionship between competitive anxiety and sport performance in

comparison to general self-confidence. Therefore, the second

goal of the present study was to examine the moderating role of

sport self-efficacy on the association of competitive anxiety and

sport performance in a sample of Iranian athletes.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The participants were Iranian professional athletes of differ-

ent sport fields at national and international levels. Two hun-

dred and sixty three athletes from different sport federations

including wrestling, taekwondo, basketball, football, volleyball,

track and field, swimming, gymnastic and weight lifting par-

ticipated in this study voluntarily. Seventeen participants were

excluded from statistical analysis because they did not complete

the questionnaires. Therefore, research sample was reduced to

246 athletes (149 males, Mage = 23.5 years, age range: 18 - 33

years, and 97 females, Mage = 22.30 years, age range: 18 - 29

years). To measure the athletes’ sport performance, their

coaches were asked to answer questions about the athletes’

achievement in sport. In coordination with sport federations

authorities, athletes were asked to complete the research ques-

tionnaires. There was no time limitation, but the maximum time

did not exceed 30 minutes. The aim was that athletes answer to

the questionnaires relaxed and precise without the pressure of

time limitation in order to increase accuracy and reliability of

the answers. The questionnaires were distributed, completed

and gathered the day before the match. The protocol was ap-

proved by Department of Psychology, University of Tehran.

All participants signed an informed consent document prior to

performing the research procedure.

Measures

Multidimensional Competitive Anxiety Questionnaire (MCAQ).

This is a 15-item questionnaire which has been derived from

previous measures of competitive anxiety (Jones & Swain,

1992; Martens et al., 1990; Swain & Jones, 1993) and validated

for the purpose of measuring dimensions of competitive anxiety

in samples of Iranian athletes (Besharat, 2009). The items

measure three dimensions of competitive anxiety including

cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self-confidence in a

five-point Likert-type scale from 1 (very little) to 5 (very much).

Maximum and minimum scores of subject would be 5 and 25,

respectively. Psychometric properties of MCAQ have been

examined and confirmed (Besharat, 2009). Based on prelimi-

nary findings in a sample of 133 athletes from different levels

and fields of sport, calculated Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for

the three subscales were .90, .83, and .89, respectively. This is

indicative of adequate internal consistency of the questionnaire.

Content validity of the MCAQ was examined according to

judgment of 10 experts in psychology and physical education

and calculated Kendall’s tau-t coefficients for every subscale of

the questionnaire were .79, .81, and .82, respectively. Conver-

gent and discriminant validity of the MCAQ was calculated and

confirmed through simultaneous application of measures of

positive perfectionism, negative perfectionism, sport achieve-

ment, and mental health indices for the participants (Besharat,

2009). For the present study, internal consistency coefficients

of .93, .87, and .91 were obtained for cognitive anxiety, somatic

anxiety and self-confidence, respectively.

Sport Self-Efficacy Scale (SSES). This is a 10-item scale and

measures sport self-efficacy from 0 to 100. Higher score is

indicative of higher level of self-efficacy and skills related to

this construct. This scale has been developed based on theo-

retical model of self-efficacy and questionnaires related to this

construct (e.g., Bandura, 1997, 2001, 2006; Llewellyn, Sanchez,

Asghar, & Jones, 2008) for measuring specific sport self-effi-

cacy (Besharat, 2008). Psychometric properties of the SSES

have been examined and confirmed (Besharat, 2008). Based on

preliminary findings in a sample of 236 athletes from different

levels and fields of sport, calculated Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-

cient for this scale was .93. Test-retest correlation coefficients

among the scores of 111 participants were calculated in two

occasions with a time duration of 2 - 4 weeks. It was .78 and

confirmed test-retest reliability of the SSES at p < .001. Con-

tent validity of the SSES was examined and confirmed accord-

ing to judgments of 6 experts in psychology and physical edu-

cation with calculated Kendall’s tau-t coefficient of .87. Con-

vergent and discriminant validity of the SSES calculated and

was confirmed through simultaneous application of measures of

sport achievement, self-esteem, and mental health indices for

the participants (Besharat, 2008). The results of exploratory

factor analysis also confirmed a single factor of sport self-effi-

cacy for this scale (Besharat, 2008). For the present study, in-

ternal consistency coefficients of .94 was obtained for the

SSES.

Sport Achievement Scale (SAS). This is a 16-item instrument

which measures the sport achievement based on a five-point

Likert-type scale from 1 (very little) to 5 (very much). The

results of content validity, based on the judgments of sport

coaches and judges have shown Kendall’s tau-t coefficients

of .54 and .44 for coaches and judges, respectively. Chi-square

results for testing significance of above coefficients revealed

that calculated correlations for coaches (χ2 = 163.18, df = 15, p

< .001) and for judges (χ2 = 106.64, df = 15, p < .001) was sta-

tistically significant (Besharat, Abbasi, & Sadreldin, 2002).

Calculated Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the SAS in a sam-

ple of wrestlers and football players (Besharat, et al., 2002) for

coaches’ and judges’ scores were .97 and .98, respectively. This

confirms a high internal consistency for the SAS.

M. A. BESHARAT ET AL.

762

Results

Mean scores and standard deviations for all scales are pre-

sented for males, females, and the total sample in Table 1.

Results of Pearson correlations showed that there are signifi-

cant correlations between competitive anxiety, self-confidence,

and sport self-efficacy with sport achievement scores (see Table

2).

Then, a series of two steps regression analyses were con-

ducted in order to examine the moderating effect of self-confi-

dence on the association of cognitive and somatic anxiety with

sport performance. The results of these analyses are shown in

Table 3. These results revealed that with entering self-con-

fidence as a moderating variable in regression equation, the β

coefficient for cognitive anxiety decreased from –.32 to –.18.

The Sobel test showed that this rate of variation is significant (t

= 2.79, p < .006) and cognitive anxiety also remained signifi-

cant (t = –2.33, p < .021). The results also revealed that with

entering self-confidence as a moderating variable in regression

equation, the β coefficient for somatic anxiety decreased from

–.30 to –.17. The Sobel test showed that this rate of variation is

significant (t = 3.47, p < .001) and somatic anxiety also re-

mained significant (t = –2.38, p < .018). These results reveal

that self-confidence could affect the relationship between com-

petitive anxiety and sport performance partially.

A series of two steps regression analyses were also con-

ducted in order to examine the moderating effect of sport

self-efficacy on the association of cognitive and somatic anxi-

ety with sport performance. The results of these analyses are

shown in Table 4. These results revealed that with entering

sport self-efficacy as a moderating variable in regression equa-

tion, the β coefficient for cognitive anxiety decreased from –.32

to –.06. The Sobel test showed that this rate of variation is sig-

nificant (t = 15.92, p < .001) whereas cognitive anxiety lost its

Table 1.

Mean scores and standard deviations on each scale of the competitive

anxiety, self-confidence, sport self-efficacy, and sport achievement vari-

abl es for males, females, and the to ta l sa m p le .

Variable/Scale Males M (SD) Females M (SD) Total M (SD)

Cognitive Anxiety 12.16 (3.00) 13.41 (2.92) 12.65 (3.03)

Somatic Anxiety 15.17 (3.09) 16.42 (2.61) 15.66 (2.96)

Self-Confidence 18.86 (3.50) 17.75 (3.86) 18.42 (3.68)

Sport Self-Efficacy 719.59 (107.98) 695.25 (121.72) 719.00 (113.98)

Sport Achievement 65.79 (7.18) 64.20 (8.18) 65.16 (7.61)

Table 2.

Pearson product moment correlations between measures of competitive

anxiety, self-confidence, sport self-efficacy, and sport achievem ent.

Measures 1 2 3 4 5

1. Cognitive Anxiety -

2. Somatic Anxiety .54 -

3. Self-Confidence –.67 –.54 -

4. Sport Self-Efficacy –.37 –.31 .40 -

5. Sport Achievement –.32 –.30 .34 .74 -

All p values < .001.

Table 3.

Summary of regression analysis for moderation effect of self-confidence

between competitive anxiety and sport performa nce.

Variable B SEB β t P

Step 1

ognitive Anxiety (R2 = .10) –.823 .152 –.328 –5.42.001

Step 2

Cognitive Anxiety –.462 .198 –.184 –2.33.021

Self-Confidence

(R2 = .14, ∆R2 = .03) .457 .163 .221 2.79 .006

Step 1

Somatic Anxiety (R2 = .09) –.784 .156 –.306 –5.01.001

Step 2

Somatic Anxiety –.435 .183 –.170 –2.38.018

Self-Confidence

(R2 = .14, ∆R2 = .04) .512 .148 .248 3.47 .001

Table 4.

Summary of regression analysis for moderation effect of sport self-

efficacy between competitive anxiety and sport performance.

Variable B SEB β t P

Step 1

Cognitive Anxiety

(R2 = .10) –.823 .152 –.328 –5.42.001

Step 2

Cognitive Anxiety –.150 .115 –.060 –1.30.193

Sport Self-Efficacy

(R2 = .56, ∆R2 = .46) .049 .003 .726 15.92.001

Step 1

Somatic Anxiety (R2 = .09)–.784 .156 –.306 –5.01.001

Step 2

Somatic Anxiety –.212 .114 –.083 –1.86.064

Sport Self-Efficacy

(R2 = .57, ∆R2 = .47) .048 .003 .723 16.27.001

significance (t = –1.30, p < .193). These results also revealed

that with entering sport self-efficacy as a moderating variable in

regression equation, the β coefficient for somatic anxiety de-

creased from –.30 to –.08. The Sobel test showed that this rate

of variation is significant (t = 16.27, p < .001) whereas somatic

anxiety lost its significance (t = –1.86, p < .064). These results

reveal that sport self-efficacy could effect the relationship be-

tween competitive anxiety and sport performance fully.

Discussion

The present study was undertaken to gain a better insight into

the relationship between competitive anxiety and sport per-

formance in a sample of Iranian athletes. In particular, this

study examined the moderating effects of self-confidence and

sport self-efficacy on the relationship between competitive

M. A. BESHARAT ET AL. 763

anxiety and sport performance. Results of the present study

showed that self-confidence had a significant negative correla-

tion with cognitive and somatic dimensions of competitive

anxiety and a significant positive correlation with sport ach-

ievement. The results of the present study also revealed that

self-confidence had a moderating effect on the association of

competitive anxiety with sport performance. Statistical analysis

of the data indicated that high levels of self-confidence can

decrease the negative association of cognitive and somatic

anxiety with sport performance. These findings are in line with

the results obtained in previous studies (e.g., Craft et al., 2003;

Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Hanton et al., 2003; Hardy,

1996; Hardy et al., 2004; Jones & Hanton, 2001; Robazza &

Bortoli, 2007) and are explained based on the following possi-

bilities.

Self-confidence, means individuals’ belief in ability to con-

trol environment and themselves (Burton, 1998; Martens et al.,

1990; Woodman & Hardy, 2001), reinforces athlete’s perceived

ability to manage stress and anxiety during sport competition

and leads athlete to be less under the effect of competitive

anxiety. In addition to control and reduce negative emotions,

this sense of capability helps athlete to do his/her sport tasks

with more success and has a better performance. This explana-

tion is consistent with evidence that has confirmed the associa-

tion of self-confidence with perceived ability in athletes (e.g.,

Martens et al., 1990; Robazza & Bortoli, 2007). Craft et al.

(2003) has also shown that self-confidence before and during

the match determines low competitive anxiety and often corre-

lates with better performance.

Research findings have revealed that self-confidence acti-

vates coping resources in order to encounter competitive anxi-

ety (Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Jones & Hanton, 2001;

Robazza & Bortoli, 2007). Based on this, one can explain that

self-confidence helps athlete with appropriate usage of coping

strategies to manage and control competitive anxiety and

through this improve his/her sport performance. Based on

Carver and Scheier’s (1988) control process theory on stress

and coping, and consistent with findings related to facilitative

and debilitative anxiety (Jones, 1995) it is possible that self-

confidence through positive appraisal and interpretation of

symptoms related to player’s experienced anxiety, helps athlete

to perceive this anxiety as facilitative and cope with it in a bet-

ter way (Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Hanton et al., 2003;

Ntoumanis & Jones, 1998; Jones, 1995; Jones & Hanton, 2001).

This explanation is consistent with the idea of “positive coping

expectancy” in the cognitive activation theory of stress. Ursine

and Eriksen (2004) believe that athlete’s positive coping ex-

pectancy means the feeling of ability to control situation with

existing coping resources, reduce the likelihood of sport anxi-

ety.

Research findings have also revealed that athlete’s self-con-

fidence moderates negative experienced emotions in sport com-

petition and helps continuity of managing and controlling situa-

tion during the match (Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Robazza

& Bortoli, 2007). The ability to moderate negative emotions

and control situation during the match helps athlete to rule over

the game with more relaxation and effective management, puts

into action his/her sport skills, and gains more desirable conse-

quences. This is also in line with the butterfly catastrophe

model (Hardy, 1996; Hardy et al., 2004).

The results dealing with association of sport self-efficacy

with competitive anxiety and sport performance showed that

sport self-efficacy had a significant negative correlation with

cognitive and somatic dimensions of anxiety and a significant

positive correlation with sport achievement. The results of the

present study also revealed that sport self-efficacy had a mod-

erating effect on the association of competitive anxiety with

sport performance. Statistical analysis of the data indicated that

increasing levels of sport self-efficacy decreases negative asso-

ciation of cognitive and somatic anxiety with sport performance.

These are in line with previous empirical evidence concerning

domain-specific influence of self-efficacy (Compeau & Higgins,

1995; Hsu & Chiu, 2004; Papastergiou, 2010; Torkzadeh et al.,

2006).

Sport self-efficacy, means athlete’s belief in ability to per-

form his/her sport tasks and specific skills, effects athlete’s

emotional and behavioral reactions in stressful and anxious

situations of the match. Bandura (1997, 2001) compared two

groups with high self-efficacy and low self-efficacy and

showed that the first group was less vulnerable and expressed

more adaptive behaviors. One possible reason for the moderat-

ing effect of sport self-efficacy on the association of competi-

tive anxiety with sport performance is that sport self-efficacy

can help athlete to be less under the effect of competitive anxi-

ety during the match and has a better performance.

Like self-confidence, sport self-efficacy prepares athlete for

active encountering with competitive anxiety through reinforc-

ing efficient coping strategies. Using efficient coping strategies

for competitive anxiety helps athlete to control and manage

stressful situation better and through this improve his/her sport

performance. Association of self-efficacy with coping strategies

has also been confirmed in other studies (e.g. Lombardo, Tan,

Jensen, & Andeson, 2005; Bandura, 1997, 2001; Nicholas,

2007; Turk & Okifuji, 2002; Turner, Ersek, & Kemp, 2005).

Positive appraisal and interpretation of symptoms related to

anxiety is another explanation that can be stated based on con-

trol process theory (Carver & Schiere, 1988) and anxiety direc-

tion theory (Jones, 1995). Sport self-efficacy through positive

appraisal of symptoms related to player’s anxiety, helps athlete

to perceive that anxiety as facilitative, and cope with it better

(Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Hanton et al., 2003; Jones,

1995; Jones & Hanton, 2001; Ntoumanis & Jones, 1998). This

explanation is also in agreement with the idea of “positive cop-

ing expectancy” in cognitive activation theory of stress (Ursin

& Eriksen, 2004). Ursin and Eriksen (2004) argue that athlete’s

positive coping expectancy reduces the likelihood of sport

anxiety. Sport self-efficacy with high probability has the power

to increase positive coping expectancy in athlete; the probabil-

ity which has been confirmed in the present study.

The effect of self-efficacy on control and decrease negative

emotions has been confirmed in different studies (e.g. Bandura,

1997, 2001; Lombardo et al., 2005; Turk & Okifuji, 2002).

Based on this, one possibility is that sport self-efficacy helps

athlete to control and decrease negative emotions specific to

sport competition like competitive anxiety. This capability re-

inforces athlete’s sense of dominance and merit during the

match and improves his/her sport performance. Self-efficacy

also through reinforcing stamina (Turk & Okifuji, 2002) helps

to maintenance of control and management of stressful condi-

tion of the match. As a result of such strength, negative emo-

tions including competitive anxiety would be decreased. This

situation increase better performance and sport achievement.

Results of the present study showed that sport self-efficacy

effects the relationship between competitive anxiety and sport

performance fully, whereas self-confidence effects this rela-

tionship partially. One of the possible reasons for this differ-

ence can be stated in this way that self-confidence expresses

individual’s belief in his/her general ability to control condi-

M. A. BESHARAT ET AL.

764

tions and situations, but sport self-efficacy expresses athlete’s

belief in his/her ability to perform specific sport tasks and skills.

This means that belief in just general ability might have a weak

effect on control and decrement of stress and negative emotions

in particular situation (sport competition), whereas belief in

specific ability would have a decisive effect on that particular

behavior. One can conclude from this probable explanation that

although self-confidence and self-efficacy are in the same di-

rection (Hardy, 1996; Hardy et al., 2004), they are different in

the intensity of their effects. Self-efficacy in a specific field

cause to a decisive effect on behaviors related to that specific

field and its accompaniment and coordination with self-con-

fidence reinforces this effect. Based on this, it can be said that

athlete’s self-confidence provides general framework for con-

trol and management of stress and sport self-efficacy particu-

larly helps athlete in specific field related to management and

control of sport stresses, better performance, and sport achie-

vement. In other words, self-confidence is a general construct

and self-efficacy is a specific construct.

The present findings may have important theoretical and

practical implications. At the practical level, research findings

can suggest the importance and necessity for noticing to mod-

erating variables such as self-confidence and sport self-efficacy

as effective factors on competitive anxiety-sport performance in

athletes. Understanding these psychological constructs as mod-

erating variables in athletes can be considered as an effective

step in preventing undesirable consequences of sport competi-

tion. Formulating training and intervention programs in order to

increase self-confidence and sport self-efficacy, particularly in

national and international competitions, is another action that

can be applied to moderate levels of competitive anxiety and

improve sport performance. At the theoretical level, the results

of the present study can be at the service of theories related to

emotions, emotion regulation, coping strategies and stress

management particularly in the field of sport psychology.

The findings of this study have several limitations. The

cross-sectional design of this study does not allow us to draw

conclusions about the directions of causality between variables

investigated. These data were based upon a sample of volunteer

athletes. This further undermines the generalizability of the

results. It must be pointed out that self-confidence and sport

self-efficacy might have different effects through their interac-

tions with other variables, such as type of sport (e.g., individ-

ual-team, contact-noncontact), to produce positive or negative

consequences. Future research needs to address this issue.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:

Freeman.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.

Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.

doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

Bandura, A. (2006). Guid for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F.

Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp.

307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Besharat, M. A. (2008). Reliability and Validity of the Sport Self-Effi-

cacy Scale. Tehran: University of Tehran. Unpublished.

Besharat, M. A. (2009). Devalopment and validation of the multidi-

mensional competitive anxiety questionnaire. Tehran: University of

Tehran. Unpublished.

Besharat, M. A., Abbasi, Q. R., & Shojaoldin, S (2002). An investiga-

tion of the relationship between self-esteem and sport achievement

among footbalers and wrestlers. Harakat, 12, 31-44.

Burton, D. (1998). Measuring competitive state anxiety. In J. L. Duda

(Ed.), Advances in sport and exrecise psychology measurement (pp.

129-148). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1988). A control-process perspective

on anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1, 17-22.

doi:10.1080/10615808808248217

Compeau, D., & Higgins, C. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Develop-

ment of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19, 189-211.

doi:10.2307/249688

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, 44-65.

Hanin, Y. L. (1986). State-trait anxiety research on sport in the USSR.

In C. D. Spielberger, & R. Diaz-Guerrero (Eds.), Cross-cultural

anxiety (Vol. 2, pp. 45-64). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publish-

ing.

Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). Perceived control of anxiety

and its relationship with self-confidence performance: A qualitative

explanation. Resear c h Q u a r t e r l y f o r Exercise and Sport, 73, 87-97.

Hanton, S., Neil, R., & Mellalieu, S. D., (2008). Recent developments

in competitive anxiety direction and competition stress research. In-

ternational Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 45-57.

Hanton, S., O’Brien, M., & Mellalieu, S. D., (2003). Individual differ-

ences, perceived control and competitive trait anxiety. Journal of

Sport Behavior, 26, 39-55.

Hardy, L. (1990). A catastrophe model of anxiety and performance. In J.

G. Jones, & L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and performance in sport (pp.

81-106). Chichester: Wiley.

Hardy, L. (1996). A test of catastrophe models of anxiety and sport

performance against multidimensional theory models using the

method of dynamic differences. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An In-

ternational Journal, 9, 69-86.

Hardy, L., Woodman, T., & Carrington, S. (2004). Is self-confidence a

bias factor in higher-order catastrophe models? An exploratory

analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 359-368.

Hsu, M., & Chiu, C. (2004). Internet self-efficacy and electronic ser-

vice acceptance. Decision Support Systems, 38, 369-381.

doi:10.1016/j.dss.2003.08.001

Jones, G. (1995). More than just a game: Research developments and

issues in competitive anxiety in sport. British Journal of Psychology,

86, 449-478. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1995.tb02565.x

Jones, G., & Hanton, S. (2001). Pre-competitive feeling states and

directional anxiety interpretation. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19,

385-395. doi:10.1080/026404101300149348

Jones, G., & Swain, A. B. J. (1992). Intensity and direction dimensions

of competitive state anxiety and relationships with competitiveness.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 467-472.

doi:10.1080/02640419308730023

Jones, G., Swain, A. B. J., & Hardy, L. (1993). Intensity and direction

dimensions of competitive state anxiety and relationship with per-

formance. Journal of Sport Sciences, 11, 533-542.

Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. London:

Free Association.

Lazarus, R. S. (2000). How emotions influence performance in com-

petitive sports. The Sp or t Psychologist, 14, 229-252.

Llewellyn, D. J., Sanchez, X., Asghar, A., & Jones, G. (2008). Self-

efficacy, risk taking and performance in rock climbing. Personality

and Individual Differe n ces, 45, 75-81.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.001

Lombardo, E. R., Tan, G., Jensen, M. P., & Anderson, K. O. (2005).

Anger management style and association with self-efficacy and pain

in male veterans. The Journal of Pain, 6, 765-770.

doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2005.07.003

Martens, R., Vealey, R. S., & Burton, D. (1990). Competitive anxiety in

sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Mellalieu, S. D., Hanton, S., & Fletcher, D (2006). A competitive anxi-

ety review: Recent directions in sport psychology research. In S.

Hanton and S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport psy-

chology (pp. 1-45). Hauppage, NY: Nova Science.

Nicholas, M. K. (2007). The pain self-efficacy questionnaire: Taking

pain into account. European Journal of Pain, 11, 153-163.

doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.12.008

Ntoumanis, N., & Jones, G. (1998). Interpretations of competitive trait

anxiety symptoms as a function of locus of control beliefs. Interna-

M. A. BESHARAT ET AL. 765

tional Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 99-114.

Papastergiou, M. (2010). Enhancing physical education and sport sci-

ence students’ self-efficacy and attitudes regarding information and

communication technologies through a computer literacy course.

Computers and Education, 54, 298-308.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.015

Raglin, J., & Hanin, Y. (2000). Competitive anxiety and athletic per-

formance. In Y. L. Hanin (Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 93-112).

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Robazza, C., & Bortoli, L. (2007). Perceived impact of anger and anxi-

ety on performance in rugby players. Psychology of Sport and Exer-

cise, 8, 875-890. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.07.005

Swain, A. B. J., & Jones, G. (1993). Intensity and frequency dimen-

sions of competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sports Sciences, 11,

533-542. doi:10.1080/02640419308730024

Torkzadeh, G., Chang, J., & Demirhan, D. (2006). A contingency

model of computer and internet self-efficacy. Information and Man-

agement, 43, 541-550. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.02.001

Turk, D. C., & Okifuji, A. (2002). Psychilogical factors in chronic pain:

Evolution and Revolution. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-

chology, 70, 678-690. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.70.3.678

Turner, J. A., Ersek, M., & Kemp, C. (2005). Self-efficacy for manag-

ing pain is associated with disability, depression, and pain coping

among retirement community residents with chronic pain. Journal of

Pain, 6, 471-479. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2005.02.011

Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2004). The cognitive activation theory of

stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29, 567-592.

doi:10.1016/S0306-4530(03)00091-X

Woodman, T., & Hardy, L. (2001). Stress and anxiety. In R. Singer, H.

A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of research on

sport psychology (pp. 290-318). New York: Wiley.