ALTERNATIVES TO INVERTED-U THEORY

In the previous lecture ⏮️ we learned that inverted-U theory 🔺 is the primary theory used by sport psychologists 🧠🏃 to explain the relationship between anxiety 😰 and performance 🏆. However, sports psychologists have turned to other more complex theories 🧩 to explain this relationship. It is believed by many psychologists 👥 that the inverted-U theory is a simple theory ⚠️ that does not capture or explain the complexities of the anxiety-performance relationship 🔄😰🏆. In this lecture 📖 we look at alternatives to inverted-U theory 🔁.

There are five anxiety-performance theories that we will discuss 📑:

1. Martins' Multidimensional Anxiety Theory 🧠📊
2. Fazey and Hardy's Catastrophe Theory 🌋
3. Hanin's Individual Zone of Optimal Functioning Theory 🎯
4. Jones' Directionality Theory 🧭
5. Apter's Reversal Theory 🔁

1. Martens' Multidimensional Anxiety Theory 🧠

Multidimensional Anxiety Theory is based upon the notion that anxiety 😰 is multidimensional in nature, composed of a cognitive anxiety component 🧠 and a somatic anxiety component 💪.

Multidimensional theory specifically hypothesizes two things 📌: (1) a negative linear relationship ➖⬇️ exists between cognitive state anxiety 🧠😟 and athletic performance 🏆, and (2) an inverted-U relationship 🔺 exists between somatic anxiety 💪😟 and performance 🏅. According to the multidimensional theory, in the case of cognitive state anxiety 🧠, as anxiety increases ⬆️, athletic performance begins to deteriorate ⬇️. But, in the case of somatic state anxiety 💪, as anxiety increases ⬆️ athletic performance increases to a certain level 📈, and after a certain level athletic performance begins to drop ⬇️. Somatic state anxiety forms an inverted U-shape 🔺.

2. Fazey and Hardy's Catastrophe Theory 🌋

The basic assumptions of the Inverted-U theory 🔺 are that (a) small incremental increases in arousal ⚡ result in small incremental increases or decreases in performance 📊, and (b) moderate arousal ⚖️ results in optimal performance 🏆. The Catastrophe Theory 🌋 questions both these notions ❓.

The basic variables of the model include cognitive anxiety 🧠😰, physiological arousal ❤️⚡ (not somatic anxiety), and performance 🏅. The theory suggests that the relationship between physiological arousal ⚡ and athletic performance 🏆 is believed to take the form of the inverted-U 🔺 when cognitive anxiety is low ⬇️, but to take a very different form 🔄 when cognitive anxiety increases ⬆️. At a high level of cognitive anxiety 🧠⬆️, performance increases gradually 📈 as in the inverted-U, but at some point as physiological arousal continues to rise ⚡⬆️, performance will show a catastrophic drop-off ⬇️💥. In other words, if cognitive state anxiety is high 😰⬆️, an increase in physiological arousal ⚡ can result in a sudden and large decrement in athletic performance ⬇️⬇️.

The basic tenets of Fazey and Hardy's catastrophe model 🌋 were tested by Hardy and Parfitt (1991) 🧪 and Hardy, Parfitt, and Pates (1994) 📊, and both of these studies provided strong support 💪 for the basic tenets of catastrophe theory ✔️.

3. Hanin's Individual Zone of Optimal Functioning (IZOF) Theory 🎯

The individual zone of optimal functioning (IZOF) 🎯 was developed by Yuri Hanin (1989) 👤. This theory also questions the two basic assumptions of inverted-U theory 🔺, but more specifically the notion that a moderate level of state anxiety ⚖️😰 results in best performance 🏆. IZOF theory postulates that the level of optimal state anxiety best for one athlete 🏃‍♂️ may be different from that optimal for the next athlete 🏃‍♀️. Thus, for some athletes, the optimal level of state anxiety was very low ⬇️, while for others it was very high ⬆️.

In IZOF theory an optimal level of precompetitive state anxiety 😰🏁 is identified and a narrow band of anxiety functioning 🎯 created around it. The band of optimal functioning is generally considered to be the optimal level of anxiety ⚖️. If the athlete's anxiety level stays within the IZOF 🎯, he will perform well 🏆, but if the level is outside the band ❌, his performance will deteriorate ⬇️. Individual zone of optimal functioning theory 🎯 is a viable theory for explaining the anxiety-performance relationship 🔄. An athlete will perform best 🥇 if his state anxiety is within a certain zone of optimal functioning ✔️.

Strong support for the concept of an individual zone of optimal functioning (IZOF) 🎯 has been reported by Prapavessis and Grove (1991) 📚, Raglin and Turner (1993) 📖, and Turner and Raglin (1996) 📘. In each of the cases, the results favored IZOF theory ✔️.

4. Jones' Directionality Theory 🧭

Jones (1991) 🧑‍🏫 posits that the absolute intensity of anxiety 😰 was not nearly so important as the athlete's perception 👀 of whether his anxiety intensity was facilitative ➕ or debilitative ➖ relative to a subsequent competitive event 🏟️. In simpler words 🗣️, an athlete's perception of how intensity affects performance 🏆 is more important than the intensity itself. Jones labeled this facilitative or debilitative perception 🔄 the direction component of anxiety 🧭.

Therefore, according to the directionality theory 🧭, the important question is not whether an athlete has a high ⬆️ or low ⬇️ level of anxiety, but whether he perceives 🤔 that this specific level will help him perform better 🏅. The application of directionality theory in sport 🏃‍♂️ is illustrated in two studies reported by Hanton and Jones (1999a, 1999b) 📊.

5. Apter's Reversal Theory 🔁

Reversal theory 🔁, as proposed by Apter (1982) 📚, has characteristics associated with both drive ➡️ and inverted-U theory 🔺. It is as much a theory of personality 👤 as it is a theory of arousal ⚡. Individuals are described as being either telic 🎯 or paratelic 🎉 dominant. Telic-dominant individuals 🎯 have a goal-directed orientation towards life 🏁, while paratelic-dominant individuals 🎉 are fun-loving 😄 and have a "here-and-now" ⏳ orientation. While in a telic frame of mind 🎯, the athlete seeks to reduce the level of arousal ⬇️ in order to bring about a state of relaxation 😌. While in a paratelic frame of mind 🎉, the athlete seeks to increase arousal ⬆️ in order to increase excitement 🤩. The individual's ability to switch back and forth 🔄 between telic and paratelic modes is referred to as psychological reversal 🧠🔁.

References 📚

Cox, H. Richard. (2002). Sport Psychology: Concepts and Applications. (Fifth Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies 🏢

Lavallec. D., Kremer, J., Moran, A., & Williams. M. (2004). Sports Psychology: Contemporary Themes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Publishers 📖