Literature DB >> 14768844

Arousal, anxiety, and performance: a reexamination of the Inverted-U hypothesis.

Shawn M Arent1, Daniel M Landers.   

Abstract

Until recently, the traditional Inverted-U hypothesis had been the primary model used by sport psychologists to describe the arousal-performance relationship. However, many sport psychology researchers have challenged this relationship, and the current trend is a shift toward a more "multidimensional" view of arousal-anxiety and its effects on performance. In the current study, 104 college-age participants performed a simple response time task while riding a bicycle ergometer. Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight arousal groups (between 20 and 90% of heart rate reserve) and were told they were competing for a cash prize. Prior to the task, the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 and Sport Anxiety Scale (SAS) were administered to assess the influence of cognitive and somatic anxiety. As hypothesized, regression analysis revealed a significant quadratic trend for arousal and reaction time. This accounted for 13.2% of the variance, F change (1, 101) = 15.10, p < .001, in performance beyond that accounted for by the nonsignificant linear trend. As predicted by the Inverted-U hypothesis, optimal performance on the simple task was seen at 60 and 70% of maximum arousal. Furthermore, for the simple task used in this study, only somatic anxiety as measured by the SAS accounted for significant variance in performance beyond that accounted for by arousal alone. These findings support predictions of the Inverted-U hypothesis and raise doubts about the utility theories that rely on differentiation of cognitive and somatic anxiety to predict performance on simple tasks that are not cognitively loaded.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14768844     DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2003.10609113

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Res Q Exerc Sport        ISSN: 0270-1367            Impact factor:   2.500


  22 in total

1.  Game, set and match? Substantive issues and future directions in performance analysis.

Authors:  Paul S Glazier
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2010-08-01       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 2.  What is the role of brain mechanisms underlying arousal in recovery of motor function after structural brain injuries?

Authors:  Andrew M Goldfine; Nicholas D Schiff
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 5.710

3.  Quantitative EEG evaluation for performance level analysis of professional female soccer players.

Authors:  Kittichai Tharawadeepimuk; Yodchanan Wongsawat
Journal:  Cogn Neurodyn       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 5.082

Review 4.  Cholinergic receptor subtypes and their role in cognition, emotion, and vigilance control: an overview of preclinical and clinical findings.

Authors:  Susanne Graef; Peter Schönknecht; Osama Sabri; Ulrich Hegerl
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2011-01-08       Impact factor: 4.530

5.  Trait anxiety is associated with amygdala expectation and caloric taste receipt response across eating disorders.

Authors:  Guido K W Frank; Megan E Shott; Tamara Pryor; Skylar Swindle; Tyler Nguyen; Joel Stoddard
Journal:  Neuropsychopharmacology       Date:  2022-09-13       Impact factor: 8.294

6.  Quantitative EEG in sports: performance level estimation of professional female soccer players.

Authors:  Kittichai Tharawadeepimuk; Yodchanan Wongsawat
Journal:  Health Inf Sci Syst       Date:  2021-03-26

7.  The Acute Effects of Exercise Intensity on Inhibitory Cognitive Control in Adolescents.

Authors:  Fernando Peruyero; Julio Zapata; Diego Pastor; Eduardo Cervelló
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-05-31

8.  Threat-Modulation of Executive Functions-A Novel Biomarker of Depression?

Authors:  Jari Peräkylä; Kaija Järventausta; Piia Haapaniemi; Joan A Camprodon; Kaisa M Hartikainen
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 4.157

9.  Changes of reaction time and blood lactate concentration of elite volleyball players during a game.

Authors:  Dariusz Mroczek; Adam Kawczyński; Jan Chmura
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2011-07-04       Impact factor: 2.193

10.  Promoting motor function by exercising the brain.

Authors:  Stephane Perrey
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2013-01-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.