| Literature DB >> 28210340 |
Dora Kurimay1, Alison Pope-Rhodius2, Miran Kondric3.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between cognitive competitive anxiety intensity and coping strategies in table tennis players. One hundred and two (102) US competitive table tennis players of age range from 10 to 60 filled out a Revised Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2R, Cox et al., 2003) at least 30 minutes before the start of their tournament match and a Modified Cope questionnaire (MCOPE; Crocker and Graham, 1995) 15 minutes after they finished their match. Our study found significant differences between low and high cognitive competitive anxiety groups with regard to the use of coping strategies. The high cognitive competitive anxiety intensity group used significantly more behavioral disengagement (avoidance coping, p ≤ 0.05), denial coping strategies (emotion focused coping, p ≤ 0.01) compared to the low cognitive anxiety intensity group. Our results suggest that there is some connection between anxiety intensity and coping strategies. If the cognitive anxiety intensity (for example, intensity from worrying) is very high, an athlete might be more likely to use avoidance coping (such as behavioral disengagement) and emotion-focused coping (such as denial and venting of emotions) compared to athletes who have low cognitive competitive anxiety. Furthermore, gender differences in cognitive anxiety and direction were found. Confidence management techniques such as positive self-talk, breathing techniques and visualization should be taught to athletes to assist them in coping with their competitive anxiety better and to enhance their performance.Entities:
Keywords: avoidance; competitive cognitive anxiety; coping strategies; emotion focused coping strategies; mental toughness; table tennis
Year: 2017 PMID: 28210340 PMCID: PMC5304276 DOI: 10.1515/hukin-2017-0007
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Hum Kinet ISSN: 1640-5544 Impact factor: 2.193
Significant differences between high and low cognitive anxiety groups in the frequency of the use of emotion focused coping and avoidance
| High Cognitive Anxiety Intensity | Low Cognitive Anxiety Intensity | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seeking social support | 12.594 | |||||||
| for instrumental reasons | 0.819 | 10.540 | 0.628 | 1 | 96 | 3.959 | 0.049 | |
| Seeking social support | 11.789 | |||||||
| for emotional reasons | 0.805 | 10.127 | 0.617 | 1 | 96 | 2.686 | 0.105 | |
| Behavior disengagement | 7.807 | 0.534 | 6.090 | 0.410 | 1 | 96 | 6.504 | 0.012 |
| Self-blame | 11.745 | 0.714 | 11.879 | 0.547 | 1 | 96 | 0.022 | 0.881 |
| Planning | 13.748 | 0.683 | 14.797 | 0.524 | 1 | 96 | 1.484 | 0.226 |
| Suppression of competitive activities | 11.083 | 0.705 | 12.094 | 0.540 | 1 | 96 | 1.295 | 0.258 |
| Venting of emotions | 9.809 | 0.723 | 7.910 | 0.555 | 1 | 96 | 4.342 | 0.040 |
| Humor | 9.372 | 0.799 | 8.880 | 0.612 | 1 | 96 | 0.239 | 0.626 |
| Increasing Effort | 15.341 | 0.614 | 16.325 | 0.471 | 1 | 96 | 1.618 | 0.206 |
| 11.988 | 0.737 | 10.886 | 0.565 | 1 | 96 | 1.408 | 0.238 | |
| 14.304 | 0.661 | 14.790 | 0.506 | 1 | 96 | 0.341 | 0.561 | |
| 9.674 | 0.552 | 7.658 | 0.423 | 1 | 96 | 8.389 | 0.005 | |
p≤ 0.01
p≤ 0.05
Figure 1Significant differences between high and low cognitive anxiety groups in the frequency of the use of emotion focused coping and avoidance
Significant gender differences in cognitive anxiety intensity and direction
| Gender | N | Mean | SD | t | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cognitive Anxiety | Male | 80 | 20.25 | 6.08 | -2.07 | 0.041 |
| Female | Intensity | 20 | 23.72 | 9.54 | ||
| Cognitive Anxiety | Male | 78 | -1.71 | 10.52 | 2.34 | 0.021 |
| Direction | Female | 22 | -8.22 | 14.49 |
p≤0.01
p≤ 0.05