Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 175 items for :

  • "arousability" x
  • Psychology and Behavior in Sport/Exercise x
Clear All
Restricted access

Thomas D. Raedeke and Gary L. Stein

This study examined the relationship between felt arousal, thoughts/feelings, and ski performance based on recent arousal and affect conceptualizations. An eclectic integration of these perspectives suggests that to understand the arousal-performance relationship, researchers need to examine not only a felt arousal continuum (i.e., intensity or level ranging from low to high), but also a concomitant thoughts and feelings continuum (i.e., ranging from positive to negative). Recreational slalom ski racers completed a self-report measure examining felt arousal and thoughts/feelings prior to several ski runs. Results demonstrated a significant relationship between felt arousal level, thoughts/feelings, and subjective ski performance ratings, but not for actual ski times. In contrast to the inverted-U hypothesis for subjective performance ratings, high felt arousal is not associated with poor performance ratings if it is accompanied by positive thoughts and feelings.

Restricted access

Anne Beuter and Joan L. Duda

The purpose of this interdisciplinary study was to assess the impact of arousal on motor performance by examining the kinematic characteristics of a stepping motion in high and low arousal conditions on 9 subjects. Raw data were recorded from a rotary shutter video camera and digitized automatically by interfacing the videomotion analyzer with the digitizing board of a microcomputer. Three-dimensional orbital plots of the hip, knee, and ankle angle covariations revealed that the subjects used two different strategies to perform the skill. Phase plane analyses revealed a tight coupling between joint position and velocity in both conditions for the hip and the knee. Differences in movement kinematics between low and high arousal conditions were most visible in the ankle joint whose phase planes displayed an increased number of self-crossings (loops) in the high arousal condition. It was suggested that under high arousal, what was once automatic and smooth in terms of the ankle joint now comes under more volitional control, which is less smooth and efficient. Practical implications of the present study are suggested.

Restricted access

Vicki Ebbeck and Maureen R. Weiss

Two issues regarding the arousal-performance relationship in sport were addressed in this study: the relationship between task complexity, optimal arousal, and maximal performance, and the appropriateness of using various measures of performance. Data were collected from high school athletes (n=51) across four track and field meets. State anxiety was obtained prior to each performance and three performance measures were obtained (event results, and quality of performance evaluated by the athlete and by the coach). Results indicated that the three performance measures were not equally related to A-state, suggesting that the relationship between arousal and performance results in a different description depending upon the performance measure that is used. Furthermore, degree of task complexity could not be distinguished across various track and field events. When individual events were used to examine the arousal-performance/task complexity relationship, results revealed that level of A-state needed for maximal performance could not be differentiated for specific events, nor could it be determined for above average, average, or below average performances on any one event.

Restricted access

Kamuran Yerlikaya Balyan, Serdar Tok, Arkun Tatar, Erdal Binboga and Melih Balyan

The present study examined the association between personality, competitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and physiological arousal in athletes with high and low anxiety levels. Anxiety was manipulated by means of an incentive. Fifty male participants, first, completed the Five Factor Personality Inventory and their resting electro dermal activity (EDA) was recorded. In the second stage, participants were randomly assigned to high or low anxiety groups. Individual EDAs were recorded again to determine precompetition physiological arousal. Participants also completed the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) and played a computer-simulated soccer match. Results showed that neuroticism was related to both CSAI-2 components and physiological arousal only in the group receiving the incentive. Winners had higher levels of cognitive anxiety and lower levels of physiological arousal than losers. On the basis of these findings, we concluded that an athlete’s neurotic personality may influence his cognitive and physiological responses in a competition.

Restricted access

James G. Hollandsworth Jr and Gary E. Jones

This study was designed to investigate runners' perceptions of arousal and awareness of physiological responding before and after a 20-kilometer (12.4- mile) race. Participants (N = 98) completed pre- and postquestionnaires that included measures of awareness of physiological responding and self-defined states of activation and arousal. In order to identify those variables related to performance, the finishers were divided into three groups: fast, moderate, and slow. A discriminant analysis revealed that miles run in training each week, resting pulse rate, and weight were the best predictors of group membership. Of the several psychological variables, only prerace tension discriminated between the groups, with the faster runners reporting themselves as more fearful and “clutched-up” before the race. In terms of pre-post physiological and psychological effects, it was found that running 20 kilometers resulted in a significant, increased awareness of physiological responding, increased feelings of being tired and relaxed, and decreased feelings of tension and energy. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for future research.

Restricted access

Robert M. Nideffer

Restricted access

Panteleimon Ekkekakis, Eric E. Hall and Steven J. Petruzzello

Individuals differ in the intensity of exercise they prefer and the intensity they can tolerate. The purpose of this project was to develop a measure of individual differences in the preference for and tolerance of exercise intensity. The steps involved in (a) item generation and face validation, (b) exploratory factor analysis and item selection, (c) structural validation, (d) examination of the internal consistency and test-retest reliability, (e) concurrent validation, and (f) construct validation are described. The Preference for and Tolerance of the Intensity of Exercise Questionnaire (PRETIE-Q) is a 16-item, 2-factor measure that exhibits acceptable psychometric properties and can be used in research aimed at understanding individual differences in responses to exercise and thus the psychological processes involved in the public health problem of exercise dropout.

Restricted access

Yonghwan Chang, Yong Jae Ko and Brad D. Carlson

pleasure–arousal theory ( Russell & Pratt, 1980 ) and the cognitive theory of pride ( Davidson, 1976 ), the three emotional profiles of pleasure, arousal, and pride are identified as explicit affective attitudes. We test the feasibility and predictive validity of the AEI in the context of athlete

Restricted access

Yong Jae Ko, Yonghwan Chang, Wonseok Jang, Michael Sagas and John Otto Spengler

behaviors (e.g.,  Appelbaum et al., 2012 ; Donavan, Carlson, & Zimmerman, 2005 ; Mowen, 2004 ). For example, applying Mowen’s (2000) hierarchical approach to spectator personality, Donavan et al. (2005) found that the personality traits of extraversion, agreeability, need for arousal, and materialism

Restricted access

Stacey Alvarez-Alvarado, Graig M. Chow, Nicole T. Gabana, Robert C. Hickner and Gershon Tenenbaum

) linear increase in RPE until volitional exhaustion, and (d) increase in perceived arousal until volitional exhaustion. Method Participants An a priori power analysis was undertaken using the G*Power 3 program ( Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007 ) to establish appropriate sample size. Effect size f ( v ) = 0