Content uploaded by Rich Neil
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rich Neil on Sep 23, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: Hardiness, Anxiety and Self-confidence
Hardiness and the Competitive Trait Anxiety Response
Sheldon Hanton, Lynne Evans and Richard Neil
School of Sport, Physical Education & Recreation,
University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, Cyncoed, Cardiff, UK.
Author Note
Sheldon Hanton, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK; Lynne Evans, University of
Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK; Richard Neil, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sheldon Hanton, Ph.D.,
School of Sport, Physical Education & Recreation, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff,
Cyncoed, Cardiff, CF23 6XD, United Kingdom. Tel: 00-44-029-2041-6952, Fax: 00-44-029-
2041-6589, Email: Shanton@uwic.ac.uk
Date of Submission: 18th August, 2001
Date of Resubmission:
Running head: Hardiness, Anxiety and Self-confidence
Hardiness and the Competitive Trait Anxiety Response
Date of Submission: 18th August, 2001
Date of Resubmission:
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
1
Abstract
This study examined the effects of hardiness, its subcomponents and skill level upon the
intensity and direction dimensions of competitive trait anxiety and self-confidence intensity.
Participants (n=199) completed the Dispositional Resilience Scale (Bartone, Ursano, Wright, &
Ingraham, 1989), a modified version of the Sport Anxiety Scale (Smith, Smoll, & Schutz, 1990)
and the self-confidence scale extracted from a modified version of Martens, Burton, Vealey,
Bump, and Smith’s (1990) Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. Findings partially supported
the hypotheses that elite athletes high in hardiness, commitment and control would demonstrate
lower levels of worry and a more facilitative interpretation of the anxiety response. Self-
confidence analyses revealed significant interactions for the commitment and skill interaction
only. No interactions were found between skill level and challenge, although main effects were
evident for intensity (challenge) and direction (skill level). These findings identify hardiness as
an important personality construct within a sport specific situation, and provide support for skill
level as being a vital individual difference variable when measuring competitive anxiety. The
role of self-confidence and possible coping behaviors are also discussed, as are measurement
issues regarding the cognitive terms of ‘worry’ and ‘concern’.
Keywords: Facilitation; Debilitation; Elite; Non-elite
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
2
The demands of the elite sporting environment place the athlete into highly stressful
situations, be it the physically and psychologically demanding training schedule or the intense
competitive atmosphere. Such environments provide considerable stressors for the modern day
performer due to greater media attention and increased sponsorship involvement, emphasizing
the importance of expanding the understanding of how individuals respond in stressful situations
(cf., Jones, 1995). The sport psychology literature has been dominated by research into situation
specific responses, yet it should not be sufficient to examine such responses alone; it is also
necessary to investigate peoples’ dispositions and how these may influence the emotional
response. One area that has not been addressed exclusively within sport psychology to a great
extent is that of hardiness. Kobasa (1979) introduced this resilient disposition in an attempt to
explain why some individuals develop somatic and psychological disease when confronted with
stressful life events whereas others remain healthy. Research involving male executives
(Kobasa, 1979; Kobasa, Maddi, & Khan, 1982; Kobasa, Maddi, & Zola, 1983), city bus drivers
(Bartone, 1989) and disaster family assistance workers (Bartone, Ursano, Wright, & Ingraham,
1989) have found individuals high in hardiness experience reduced perceptions of stress and
report less illnesses.
Hardiness, as proposed by Kobasa (1979), is composed of three elements, sometimes
referred to as the three C’s (i.e., commitment, control and challenge). Commitment is the ability
to be able to persist at whatever one is doing; believing that one is capable of achieving the goal,
even when stresses rise to precarious levels. Control is the ability to feel and act as if one is
influential in the face of the varied contingencies of life (Kobasa, 1982). Challenge is the belief
that change rather than stability is normal in life and that the anticipation of changes represent
interesting incentives in growth rather than threats to security (Kobasa et al., 1982). Therefore,
when confronted with stressful changes, disruptions, or failures, ‘hardy’ individuals react not
only with a renewed attempt to control the situation, but also appraise the experience as
interesting and worthwhile (commitment), and concentrate on the growth in knowledge and
wisdom that is taking place (challenge).
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
3
The hardy personality, in theory, is accompanied by an innate response to appraise and
cope with a stressor effectively. Specifically, hardy individuals first appraise the life stressor as
less threatening, before transforming the stressor, through adaptive coping mechanisms, into a
positive and challenging experience (Gentry & Kobasa, 1984; Kobasa, 1982). Reduced
perceptions of life stress have frequently been found to be associated with high levels of
hardiness within the clinical field (Kobasa, 1979; Kobasa & Puccetti, 1983; Roth, Wiebe,
Fillingham, & Shay, 1989), and more recently within the sport psychology literature (Kelley,
1994; Kelley, Eklund, & Ritter-Taylor, 1999; Martin, Kelley, & Eklund, 1999). More desirable
and positive perceptions of life stressors have also been shown to go hand in hand with the hardy
personality (Allred & Smith, 1989; Rhodewalt & Agustsdottir, 1984; Westman, 1990; Wiebe,
1991), therefore indirectly supporting the use of coping mechanisms. The use of
transformational or adaptive coping by the hardy individual has been demonstrated within the
clinical (Florian, Mikulincer, & Taubman, 1995; Maddi, 1987; Williams, Wiebe, & Smith, 1992)
and sporting field (Goss, 1994).
The positive nature of the hardy personality is accompanied by a high level of self-
confidence due to the coping styles used which reflect the individual’s belief in their own
effectiveness (Kobasa & Puccetti, 1983). This provides the impetus to mentally stay in the
situation and confront its demands and consequences (Florian et al., 1995). Literature within the
sport psychology area has recently acknowledged the important influence of self-confidence
upon the competitive anxiety response through possible overriding mechanisms (Hanton &
Connaughton, 2002; Jones & Hanton, 2001). Martens et al. (1990) introduced multidimensional
competitive anxiety to the sport psychology field and theorized its effects to be negative towards
performance. Jones (1991, 1995) suggested that measuring an individual’s anxiety levels
(intensity) alone is limited, impelling Jones to propose the additional examination of the
performer’s perceptions of those levels, be it facilitative or debilitative, with respect to upcoming
performance (direction). Jones’ proposal of directional anxiety initiated a vast amount of
research that adopted Jones and Swain’s (1992) direction scale in conjunction with Martens et
al.’s (1990) Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). Following on from this
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
4
development a number of studies have demonstrated the importance of distinguishing between
the intensity and direction dimensions of competitive anxiety. These include those that have
investigated the antecedents and temporal patterning of the anxiety response (e.g., Hanton &
Jones, 1997; Wiggins, 1998), goal attainment expectations (e.g., Jones & Hanton, 1996), trait
anxiety as a function of gender and skill (e.g., Perry & Williams, 1998), the nature of the
competitive sport (e.g., Hanton, Jones, & Mullen, 2000), and the use of psychological skills (e.g.,
Fletcher & Hanton, 2001).
Challenging the view that a feeling of anxiety may well be facilitative to performance,
Burton and Naylor (1997) suggested that when anxiety is perceived as facilitative, the individual
is in fact experiencing such emotions as ‘challenge’ or ‘excitement’. Jones (1995) identified the
possible contradiction regarding ‘positive anxiety’ and called for refined measurement
approaches. This contention was strengthened by Lane, Sewell, Terry, Bartram, and Nesti
(1999) who found flaws in the factor structure proposed by Martens et al. (1990) when the
hypothesized model showed poor robust comparative and goodness of fit indices. Lane and
associates suggested that a limitation of the cognitive anxiety scale within Martens et al.’s CSAI-
2 derives from phrasing items around the word ‘concerned’ rather than ‘worried’, as being
concerned about a performance does not necessarily mean the athlete is experiencing negative
thoughts. Hardy (1998) agreed with the arguments presented by Jones (1995), but further
suggested that substantial evidence exists that shows high levels of anxiety to be beneficial to
performance. Indeed, Jones and Hanton (2001) proposed that this psychological state could be
labeled as ‘confident coping’, where individuals interpret thoughts and feelings as facilitative but
also experience high levels of anxiety, both of which are felt simultaneously and perceived as
helpful to performance. To conclude, Jones and Hanton (2001) believed that if a negative score
on the direction scale, in conjunction with the CSAI-2, is revealed, then this would signify a state
of anxiety. However, a positive direction score would point to another state previously
mislabeled as anxiety.
Taking into account the positive appraisal and adaptive coping mechanisms associated
with high hardiness levels (Allred & Smith, 1989; Florian et al., 1995; Goss, 1994; Maddi, 1987;
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
5
Rhodewalt & Agustsdottir, 1984; Westman, 1990; Wiebe, 1991; Williams et al., 1992), that in
turn represent sufficient levels of self-confidence, there is a strong conceptual rationale for
examining the effects of hardiness upon the directional interpretation of the anxiety response.
Specifically, that the high levels of self-confidence and positive cognitive appraisals identified
with hardiness could well produce a more facilitative interpretation of competitive anxiety levels.
The purpose of this study was therefore to examine an individual difference variable not
previously examined within the competitive anxiety literature in sport. Specifically, one that has
prevailed within other areas for over two decades and which could evidently give a clearer
insight into how performers react in stressful situations. Skill level will act as a further
individual difference variable within this study, due to its importance as a discriminating factor
of the directional anxiety response (Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Hanton & Jones, 1997; Jones
& Hanton, 2001; Jones et al., 1994; Jones & Swain, 1995; Perry & Williams, 1998). Jones and
associates demonstrated that elite athletes reported similar intensity scores to their nonelite
counterparts, however a more facilitative interpretation of those anxiety levels with respect to
performance and higher self-confidence levels accompanied the elite athlete. Based upon the
lower stress levels and positive nature associated with the hardy individual, and the facilitative,
self-confident nature of the elite athlete, it was hypothesized that the interaction of hardiness and
skill will produce lower levels of the anxiety response, accompanied by greater facilitative
interpretations and higher self-confidence scores.
An influx of research within the clinical field has criticized the measurement of the
hardiness composite if separate component analysis is ignored (Carver, 1989; Funk & Houston,
1987; Ganellen & Blaney, 1984; Hull, Van Treuren, & Virnelli, 1987). Carver stipulated that
information would be lost when the measurement of a composite is preferred to the separate
measurement of components. The importance of measuring the composite is outlined by Bartone
(1989) who confirmed hardiness to be a more powerful discriminator of health than its three
components, however Bartone added that the analyses of these components is instructive. Such a
notion is demonstrated by the findings of Florian et al. (1995) where commitment and control,
but not challenge, were found to significantly predict changes in mental health. On the basis of
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
6
this argument, the present study will analyze the interaction of each component with skill level
upon the anxiety response. Due to the high intercorrelations reported between components and
composite (Kobasa et al., 1982; Okun et al., 1988), the same hypothesis as used for the hardiness
and skill interaction is proposed. That is, the interaction between skill and commitment, control
and challenge respectively will produce lower levels of the anxiety response, accompanied by a
more facilitative interpretation of that anxiety as well as higher self-confidence levels.
Method
Participants
The participants were 199 collegiate and club players (n=111 males, n=88 females)
selected at random, ranging in age from 18 to 44 years (M=20.88, SD=3.14), with an average
experience of 9.68 years and representing a variety of sports (n=26). The standards of the
subjects ranged from those who participated at county level to those who had represented their
country. All participants provided informed consent.
Instrumentation
Dispositional Resilience Scale (DRS)
The DRS (Bartone et al., 1989), a modified version of Kobasa’s (1979) hardiness scale,
was used to measure commitment, control, challenge and composite hardiness levels. The
response scale comprises 45 items about life in general that people often feel differently about,
with 15 items representing each of the three subscales; five of these items being positively
phrased and ten being negative. Respondents rated the perceived truthfulness of the items on a
4-point Likert scale that ranged from 0 (not at all) to 3 (completely true). Thus, by summing the
subscale responses, each overall subscale intensity score ranged from 0 to 45, with the total
hardiness score ranging from 0 to 135.
Funk (1992) suggested the DRS to have several advantages over alternative scales, such
as the incorporation of equal item size within each component and the use of more positive
indicators. Funk added that previous scales that measured hardiness with negative indicators
may be inappropriate because it entails an attempt to index high levels of one characteristic (e.g.
commitment) through low scores of another (e.g. alienation). The DRS has been found to obtain
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
7
appropriate levels of convergent validity and attain high internal consistency for the composite
hardiness score and its subscales, with Cronbach alpha coefficients all being above .85 for
hardiness, .75 for commitment, .66 for control and .62 for challenge (Bartone, 1989; Bartone et
al., 1989).
Modified Sport Anxiety Scale (SAS)
The modified version of Smith, Smoll, and Schutz’s (1990) SAS was used to measure
intensity and direction of the competitive trait anxiety components, worry (factor of cognitive
anxiety) and trait somatic anxiety. The scale comprised of 16 out of the 21 original items, with
seven items in the worry subscale and nine items in the somatic anxiety subscale. The subscale
concentration disruption was not included because of its reported failure to function in
accordance with theoretical expectations (Dunn, Dunn, Wilson, & Syrotuik, 2000) and because
the measurement of attention disorder was not relevant to this study’s purpose. Respondents
rated the intensity of each item on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very
much so). Thus, by summing the subscale intensity response, the worry intensity score ranged
from a minimum of 7 to a maximum of 28, and the somatic anxiety intensity score ranged from a
minimum of 9 to a maximum of 36.
Two of the SAS subscales (i.e., worry and somatic anxiety) have been demonstrated to be
reliable and valid measures within general sporting situations (Smith et al., 1990). High internal
consistency for these SAS subscales have been reported in a number of studies with Cronbach
alpha coefficients ranging from .71 to .92 for somatic anxiety and .70 to .86 for worry (Smith et
al., 1990; White & Zellner, 1996). Smith et al. (1990) found the SAS to obtain appropriate levels
of convergent and discriminant validity.
In addition to the SAS, Jones and Swain’s (1992) direction scale was used for each item
in which the participant rated the degree to which the experienced intensity of each symptom
was interpreted as either facilitative or debilitative to subsequent performance. This directional
scale, originally modified from the CSAI-2, incorporated a bipolar 7-point Likert format, ranging
from –3 (very debilitative) to +3 (very facilitative), with the midpoint of 0 representing
‘unimportant’. Therefore, by summing the directional responses for each item within each
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
8
subscale, overall subscale directional scores ranged from a minimum of –21 to a maximum of
+21 for the worry subscale and from –27 to +27 for the somatic anxiety subscale.
Jones and Swain’s (1992) direction scale has been reported to possess high internal
consistency, with Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging from .85 to .89 for cognitive anxiety and
.81 to .88 for somatic anxiety (Jones & Hanton, 1996; Jones & Hanton, 2001; Wiggins, 1998).
However, the direction scale has not been fully validated (Burton, 1998), and internal
consistency has only been drawn from studies utilizing an instrument to measure competitive
state anxiety (CSAI-2, Martens et al., 1990). The scale has yet to be used in conjunction with a
specific competitive trait anxiety measure, although previous studies have employed it in
conjunction with Albrecht and Feltz’s (1987) modified trait version of the CSAI-2 (Hanton &
Jones, 1999a, 1999b; Jones & Swain, 1995; Ntoumanis & Jones, 1998). Therefore, the present
study’s employment of the direction scale in conjunction with the SAS is the first of its kind.
Self-Confidence
Albrecht and Feltz’s (1987) modified the CSAI-2, where each item is answered in terms
of how the individual usually feels, to create a trait measure (CTAI-2). In the present study the
self-confidence component was used due to the association that hardiness has with confidence
and due to the recent developments in anxiety, that suggest confidence may over-ride any
negative anxiety affect (cf., Jones & Hanton, 2001). The scale comprised 9 items and
respondents were asked to rate the intensity of each item on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(not at all) to 4 (very much so). Therefore, by summing the responses the intensity score ranged
from 9 to 36. Internal consistency has been reported for the self-confidence component of the
CTAI-2, with a Cronbach alpha value of .83 (Perry & Williams, 1998).
Procedures
The DRS, SAS and CTAI-2 (self-confidence scale) were completed in random order
outside of a sporting situation to avoid contextual influences (e.g., audience effects). Prior to
completion, each participant was presented with standardized instructions based upon the
recommendations of Bartone et al. (1989), Smith et al. (1990) and Martens et al. (1990)
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
9
respectively. These emphasized the confidentiality of responses, thus attempting to minimize
social desirability, accentuate honesty and indicate that there were no right or wrong answers.
Data Analysis
The analysis of the data was split into four stages. The first stage involved calculating
internal consistencies and descriptive data for this sample. The second stage involved separating
participants into skill level groups (elite and nonelite) according to Hanton and Connaughton’s
(2002) criteria, proceeding with a second, median, split of components and composite into high
and low commitment, control, challenge and total hardiness groups based on their DRS scores.
This allowed for the application of four factorial ANOVAs to determine any significant
interaction effects (i.e., skill x hardiness, skill x commitment, skill x control and skill x
challenge) upon the anxiety response. Follow-up Scheffe´ tests were then conducted to explore
significant effects.
Results
Correlational Analyses/Descriptive data
As no study to date has employed the SAS in conjunction with Jones and Swain’s (1992)
direction scale, internal reliability analyses were conducted on the worry and somatic anxiety
direction subscales. Cronbach alpha coefficients for the present sample were .87 for worry
direction and .85 for somatic anxiety direction, illustrating similar values to those found when
incorporated within a state anxiety scale (Jones & Hanton, 1996; Wiggins, 1998; Jones &
Hanton, 2001).
Kobasa (1979) proposed that hardy individuals are high in commitment, control and
challenge. Therefore this study also measured what percentage of the nonelite and elite/high
hardiness groups were above the median cut off in commitment, control and challenge and what
percentage of the nonelite and elite low hardiness groups were below the median cut off in all
three subcomponents. The analyses revealed that 23.64% of the nonelite/low hardiness and
40.91% of the elite/low hardiness groups were below the median cut-off in all three sub-
components. Within the nonelite and elite/high hardiness groups, 39.02% and 32% of the
respective participants were above the median split in commitment, control and challenge.
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
10
Modified SAS and Self-confidence Scores as a Function of Skill and Hardiness
Two way ANOVAs were conducted with skill level (elite/nonelite) and the DRS
composite and subscales (high and low hardiness/commitment/control/ challenge) acting as
independent variables. The intensity and direction subscales of worry and somatic anxiety, as
well as self-confidence intensity, acted as the dependent variables.
Hardiness
Separate two-way ANOVAs (Skill level x Hardiness) were conducted on all intensity and
direction subscales. The findings revealed significant interaction effects for the direction
components of both somatic anxiety (F [1,186] = 9.77; p<.005) and worry (F [1,186] = 11.33;
p<.001), as well as the intensity component of worry (F [1,186] = 4.1; p<.05). The interaction
upon self-confidence failed to achieve significance (F [1,186] = 2.02; p=.157), although a
hardiness main effect for this response (F [1,186] = 12.83; p<.001) and somatic anxiety intensity
was found (F [1,186] = 15.71; p<.001). Means, standard deviations and F ratios for the
interactions are presented in Table 1. Follow up Scheffe´ tests were employed to determine
where the significant differences lay for somatic anxiety direction and both worry direction and
intensity. Specifically, the findings revealed that the elite/high hardiness group reported a
significantly more facilitative somatic anxiety response than the elite/low hardiness,
nonelite/high and low hardiness groups. The elite/high hardiness group also demonstrated a
significantly more facilitative worry response than both the nonelite groups, although the
difference between the elite/low hardiness group (M=-4.23, SD=9.4) and the elite/high hardiness
group (M=1.16, SD=8.42) marginally failed to reach significance. Within worry intensity, the
elite/high hardiness group significantly differed with both low hardiness groups, but not with the
nonelite/high hardiness group. Main effects for somatic anxiety intensity and self-confidence
revealed lower anxiety (M=17.1, SD=5.01) and higher self-confidence levels (M=24.9,
SD=5.13) for high hardiness athletes compared to low hardiness athletes (somatic anxiety
intensity, M=20.25, SD=5.88; self-confidence, M=22.05, SD=5.48).
-------------------------------------------------
INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
11
-------------------------------------------------
Commitment
Two way ANOVAs (Skill x Commitment) revealed significant interaction effects for
somatic anxiety direction (F [1,177] = 21.52; p<.001), worry direction (F [1,177] = 25.19;
p<.001), worry intensity (F [1,177] = 4.97; p<.05) and self-confidence (F [1,177] = 9.51;
p<.005). There was also a significant commitment main effect for somatic anxiety intensity (F
[1,177] = 8.99; p<.005). Means, standard deviations and F ratios for the interactions are
presented in Table 2. Follow-up Scheffe´ tests were employed to determine between which
means significant differences were evident. Findings revealed the elite/high commitment group
to report a significantly more facilitative response than the other three groups for both somatic
anxiety and worry. The elite/high commitment group demonstrated significantly greater levels
of the self-confidence response than the two low commitment groups, and although no
significance was reached between the two high commitment groups, the elite group showed the
higher values. The only other difference lay between the two nonelite groups within the worry
direction response. The main effect for somatic anxiety intensity revealed lower levels of the
response for high commitment athletes (M = 17.73, SD = 5.09) compared to their low
commitment counterparts (M = 20.16, SD = 5.71).
-------------------------------------------------
INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
-----------------------------------------------------------
Control
Initial two-way ANOVAs (Skill x Control) revealed significant interaction effects for
somatic anxiety direction (F [1,175] = 6.81; p<.01), worry direction (F [1,175] = 10.14; p<.005)
and worry intensity (F [1,175] = 6.12; p<.05). There was also a significant control main effect
for somatic anxiety intensity (F [1,175] = 10.72; p<.001) and self-confidence (F [1,175] = 19.78;
p<.001). Means, standard deviations and F ratios for interactions are presented in Table 3. The
Scheffe´ test was then employed for the interaction effects to determine between which means
significant differences were evident. Findings from the follow-up tests revealed the elite/high
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
12
control group to show a more facilitative worry and somatic anxiety response than the other three
groups, between whom no differences emerged. The elite/high control group also demonstrated
lower levels of the worry response compared to the low control groups, but no difference was
found with the nonelite/high control group. The main effects for somatic anxiety and self-
confidence revealed the high control group to have lower levels of the anxiety response (M =
17.4, SD = 5.2) than the low control group (M = 20.11, SD = 5.78) and higher self-confidence
levels (high control, M = 25.03, SD = 4.94; low control, M = 21.57, SD = 5.4).
-------------------------------------------------
INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE
-------------------------------------------------
Challenge
Two-way ANOVAs (Skill x Challenge) of the anxiety and self-confidence responses
revealed no significant interaction effects, although significant skill-level main effects were
evident for both direction responses (worry direction, F [1,177] = 10.09; p<.005; somatic anxiety
direction, F [1,177] = 19.63; p<.001). Significant challenge main effects were evident for worry
intensity (F [1,177] = 5.38; p<.05) and somatic anxiety intensity (F [1,177] = 6.71; p<.01).
Means, standard deviations and F ratios for the interactions are presented in Table 4. Skill level
main effects revealed that elite athletes reported their somatic anxiety to be significantly more
facilitative (M = 4.96, SD = 9.71) than nonelite athletes (M = -.34, SD = 7.12), and worry
intensity as being significantly less debilitating (M = -1.81, SD = 4.96; nonelite, M = -5.4, SD =
7.15). Challenge main effects for the intensity levels revealed lower levels for high challenge
athletes (somatic anxiety, M = 17.69, SD = 5.03; worry intensity, M = 15.61, SD = 3.89)
compared to their low-challenge counterparts (somatic anxiety, M = 19.8, SD = 5.71; worry
intensity, M = 17.06, SD = 5.1).
-------------------------------------------------
INSERT TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE
-------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
13
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the resilient personality construct
of hardiness, its subcomponents and skill level upon the intensity and directional components of
the trait anxiety response and self-confidence intensity. The predictions of this study were based
upon research from both the sporting and mainstream areas that found the hardy individual to
demonstrate reduced perceptions of life stress (Kelley, 1994; Kelley et al., 1999; Kobasa, 1979;
Kobasa & Puccetti, 1983; Martin et al., 1999; Roth et al., 1989), use effective coping
mechanisms (Florian et al., 1995; Goss, 1994; Maddi, 1987; Williams et al., 1992), and
associated the elite athlete with a more facilitative response and higher self-confidence (Hanton
& Jones, 1997; Jones et al., 1994; Jones & Swain, 1995; Perry & Williams, 1998; Hanton &
Connaughton, 2002; Jones & Hanton, 2001). Therefore, the elite/high hardy individual was
predicted to demonstrate lower competitive anxiety intensity levels, a more facilitative response
and higher self-confidence levels.
The hypotheses were partially supported as the interaction between hardiness and skill
provided lower worry intensity levels and a more facilitative perception of somatic anxiety and
worry for the elite/high hardy group. Although the skill level and hardiness interaction for self-
confidence failed to achieve significance (p=.157), the elite/high hardy group demonstrated the
highest levels of self-confidence with over a three and a half point difference in mean score
compared to both low hardiness groups and close to two points greater than the nonelite/high
hardy group. Lesser worry intensity levels found for the elite/high hardy individual and the
significantly lower hardiness induced somatic response upholds the research within the clinical
(Maddi, 1987) and sporting field (Goss, 1994) that have found reduced psychological distress to
be associated with hardiness. A more facilitative trait anxiety response discovered for the same
group adds to the findings for the positive nature of hardiness (Allred & Smith, 1989; Rhodewalt
& Agustsdottir, 1984; Westman, 1990; Wiebe, 1991) and supports Jones, Hanton and associates
who found the elite athlete to demonstrate a more facilitative anxiety response.
A more detailed examination by measuring the interaction effects of each hardiness
subcomponent and skill level upon the trait anxiety response revealed similar interactions
between commitment, control and skill respectively as those found for hardiness, although the
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
14
challenge analyses failed to produce any significant interactions. Similar to the skill
level/hardiness interactions, those for commitment/control and skill level respectively produced a
significantly more facilitative response for the elite/high commitment, control athletes, compared
to the other three groups within each analysis. An interaction for commitment and skill level
was also evident for self-confidence. There was no interaction between skill and hardiness or its
remaining two subcomponents upon self-confidence, this may suggest that the commitment
component may produce the greater levels of self-confidence due to the individual believing that
they have the capabilities to stay involved when stressful situations rise to precarious levels
(Kobasa, 1979). The greater self-confidence values for the elite/high commitment group
compared to the respective groups within the other analyses support this proposition.
Interactions for worry intensity within the hardiness, commitment and control analyses
highlighted significant differences between the elite/high construct groups and the elite and
nonelite/low construct groups, but not the nonelite/high construct groups. This possibly suggests
that individuals high in such constructs will always appraise stressors as less threatening
(Kobasa, 1982). The mechanisms by which this takes place, although challenging, presents an
interesting avenue for future research.
The absence of significant interactions between challenge and skill support the
recommendations of clinical researchers who emphasize the importance of analyzing the
individual effects of hardiness subcomponents as well as the composite (Carver, 1989; Funk &
Houston, 1987; Ganellen & Blaney, 1984; Hull et al., 1987). However, challenge main effects
found for the intensity responses, where lower levels of both anxiety components were evident
for the high challenge athletes, possibly demonstrate effective appraisals of stressors by
individuals high in hardiness or particular subcomponent.
The main effects occurred for skill level upon both directional responses showed the elite
athletes to interpret their anxiety as more facilitative and less debilitative for somatic anxiety and
worry respectively. Self-confidence levels, although not significant, are greatest for those high
in challenge, with the largest values being reported for the elite/high challenge athletes. The
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
15
latter group also demonstrated the least debilitative and most facilitative responses for worry and
somatic anxiety respectively.
The lack of interactions for challenge and skill level could possibly be explained by the
present study’s investigation of the trait anxiety response, suggesting that the challenge
subcomponent might be more influential upon a state response. Although Jones et al. (1994)
suggested that individuals may have a predisposition to perceive their anxiety symptoms as
facilitative or debilitative, the situation specific performance environment may well precipitate
different anxiety responses for the individual high in challenge. Second, the fact that the
elite/high challenge athletes perceive their somatic anxiety as more facilitative, their worry as
less debilitative, while exhibiting higher levels of self-confidence further supports the ‘confident
coping’ notion (Jones & Hanton, 2001). Lower self-confidence levels for the elite/high
challenge group compared to the elite/high hardiness, commitment and control athletes
respectively could therefore possibly explain the debilitative worry response. That is, the self-
confidence levels for the elite/high challenge group were not high enough to produce a
facilitative response, providing further support for the importance of self-confidence when
examining competitive anxiety.
With regards to somatic anxiety, hardiness and its subcomponents were the influential
variables for the intensity response within each respective analysis. The main effects for
hardiness upon the intensity response is not surprising due to its resilient nature and is consistent
with previous research that has reported no difference between elite and nonelite individuals for
the response (Jones et al., 1994; Jones & Swain, 1995). The more facilitative response for
somatic anxiety within all elite groups for hardiness and its subcomponents compared to those
within the same groups for worry supports the proposition by Jones and Hanton (2001) that
irrespective of the physiological symptoms experienced, performers may be primarily concerned
with the cognitive state.
The directional values of worry for the elite/high hardy individual are dramatically lower
than that of previous studies measuring skill level (Hanton & Jones, 1997; Jones et al., 1994;
Jones & Swain, 1995). The elite athlete, low in hardiness demonstrated highly negative
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
16
interpretations, much higher than the modified CSAI-2 values for the nonelite groups reported
within the studies by Jones and associates. The contradiction between the findings of Jones and
associates and those of the present study for the cognitive directional response can possibly be
explained by the current sample being chosen from a mixed sporting background. Hanton and
Jones (1997) and Jones et al. (1994) both used swimmers, whereas Jones and Swain (1995)
examined cricketers. Incorporating more than one sport within the analyses could therefore have
produced confounding results. The importance of the nature of the sport when investigating the
directional response has been highlighted by Hanton et al. (2000).
An alternative explanation for this inconsistency stems from Lane et al. (1999) who
found flaws in the factor structure proposed by Martens et al. (1990). The current authors stress
that the directional research performed by Jones and associates over the past decade
implemented the modified CSAI-2, which uses the term ‘concern’ for items of cognitive anxiety.
Such a term has been criticized by Lane et al. (1999) who emphasized that being concerned
about performance may not represent negative thinking. The present study employed the
modified SAS, which incorporates the term ‘worry’ for the cognitive measure, a term suggested
by Lane et al. (1999) to be the most desirable alternative to ‘concern’, possibly implying that the
trait anxiety measure may well be ‘tapping’ into negative thoughts. Jones and Hanton (2001)
defined anxiety as a negative response and proposed that individuals who do interpret symptoms
as positive are indeed experiencing a different psychological characteristic, which is mislabeled
as anxiety. It is possible that the latter proposition may not be applicable to the SAS measure,
however it still could be the case that although worry is being measured, the proposed over-
riding effects of positive feelings over the negative response are occurring (Jones & Hanton,
2001).
Hardiness is very much a positive psychological construct, which is accompanied by
effective appraisal and coping strategies, both of which reflect high levels of self-confidence.
The nonelite individuals, high in hardiness, commitment or control however showed the most
negative interpretations of their anxiety levels with respect to upcoming performance. A
possible explanation for this is that hardiness may only influence negative psychological factors
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
17
when stressful life events mount (Kobasa et al., 1982). It is plausible that increases in such
stressors as media involvement and sponsorship helps to create a more stressful sporting
environment for the elite athlete when compared to that of the nonelite athlete. Therefore,
personality hardiness may be more of an influence to the elite athlete within this environment
and thus help explain the lower worry and higher self-confidence levels, as well as the more
facilitative directional interpretations. The study by Allred and Smith (1989) supports Kobasa et
al.’s (1982) suggestion as individuals high in hardiness were found to report more positive
statements in a high stress condition than when the condition was less stressful. Such an
investigation would be an interesting avenue for future research within a sporting environment.
An alternative explanation for the debilitative worry response within the nonelite/high hardy,
commitment, and control groups is that the respective elite groups possessed greater levels of
self-confidence. This suggests that an interaction between elitism and hardiness will further
increase self-confidence levels and in doing so produce a positive response. Although the
elite/low hardiness group’s interpretations of worry did not differ significantly to that of the
elite/high hardy group, significance was marginally missed and the latter group attained a
facilitative interpretation.
The greater self-belief associated with control (one is in control and can cope with the
situation) and commitment (one has the ability to reach the goal) along with the self-confident
nature of the elite athlete within the sporting environment, further implies that positive feelings
may somewhat over-ride the negative anxiety response. This also suggests that hardiness, or its
subcomponents control and commitment, could explain the self-confidence/anxiety relationship,
even more so when the individual is an elite athlete. The presence of hardiness within the elite
athlete’s psychological make-up may therefore increase the chance of confidently coping with
anxiety.
The findings of this study may also imply the effective use of appraisal and coping
strategies by the hardy individuals. The effective appraisal and coping mechanisms used by the
hardy individual could also indicate high levels of self-confidence (Kobasa, 1979). This
suggests that the individual initially appraises the stressor as less threatening, then with the
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
18
confidence that one can control and cope with the specific stressor, the individual reconstructs it
into something more positive (Gentry & Kobasa, 1984). Hanton and Connaughton (2002)
reported elite swimmers with facilitative interpretations of cognitive anxiety block out negative
thoughts and images by replacing them with positive ones. This was perceived to enhance self-
confidence and performance. This therefore implies that although positive feelings may over-
ride or protect against the anxiety response, it is not only the positive feelings such as self-
confidence that are important. Indeed the appraisal and coping methods that are employed by
these individuals should also be considered. The results for hardiness and its subcomponents
possibly suggest that individuals high in these constructs always appraise stressors as less
harmful (hence the lower intensity levels for somatic anxiety and worry within each group).
Further, the belief that one can control and stay committed to a stressor in conjunction with
adaptive coping mechanisms then enables the elite athlete to positively interpret their anxiety
symptoms. The implications this has for the elite athlete include the education of appropriate
appraisal and coping strategies to effectively deal with stressors. Due to these mechanisms being
associated with the hardy individual, an alternative method for the sport psychologist to employ
for individuals low in this construct and self-confidence could be an adaptation of Maddi’s
(1987) hardiness training program. This program is designed for the working sector; therefore it
would be advantageous for a sport related program to be designed and made readily available.
This study is limited to only making possible assumptions about the appraisal and coping
strategies used by the hardy individual and their effects upon anxiety due to its failure to measure
appraisal and coping mechanisms. Future research is therefore directed to analyse the effects of
these hardiness-associated mechanisms upon the trait and state anxiety response. This
investigation is however unique in that it is one of the first studies to analyse the effects of
hardiness upon the competitive anxiety response. Further, it is innovative due to the employment
of Jones and Swain’s (1992) directional scale in conjunction with the SAS, although the
direction scale needs to be more extensively validated.
The current authors however do recognize a number of limitations that should be
addressed in future research. First, a median split for hardiness and its subcomponents was
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
19
preferred ahead of a triadic split. Wiebe (1991) incorporated the triadic split method, where a
large group was split into three, with the middle group being eliminated. This left a large
difference between the highest composite score obtainable for an individual low in hardiness and
the lowest score obtainable for an individual high in hardiness. Attempting to split groups
through this method, however, would require a sample larger than that employed in the present
study. Second, the hardiness group were determined from a median cut-off of the hardiness
composite and not from a cut-off from all three subcomponents. Funk (1992) suggested that by
not determining high hardy individuals from those high in all three subcomponents is indeed
violating hardiness theory. This method would also make the number of subjects within each
group inadequate, such that the homogeneity of variance assumption could be violated. The
percentage of individuals who fell into Funk’s (1992) categorization within this study was below
50% in all groups, directing future studies to use larger sample sizes and a cut off that adheres to
Funks recommendations. Considering the findings of Hanton et al. (2000) further measurements
of the effects of hardiness, and the role of appraisal and coping strategies, upon the competitive
anxiety response with respect to specific sports is also recommended.
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
20
References
Albrecht, R.R., & Feltz, D.L. (1987). Generality and specificity of attention related to
competitive anxiety and sport performance. Journal of Sport psychology, 9, 231-248.
Allred, K.D., & Smith, T.W. (1989). The hardy personality: Cognitive and physiological
response to evaluative threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 257-266.
Bartone, P.T. (1989). Predictors of stress-related illness in city bus drivers. Journal of
Occupational Medicine, 31, 857-863.
Bartone, P.T., Ursano, R.J., Wright, K.M., & Ingraham, L.H. (1989). The impact of
military air disaster on the health of assistance workers: A prospective study. Journal of Nervous
and Mental Disease, 177, 317-328.
Burton, D. (1998). Measuring Competitive State Anxiety. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advances
in sport and exercise psychology measurement, pp. 129-148. Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology, Inc.
Burton, D., & Naylor, S. (1997). Is anxiety really facilitative? Reaction to the myth that
cognitive anxiety always impairs performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 295-302.
Carver, C.S. (1989). How should multifaceted personality constructs be tested? Issues
illustrated by self-monitoring, attribution style, and hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56, 577-585.
Dunn, J.G.H., Dunn, J.C., Wilson, P., & Syrotuik, D.G. (2000). Reexamining the factorial
composition and factor structure of the sport anxiety scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 22, 183-193.
Fletcher, D. & Hanton, S. (2001). The relationship between psychological skills usage
and competitive anxiety responses. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2, 89-101.
Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Taubman, O. (1995). Does hardiness contribute to mental
health during a stressful real-life situation? The roles of appraisal and coping. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 687-695.
Funk, S.C. (1992). Hardiness: A review of theory and research. Health Psychology, 11,
335-345.
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
21
Funk, S.C., & Houston, B.K. (1987). A critical analysis of the hardiness scale’s validity
and utility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 572-578.
Ganellen, R.J., & Blaney, P.H. (1984). Hardiness and social support as moderators of the
effects of life stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 156-163.
Gentry, W.D., & Kobasa, S.C. (1984). Social and psychological resources mediating
stress-illness relationships in humans. In W.D. Gentry (Ed.), Handbook of behavioral medicine,
pp. 45-72. New York: Guilford Press.
Goss, J.D. (1994). Hardiness and mood disturbances in swimmers while overtraining.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 135-149.
Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). Perceived control of anxiety and its relationship
to self-confidence and performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 87-97.
Hanton, S., & Jones, J.G. (1997). Antecedents of intensity and direction dimensions of
competitive anxiety as a function of skill. Psychological Reports, 81, 1139-1147.
Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (1999a). The acquisition and development of cognitive skills and
strategies. I: Making the butterflies fly in formation. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 1-21.
Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (1999b). The effects of a multimodal intervention program on
performers. II: Training the butterflies to fly in formation. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 22-41.
Hanton, S., Jones, J.G., & Mullen, R. (2000). Intensity and direction of competitive state
anxiety as interpreted by rugby players and rifle shooters. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90, 513-
521.
Hardy, L. (1998). Responses to the reactants on three myths in applied consultancy work.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 212-219.
Hull, J.G., Van Treuren, R.R., & Virnelli, S. (1987). Hardiness and Health: A critique
and alternative approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 518-530.
Jones, J.G. (1991). Recent developments and current issues in competitive state anxiety
research. The Psychologist, 4, 152-155.
Jones, J.G. (1995). More than just a game: Research developments and issues in
competitive anxiety in sport. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 449 – 478.
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
22
Jones, J.G., & Hanton, S. (1996). Interpretation of competitive anxiety symptoms and
goal attainment expectancies. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 144-157.
Jones, G., & Hanton, S. (2001). Cognitive labeling of precompetitive affective states as a
function of directional anxiety interpretations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 385-395.
Jones, J.G., Hanton, S., & Swain, A. (1994). Intensity and Interpretation of anxiety
symptoms in elite and non-elite performers. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 657 –
663.
Jones, J.G., & Swain, A.B.J. (1992). Intensity and direction as dimensions of competitive
state anxiety and relationships with competitiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 467-472.
Jones, J.G., & Swain, A.B.J. (1995). Predispositions to experience debilitative and
facilitative anxiety in elite and non-elite performers. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 201-211.
Kelley, B.C. (1994). A model of stress and burnout in collegiate coaches: Effects of
gender and time of season. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 48-58.
Kelley, B.C., Eklund, R.C., & Ritter-Taylor, M. (1999). Stress and burnout among
collegiate tennis coaches. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 21, 113-130.
Kobasa, S.C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality and health: An inquiry into
hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1-11.
Kobasa, S.C. (1982). Commitment and coping in stress resistance among lawyers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 707-717.
Kobasa, S.C., Maddi, S.R., & Khan, S. (1982). Hardiness and Health: A prospective
study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 168-177.
Kobasa, S.C., Maddi, S.R., & Zola, M.A. (1983). Type A and Hardiness. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 6, 41-51.
Kobasa, S.C., & Puccetti, M.C. (1983). Personality and social resources in stress
resistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 839-850.
Lane, A.M., Sewell, D.F., Terry, P.C. Bartram, D., & Nesti, M.S. (1999). Confirmatory
factor analysis of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. Journal of Sport Sciences, 17, 505-
512.
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
23
Maddi, S.R. (1987). Hardiness training at Illinois bell telephone. In J. Opatz (Ed.), Health
promotion evaluation. pp. 101-115. Natural Wellness, Stephens Point, WI: National Wellness
Institute.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R.S., Bump, L.A., & Smith, D.E. (1990). Development
and validation of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory – 2 (CSAI-2). In R. Martens, R.S.
Vealey and D. Burton, Competitive anxiety in sport, pp. 117-190. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Martin, J.J., Kelley, B.C., & Eklund, R.C. (1999). A model of stress and burnout in male
high school athletic directors. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 21, 280-294.
Ntoumanis, N., & Jones, J.G. (1998). Interpretation of competitive trait anxiety
symptoms as a function of locus of control beliefs. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29,
99-114.
Okun, M.A., Zautra, A.J., & Robinson, S.E. (1988). Hardiness and health among women
with rheumatoid arthritis. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 101-107.
Perry, J.D., & Williams, J.M. (1998). Relationship of intensity and direction of
competitive trait anxiety to skill level and gender in tennis. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 169-179.
Rhodewalt, F., & Agustsdottir, S. (1984). On the relationship of hardiness to the Type A
behavior pattern: Perception of life events versus coping with life events. Journal of Research in
Personality, 18, 212-223.
Roth, D.L., Wiebe, D.J., Fillingim, R.B., & Shay, K.A. (1989). Life events, fitness,
hardiness, and health: A simultaneous analysis of proposed stress-resistance effects. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 136-142.
Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Schutz, R.W. (1990). Measurement correlates of sport-
specific cognitive and somatic trait anxiety: The Sport Anxiety Scale. Anxiety Research, 2, 263-
280.
Westman, M. (1990). The relationship between stress and performance: The moderating
effect of hardiness. Human Performance, 3, 141-155.
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
24
White, S.A., & Zellner, S.R. (1996). The relationship between goal orientation, beliefs
about the cause of sport success, and trait anxiety among high school, intercollegiate, and
recreational sport participants. Sport Psychologist, 10, 58-72.
Wiebe, D.J. (1991). Hardiness and stress moderation: A test of proposed mechanisms.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 89-99.
Wiggins, M.S. (1998). Anxiety intensity and direction: Preperformance temporal patterns
and expectations in athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 201-211.
Williams, P.G., Wiebe, D.J., & Smith, T.W. (1992). Coping processes as mediators of the
relationship between hardiness and health. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15, 237-255.
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
25
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Ratios for Two-Way Interactions (Skill level x
Hardiness level) for Worry and Somatic Anxiety Intensity and Direction and Self-Confidence.
Nonelite
Elite
Low
Hardiness
M (SD)
High
Hardiness
M (SD)
Low
Hardiness
M (SD)
High
Hardiness
M (SD)
d.f.
F
P
n
Somatic
Intensity
55
20.02
(5.19)
41
16.97
(5.23)
44
20.55
(6.69)
50
17.22
(4.86)
1, 186
.031
.86
Somatic
Direction
-0.009
(7.73)
-.08
(6.88)
1.73
(9.28)
8.52
(8.76)
1, 186
9.77
<.005
Worry
Intensity
17.71
(4.40)
16.24
(3.99)
17.88
(4.97)
13.88
(3.74)
1, 186
4.1
<.05
Worry
Direction
-4.4
(7.52)
-6.9
(6.58)
-4.23
(9.40)
1.16
(8.42)
1, 186
11.33
<.001
Self
Confidence
22.18
(5.09)
23.85
(5.55)
21.89
(5.99)
25.76
(4.64)
1, 186
2.02
.157
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
26
Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Ratios for Two-Way Interactions (Skill level x
Commitment level) for Worry and Somatic Anxiety Intensity and Direction and Self-Confidence.
Nonelite
Elite
Low
Commitment
M (SD)
High
Commitment
M (SD)
Low
Commitment
M (SD)
High
Commitment
M (SD)
d.f.
F
P
N
Somatic
Intensity
52
20.04
(4.87)
42
17.9
(5.44)
39
20.33
(6.72)
48
17.58
(4.82)
1, 177
.143
.71
Somatic
Direction
.31
(7.25)
-1.9
(6.95)
.79
(8.36)
9.46
(8.69)
1, 177
21.52
<.001
Worry
Intensity
17.55
(4.32)
16.47
(4.27)
17.82
(4.45)
13.85
(4.27)
1, 177
4.97
<.05
Worry
Direction
-3.62
(7.41)
-7.73
(6.37)
-5
(8.61)
2.54
(8.5)
1, 177
25.19
<.001
Self
Confidence
22.73
(4.79)
23.57
(5.66)
21.28
(4.91)
26.71
(4.54)
1, 177
9.51
<.005
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
27
Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Ratios for Two-Way Interactions (Skill level x
Control level) for Worry and Somatic Anxiety Intensity and Direction and Self-Confidence.
Nonelite
Elite
Low
Control
M (SD)
High
Control
M (SD)
Low
Control
M (SD)
High
Control
M (SD)
d.f.
F
P
n
Somatic
Intensity
42
20.21
(5.22)
48
17.45
(5.31)
39
20
(6.4)
50
17.34
(5.14)
1, 175
.003
.95
Somatic
Direction
-.12
(7.46)
-.52
(7.09)
2.1
(8.16)
8.16
(8.86)
1, 175
6.81
<.01
Worry
Intensity
17.62
(4.22)
16.29
(4.04)
18.05
(4.76)
13.52
(3.64)
1, 175
6.12
<.05
Worry
Direction
-4.26
(6.74)
-6.08
(7.54)
-4.74
(9.44)
1.24
(8.71)
1, 175
10.14
<.005
Self
Confidence
21.38
(4.68)
24.23
(5.05)
21.77
(6.14)
25.8
(4.75)
1, 175
.59
.45
Hardiness, Skill Level and Trait Anxiety Response…
28
Table 4 Means, Standard Deviations, and F Ratios for Two-Way Interactions (Skill level x
Challenge level) for Worry and Somatic Anxiety Intensity and Direction and Self-Confidence.
Nonelite
Elite
Low
Challenge
M (SD)
High
Challenge
M (SD)
Low
Challenge
M (SD)
High
Challenge
M (SD)
d.f.
F
P
n
Somatic
Intensity
47
19.87
(4.67)
50
17.7
(5.15)
50
19.74
(6.57)
34
17.68
(4.9)
1, 177
.004
.95
Somatic
Direction
-.28
(7.06)
-.4
(7.25)
3.68
(10.4)
6.85
(8.38)
1, 177
1.7
.19
Worry
Intensity
17.74
(4.66)
16.1
(3.91)
16.42
(5.44)
14.88
(3.8)
1, 177
.006
.94
Worry
Direction
-5.68
(7.93)
-5.18
(6.39)
-2.86
(10.01)
-.26
(7.35)
1, 177
.391
.74
Self
Confidence
22.95
(5.69)
23.00
(5.07)
23.48
(6.16)
24.12
(4.83)
1, 177
.128
.72
