1 / 16

Competitive state anxiety and self-confidence: Intensity and direction as relative predictors of performance on a golf p

Competitive state anxiety and self-confidence: Intensity and direction as relative predictors of performance on a golf putting task. By: Group Two. Purpose of Study.

kristian
Download Presentation

Competitive state anxiety and self-confidence: Intensity and direction as relative predictors of performance on a golf p

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Competitive state anxiety and self-confidence: Intensity and direction as relative predictors of performance on a golf putting task By: Group Two

  2. Purpose of Study • Have participants complete the CSAI-2D self-report questionnaire prior to golf-putting task, in order to map the intensity and direction of anxiety and it’s effect on performance.

  3. The Hypotheses • Testing the hypothesis described in MAT which is that: • 1)Cognitive anxiety will show a negative linear relationship, • 2) Somatic anxiety will show and inverted “U” relationship, and • 3) Self confidence will show a positive relationship

  4. Overview • Twelve experienced undergraduate male golfers participated in a golf putting task • Participants were asked to perform a golf putt from 5 meters away, 15 times (5 being practice shots), in 3 different situations. • Each situation was designed to simulate different anxiety responses.

  5. Procedure • 1st putting task: (Day 1) tested alone with experimenter, scores would not be revealed to other participants • Low level of anxiety was predicted • 2nd putting task: (Day 2) participants separated into teams, competed head-to-head, $30.00 cash prize • Moderate level of anxiety predicted • 3rd putting task: (Day 2) participants performed in front of each other, $50.00 cash prize • Highest level of anxiety predicted CSAI-2D was completed prior to every putting task.

  6. Results • Hypothesis 1)”Cognitive anxiety will show a negative linear relationship” • The relationship between cognitive intensity and performance in the study was best described as a significantly negative linear equation. • The relationship between cognitive direction and performance in the study was best described as linear

  7. Results • Hypothesis 2) “Somatic anxiety will show an inverted ‘U’ relationship” • Somatic anxiety intensity’s relationship with performance was best accounted for by a U-shaped curvilinear equation in the study.

  8. Results • Hypothesis 3)” Self confidence will show a positive relationship” • Self-confidence intensity was best described by a positive, linear equation in the study. • Therefore, the results of the study support all three hypothesis described by MAT.

  9. Construct Validity • Cause Construct • 3 Anxiety conditions • Effect Construct • Anxiety survey • Putting performance

  10. Strengths and Weaknesses • Strengths • High internal consistency in surveys • High predictive validity • Putter • Weakness • Survey didn’t show directional aspect validation • Putter • Synthetic mat

  11. Internal Validity • Study Design • O1 X1 O2 O1 X2 O2 O1 X3 O2 • O1 = Competitive Sport Anxiety Inventory-2(D) • Measures state anxiety intensity and direction on: • Cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, self-confidence • O2 = Measurement between ball and target • X1 = 15 putts alone • X2 = Team competition • X3 = One-on-one competition

  12. Internal Validity • Not searching for causal relationship • Rather, seeing how the measurements related to performance • Situations don’t accurately reflect competitive scenario • No break in between sessions on day two

  13. External Validity • Non-random, convenient sample • 12 experienced, undergraduate male golfers • All from one English university • All participants volunteered for the study

  14. To Whom Are They Generalizing? • People: Study is generalizing to participants in individual sports (i.e. golf and bowling). • Setting: Three different types of sessions • Putting Individually • Putting head to head • Putting in team atmosphere • Time: Results are not specific to a certain time period, can be used in future instances • Anxiety will always be a part of Sport

  15. Problems with Sample • We would have liked to have seen other individual sports represented in the sample • For instance, a tennis player’s anxiety might have manifested in a different fashion compared to a golfer’s anxiety • We have an issue with the ALL MALE sample • Adding women could have affected the results • Women could have higher anxiety levels than men leading to skewed results

  16. Problems with Sample Cont’d • All participants are from the SAME university • Are they on the golf team? Taught the same coping mechanisms for anxiety? • All of the participants are Volunteers • This could have affected the results: • Are all participants over-confident? Struggle with anxiety?

More Related