Search Results

The current paper criticizes the concept, research methodology, data analyses, and validity of the conclusions made in Hardy, Woodman, and Carrington’s (2004) article published in this journal. In their repeated-measures analysis of data from the performances of 7 golfers, they did not examine changes in performance scores on successive holes. Instead, Hardy et al. used several ANOVA models to examine how performance varied with respect to somatic and cognitive anxiety level and self-confidence interaction. By doing so, their findings produced effects which we argue to be conceptually and empirically limited. We also address problems associated with dichotomization of continuous variables, measurement errors when splitting data, eradication of random significant effects, cell sizes in segmental quadrant analysis, and correlation between somatic and cognitive anxiety. We believe these difficulties prevent any reliable conclusions and/or generalizations from being made.

The multidimensional approach to the study of anxiety (Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990a) considers subcomponents of anxiety, specifically cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence. Much of the research based on this theory has utilized the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2) (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1990b). Findings have been inconsistent, with some research suggesting that the three subcomponents have separate relationships with performance and other studies failing to find any relationship between the anxiety subcomponents and performance. This meta-analysis examined the effect of state anxiety as measured by the CSAI-2 (i.e., cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence) on athletic performance. Studies were coded for characteristics that could potentially moderate the effects of anxiety on performance (i.e., features of design, subjects, sport). Interdependency between the three subscales was examined using multivariate meta-analytic techniques (Becker & Schram, 1994). Relationships among cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, self-confidence, and performance appeared weak. Exploratory modeling showed that self-confidence displayed the strongest and most consistent relationship with performance.

Research linking the “quiet eye” (QE) period to subsequent performance has not been systematically synthesized. In this paper we review the literature on the link between the two through nonintervention (Synthesis 1) and intervention (Synthesis 2) studies. In the first synthesis, 27 studies with 38 effect sizes resulted in a large mean effect (d = 1.04) reflecting differences between experts’ and novices’ QE periods, and a moderate effect size (d = 0.58) comparing QE periods for successful and unsuccessful performances within individuals. Studies reporting QE duration as a percentage of the total time revealed a larger mean effect size than studies reporting an absolute duration (in milliseconds). The second synthesis of 9 articles revealed very large effect sizes for both the quiet-eye period (d = 1.53) and performance (d = 0.84). QE also showed some ability to predict performance effects across studies.