1. Competitive state anxiety and self-confidence: Intensity and direction as relative predictors of performance on a golf putting task SEAN T. CHAMBERLAIN1 & BRUCE D. HALE Presented by: Kayla Brown, Scott Galland, Gabriela Gonzalez-Torres, Alyssa Humphreys, and Kaitlin McClimon

2. Purpose Study intensity and direction of state anxiety (cognitive and somatic) in predicting putting performance Manipulate stressful situations and measure the reactions and performance of the athletes See the role of self-confidence in a precision task under pressure

3. Definitions Cognitive anxiety: thoughts related to worry Somatic anxiety: nervousness or tension State anxiety: how the athlete feels during competition

4. Methods 12 experienced male undergraduate golfers Age: 20-22 Mean handicap: 11.75 (SD = 1.48) Mean Years of Experience: 8 (SD = 2.8)

5. Methods CSAI-2D self report inventory (reliability:.79-.90) Measures state anxiety intensity and direction Three subscales: – Cognitive anxiety – Somatic anxiety – Self-confidence Intensity Scores – - 4 point scale (1 “not at all”, 4 “very much so”), scores ranging from 9 to 36 per sub-scale Directional Scores – - 7 point scale (-3 “negatively”, 3 “positively”) scores ranging from -27 to +27 per sub-scale

6. Methods Putting Task Procedure -Synthetic putting green, hole 5 meters away -5 practice shots, 10 recorded shots (for all 3 procedures) -Three separate procedures: -Alone with tester (low anxiety environment) -Divided into 3 teams, cash prize for winning team (moderate anxiety) -Individual head-to-head competition, for cash prize, all 12 participants present (high anxiety) CSAI-2D administered before each testing procedure

7. Results Anxiety direction is a better predictor of performance than anxiety intensity Cognitive anxiety intensity putting performance No linear relationship for somatic anxiety direction and putting performance Self-confidence intensity supported by linear relationship Elevated levels of somatic anxiety resulted in better performance was a surprising result Self-confidence may have been the biggest predictor of performance

8. Hypotheses Cognitive anxiety intensity will be negatively related to performance -Supported Directional anxiety will predict performance better than anxiety intensity -Supported (see somatic anxiety intensity in results) Self- Confidence will show a positive relationship with putting performance -Supported

9. Study Variables Independent Variable Golf Putting Task: 3 levels of anxiety-low, medium, high Dependent Variables Cognitive anxiety (intensity and direction) Somatic anxiety (intensity and direction) Self-confidence (intensity and direction)

10. Relationship of Study Relational Study Studies the connection between variables.

11. External Validity Sampling Strategy Non-probability Convenience Generalizability Population Golfers vs. Athletes in general Individual vs. Team sports Male vs. Female Setting Synthetic putting mat Indoor/Outdoor Used personal putter Same golf balls Time Length of task

12. Construct Validity Construct Cause Constructs Competitive state anxiety Self-confidence Effect Construct Performance on Putting Task Five practice putts and ten recorded putts each session Target was 5 meters from start of putt on 12x2 meter mat Mean score of 10 putts was used for the score of each session

13. Construct Validity Construct – Anxiety and Self-confidence Measured by the Competitive Sport Anxiety Inventory-2D (CSAI- 2D) – Measures cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence-face validity and content validity – Predictive validity-predicting performance based on scores – Relies on self-report – Only measures before putting task » Shows pre-performance state measure and not during-performance measure » Self-confidence-high interpretation for performance – Questionnaire affect anxiety? (long questionnaire/process) » Anxiety may increase as one is taking questionnaire – Self-confidence may be higher at 3 rd session because of repetitive tasks

14. Construct Validity Construct – Putting Task 5 meter length of putt-results differ if the length was shorter or longer? Putting may improve due to improvement of awareness of anxiety and self-confidence Practice putts increase performances? Repetition of task increase performances and self-confidence and decrease anxiety? Social threats – 1 st session-none – 2 nd session-moderate evaluation apprehension (team competition) – 3 rd session-possible high evaluation apprehension (individual competition, other participants watching putts, and cash awards) » Nervousness affect performance?

15. Internal Validity Design Notation – O X 1 O 2 O X 2 O 2 O X 3 O 2 12 experienced undergraduate male golfers from an English University Aged 20-22 Cause and Effect – Temporal precedence – Covariation

16. Internal Validity Only one group, so… Single Group Threats are possible History Maturation Testing Instrumentation Regression to the mean Mortality

17. Internal Validity History – Does the team practice these conditions on a regular basis? But, results supported hypothesis- that as cognitive anxiety goes up, performance levels drop. – Do these teams practice at a specific level of anxiety most of the time? Could have caused the resulting U-shape relationship between somatic anxiety and performance. – Could the results be different with a group of females? Females may be better at moderate anxiety levels but worse at higher. Direction results could have definitely been affected by male-female differences because females are more controlled by their emotions – so directions scored may have been more pronounced with a group of females.

18. Internal Validity Testing Multiple measures could have affected ability to perform task but this group consisted of experienced male golfers, so the testing threat is not likely to have an effect. Performance measures accounted for test-retest threats (15 putts, 5 practice, 10 recorded, average of ten) ** Testing threat not a huge problem

19. Internal Validity Other Possible Threats? Regression- No pre-test Mortality- No drop-outs Instrumentation- Only used one instrumentation method Maturation- not longitudinal History threat causes biggest problems to internal validity