The Influence of the Social Environment Context in Stress and Coping in Sport

Abstract

Lazarus (1999) model of stress and coping is based on the reciprocal interaction between the person and the environment. The aim of this study therefore was to examine whether the social environment (significant others) are of influence on the stress and coping of team athletes. The study consisted of two separate studies in which a total of 12 team athletes participated. First, six field hockey players (two males, four females) aged 18–29 years (M = 23.0 years) participated in a diary study. Second, six team athletes of different sports (two males, four females) aged 24–29 years (M = 25.8 years) were interviewed. The results showed that in particular teammates are important for the appraisal of stress and coping in team sports. For over half (i.e., 51.5%) of the reported stressors in the diary study the participants felt that others were of influence on their coping. Team athletes experienced the highest stress intensity during competition, or when they appraised the situation as a threat. When others were of influence the team athletes were most likely to appraise the situation as a challenge and use problem- or emotion-focused coping strategies. These finding might provide a new portal for intervention to enhance coping with stress in sport and enhance performance and satisfaction.

Full text

fpsyg-07-00875 June 10, 2016 Time: 12:31 # 1
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 14 June 2016
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00875
Edited by:
Duarte Araújo,
University of Lisbon, Portugal
Reviewed by:
Ian Renshaw,
Queensland University of Technology,
Australia
Luiz Uehara,
Australian Catholic University,
Australia
*Correspondence:
Remco Polman
rpolman@bournemouth.ac.uk
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Movement Science and Sport
Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 26 January 2016
Accepted: 27 May 2016
Published: 14 June 2016
Citation:
Kerdijk C, van der Kamp J and
Polman R (2016) The Influence of the
Social Environment Context in Stress
and Coping in Sport.
Front. Psychol. 7:875.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00875
The Influence of the Social
Environment Context in Stress and
Coping in Sport
Carlijn Kerdijk1, John van der Kamp1and Remco Polman2*
1Faculty of Human Movement Science, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2Center for Behavior Change,
Psychology Department, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK
Lazarus (1999) model of stress and coping is based on the reciprocal interaction
between the person and the environment. The aim of this study therefore was to
examine whether the social environment (significant others) are of influence on the stress
and coping of team athletes. The study consisted of two separate studies in which a total
of 12 team athletes participated. First, six field hockey players (two males, four females)
aged 18–29 years (M=23.0 years) participated in a diary study. Second, six team
athletes of different sports (two males, four females) aged 24–29 years (M=25.8 years)
were interviewed. The results showed that in particular teammates are important for the
appraisal of stress and coping in team sports. For over half (i.e., 51.5%) of the reported
stressors in the diary study the participants felt that others were of influence on their
coping. Team athletes experienced the highest stress intensity during competition, or
when they appraised the situation as a threat. When others were of influence the team
athletes were most likely to appraise the situation as a challenge and use problem-
or emotion-focused coping strategies. These finding might provide a new portal for
intervention to enhance coping with stress in sport and enhance performance and
satisfaction.
Keywords: stress, coping, social environment, sport, appraisal
INTRODUCTION
The most widely used model to understand the relation between stress, coping, and emotions
(Nicholls and Polman, 2007) is the transactional model (Lazarus, 1999). This model explains the
relation between stress and coping as a dynamic process concerning the individual’s internal and
situational environment, where the person appraises the situation through primary and secondary
appraisal (Lazarus, 1999). Primary appraisal is the person’s belief of the significance of the situation
related to their personal values, beliefs or intentions. Secondary appraisal refers to a complex
evaluative process examining the coping options available to limit negative and increase positive
outcomes (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984).
Athletes have multiple options to cope with stressful situations and minimize potential harm.
Problem-focused coping strategies reduce the impact of the stressor by focussing on a task or action
(Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Regulation of emotions that are incited by a stressor is considered as
an emotion-focused coping strategy (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). The athlete uses an avoidance
coping strategy when he/she is trying to keep away from the stressor, by either cognitively
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1June 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 875

fpsyg-07-00875 June 10, 2016 Time: 12:31 # 2
Kerdijk et al. The Role of Others in Coping with Stress
(e.g., blocking thoughts) or behaviourally (e.g., walking away
from the stressor) avoiding the stressor (Krohne, 1993).
The coping strategies used by athletes are influenced by
whether they perceive a stressful encounter as a threat or a
challenge (Anshel et al., 2001;Levy et al., 2010). Threat appraisal
is associated with more frequent use of maladaptive coping
strategies, negative emotions and lower self-rated performance
scores. Challenge appraisal, on the other hand, results in the use
of adaptive coping strategies, positive emotions higher self-rated
performance (Nicholls et al., 2012).
Based on DeLongis and Holtzman (2005) Figure 1 provides an
overview of previous research which has examined possible direct
and indirect effects of stable factors and situational influences
on the stress and coping process in sport. Previous research
has examined direct and indirect effects of stable factors on
the stress and coping process in sport. For example, personality
(Kaiseler et al., 2012a), gender (Kaiseler et al., 2012b), and type
of sport (Giacobbi et al., 2004) have been shown to influence
how athletes appraise stressful events and the way they cope.
However, situational factors also influence the stress and coping
process and are defined as ‘related to the immediate nature of
the stressful transaction, which was the specific focus of the
individual’s coping attempts (Parkes, 1986, p. 1279).
Some research has examined situational factors including
the role of sources of stress (Anshel and Kaissidis, 1997) and
perceptions of control (Kaiseler et al., 2012b) on the stress and
coping process. Research on game location/home advantage in
sport provide indirect evidence that the social context might
influence stress and coping in sport. This research has shown
that those competing at home in team and individual sports are
more likely to be successful (Carron et al., 2005) with research
in basketball suggesting that in particular away players engage in
more dysfunctional assertive behaviors (e.g., more fouls; McGuire
et al., 1992). We conducted a systematic review for studies
examining the role of the social context and in particular the role
of significant other persons on the stress and coping process. No
relevant study was found.
We have defined the role of significant others on stress and
coping as ‘the experienced influence of the uncalled-for behavior
(verbal or non-verbal) of others on the athlete’s appraisal of
stress and their coping.’ This distinguish this influence from
social support, the ‘process of interaction in relationships which
improves coping, esteem, belonging, and competence through
actual or perceived exchanges of physical or psychological
resources’ (Gottlieb, 2000, p. 28). Besides highlighting outcomes
of social support this definition also stresses the relevance
of communication and that social support is an interactive
process in which individuals exchange physical or psychological
resources. Our definition is also distinct from social support
as a coping strategy. Hence, informational or emotional social
support coping strategies are conscious efforts of athletes to deal
with a stressful encounter.
FIGURE 1 | Conceptual framework of how stable factors and situational factors can directly and indirectly influence the stress and coping process in
the domain of sport.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2June 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 875

fpsyg-07-00875 June 10, 2016 Time: 12:31 # 3
Kerdijk et al. The Role of Others in Coping with Stress
Previous research into stress and coping has been limited
to studies examining the role of person factors. Therefore, this
study examined the role of others in team sports on the way
athletes experience and appraised stressful encounters and in the
way they coped with these stressors. This is, to our knowledge,
the first study examining the role of the social environment
(i.e., through others) on the stress and coping process and will
therefore be inductive in nature. We therefore did not make any
specific predictions. To address the aim of the study, two different
methods were used. We used a diary method to collect data
over time thereby reducing the effects of retrospective recall of
a sample of field hockey players (Nicholls et al., 2006). Secondly,
the interview method was used to obtain more in-depth account
of stress and coping in a social context. This was done with a
sample of athletes from different team sports to explore whether
findings could be generalized across sports.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study 1: Diary Study
Participants
The participants for the diary part of this research were six
elite field hockey players (two males, four females), aged 18–29
years (M=23.0 years, SD =4.2). Their sport experience varied
between 12 and 20 years (M=16.2 years, SD =3.2). The level in
which the participants played was the highest or second highest
hockey competition league in The Netherlands or Belgium. The
study had the approval of a University ethics committee in
Australia and The Netherlands. All participants provided consent
before the start of the research.
Procedure
In both studies the influence of others was defined as the
experienced influence of unsolicited behavior (verbal or non-
verbal) of others on the participants’ appraisal of stress and their
coping.
To assess stress and coping longitudinally an online diary was
developed. Participants were required to complete the diary on
each day they engaged in a training session or competition during
a period of 21 days. The diary was completed on a personal
computer as soon as possible following a training session or
competition. To improve adherence participants were contacted
by email on each competition or training day (Nicholls et al.,
2009).
Instruments
The diary consisted of an online form in which participants
answered seven questions. Firstly, they were asked to list
‘the demands you encountered that caused worry or negative
emotions’ (Aldwin, 2007). Participants were asked if the situation
was perceived to be a challenge or threat and to ‘rate the intensity
of your feeling after the stressor occurred.’ Stress intensity was
scored on a 5 point Likert scale where 1 =‘not intense’ and
5=‘extremely intense.’ Regarding the coping strategies, an open-
ended format was used whereby participants were asked for each
stressor to ‘write down what you did to manage the stressor.’
Following this the participants were asked whether the stressor
and coping response was influenced by others (answering with
yes or no), and when yes to ‘describe how others influenced your
reaction to the event and the way you coped.’
Data Analysis
The written open-ended stressors and coping responses from
the diary study were transcribed verbatim and subjected to an
inductive and deductive content analysis procedure (Maykut and
Morehouse, 1994). Similar stressors and coping strategies were
identified and assigned a descriptive label and a general rule
of inclusion was written. Once these themes were created and
the data analysis procedure progressed, stressors and coping
strategies that appeared to fit into an established category were
deductively analyzed within that particular theme (Patton, 2002).
Coping was analyzed at the dimensional level. Therefore, coping
strategies identified were categorized into one of four dimensions:
Problem-focussed coping, emotion-focussed coping, avoidance
coping or no coping. Data was analyzed by the first author and
a 10% of the sample was analyzed by the third author. Following
discussion they achieved 100% agreement.
Stressor intensity in relation to threat/challenge and training
sessions and competitions were calculated, and then divided
by their frequency. This generated a mean intensity rating for
each stressor when appraised as either a threat or a challenge
during either training or competition. Student t-tests were
performed to examine differences in stress intensity during
game or training, when stress was appraised as a threat or
challenge, and when there was or was not felt the influence
of others on stress and coping during the situation. A one-
way ANOVA was conducted to see whether there was a
difference between the experienced stress intensity between the
four higher order coping dimensions. The calculation of a χ2
for the four higher order coping dimensions and the influence
of others were performed to examine whether there was a
difference between chosen coping dimension and the influence
of others.
RESULTS STUDY 1
The participants completed 81.4% of their diary entries in a
timely manner over the 21 days diary period. All 28 games of the
participants were noted in their diaries (100%). The participants
completed 31 of the 44 training session entries which were
planned over the 21 days diary period (70.5%). Missing training
entries were related to injury, canceled training sessions through
bad weather, or off field team activities.
Stressors
The frequencies and percentage, as a function of situation
(training or competition), type and influence of others, which
were recorded in the diaries, are shown in Table 1. More
stressors were reported during competition and slightly more
stressors were appraised as a threat (54.4%) than as a challenge.
In 51.5% of the reported situations the athletes indicated that
others had an influence. There was no significant difference
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3June 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 875

fpsyg-07-00875 June 10, 2016 Time: 12:31 # 4
Kerdijk et al. The Role of Others in Coping with Stress
TABLE 1 | Frequency of stressors experienced by the athletes during competition and training, whether appraised as a challenge or a threat and
whether influenced by others or not.
Situation Type Influence of Others Total
(n=68)
Stressors Competition
(n=36)
Training
(n=32)
Threat
(n=37)
Challenge
(n=31)
Yes
(n=35)
No
(n=33)
Official 10 (27.8%)
(M=3.9)
2 (6.3%)
(M=2.5)
9 (24.3%)
(M=4.2)
3 (9.7%)
(M=2.3)
8 (22.9%)
(M=3.9)
4 (12.1)
(M=3.3)
12 (17.6%)
(M=3.7)
Performance/
Outcome
5 (13.9%)
(M=3.2)
4 (12.5%)
(M=2.8)
3 (8.1%)
(M=4.3)
6 (19.4%)
(M=2.3)
5 (14.3%)
(M=3.6)
4 (12.1%)
(M=2.3)
9 (13.2%)
(M=3.0)
Team-mate 8 (22.2%)
(M=3.4)
9 (28.1%)
(M=2.9)
11 (29.7%)
(M=3.3)
6 (19.4%)
(M=3.0)
7 (20.0%)
(M=3.6)
10 (30.3%)
(M=3.3)
17 (25.0%)
(M=3.2)
Injury 1 (2.8%)
(M=5.0)
3 (9.4%)
(M=3.7)
4 (10.8%)
(M=4.0)
– 2 (5.7%)
(M=5.0)
2 (6.1%)
(M=3.0)
4 (5.9%)
(M=4.0)
Opponent 2 (5.6%)
(M=3.5)
1 (3.1%)
(M=4.0)
– 3 (9.7%)
(M=3.7)
1 (2.9%)
(M=4.0)
2 (6.1%)
(M=3.5)
3 (4.4%)
(M=3.7)
Coach 2 (5.6%)
(M=4.0)
2 (6.3%)
(M=1.5)
1 (2.7%)
(M=4.0)
3 (9.7%)
(M=2.3)
1 (2.9%)
(M=2.0)
3 (9.1%)
(M=3.0)
4 (5.9%)
(M=2.8)
Error 3 (8.3%)
(M=3.3)
4 (12.5%)
(M=3.5)
3 (8.1%)
(M=3.7)
4 (12.9%)
(M=3.3)
4 (11.4%)
(M=3.5)
3 (9.1%)
(M=3.3)
7 (10.3%)
(M=3.4)
Miscellaneous 5 (13.9%)
(M=4.0)
7 (21.9%)
(M=2.9)
6 (16.2%)
(M=3.8)
6 (19.4%)
(M=2.7)
7 (20.0%)
(M=3.4)
5 (15.2%)
(M=3.0)
12 (17.6%)
(M=3.3)
Total 36 (53.0%)
(M=3.7)
32 (47.0%)
(M=3.0)
37 (54.4%)
(M=3.8)
31 (45.6%)
(M=2.8)
35 (51.5%)
(M=3.5)
33 (48.5%)
(M=3.1)
68 (100%)
(M=3.3)
Also reported the mean stress intensity reported by the participants.
found between the frequencies of the different stressors when
it was appraised that others were of influence and where
others were not appraised as an influence (χ2=3.73;
P=0.81). Visual inspection of the data indicates that the
highest reported frequency of others being of influence on
the coping of the participants was related to the official
(22.9%).
At-test showed a difference in the stress intensity experienced
in a competition or training situation (t60 =2.42; P=0.02;
d=0.59) and in a threat or challenge situation (t59 =3.98;
P<0.001; d=0.98). The participants experienced higher stress
intensity during competition situations (M=3.7, SD =1.0)
compared to training situations (M=3.0, SD =1.2) and during
threat situations (M=3.8, SD =0.09) compared to challenge
situations (M=2.8, SD =1.1). Finally, whether the athletes
felt the influence of others (M=3.5, SD =1.1) or did not
feel influenced by others (M=3.1, SD =1.2), did not make a
significant difference for the experienced stress intensity of the
participants (t65 =1.65; P=0.09; d=0.40).
Coping
Table 2 shows the frequencies and percentage of the coping
dimensions reported by the participants. Of the 68 coping
strategies reported, 28 strategies were classified as problem-
focused coping (41.2%), 13 as emotion-focused coping (19.1%),
11 as avoidance coping (16.2%) and in 16 situations (23.5%)
no explicit coping strategy was employed. Problem-focussed
coping strategies included problem solving (11.8%), information
seeking (2.9%), increasing effort (13.2%), and communication
(13.2%). Emotion-focused coping consisted of the strategies
relaxation (1.5%), self-blame (2.9%), acceptance (1.5%), wishful
thinking (1.5%), positive orientation (5.9%), visualization (1.5%),
venting emotions (4.4%). Finally, blocking (8.8%) and behavioral
avoidance (7.4%) where the avoidance coping strategies reported.
The data showed that in competition situations more
problem- (52.8%) and emotion-focused coping strategies (22.2%)
were reported by the participants, while in training situations
avoidance coping strategies (25.0%) and no use of coping (31.3%)
were more often used to deal with stress. When the participants
appraised the stressor as a threat, they mainly used avoidance
coping strategies (21.6%) or no coping (29.8%), but when the
stressor was appraised as a challenge they more often applied a
problem- (48.4%) or emotion-focused coping strategy (25.8%).
To assess whether the use of a particular coping dimension
was associated with reporting higher stress intensity a one-
way ANOVA was conducted. There was no difference in stress
intensity between the four coping dimensions [F(3,67) =1.27;
P=0.29].
Influence of others
The participants mentioned 35 situations in which they perceived
others influencing their coping. In 32 situations (91.4%) the
participants reported that teammates were the ones influencing
their coping behavior (1x crowd; 2x coach). The mean stress
intensity for situations in which teammates influenced coping
behavior was 3.1).
In situations where the participants reported that others
were of influence, they reported more frequent use of problem-
(45.7%) or emotion-focused coping strategies (25.7%). In
contrast, when stressful encounters were not rated as being
influenced by others more avoidance coping strategies (21.2%)
or no coping (30.3%) was utilized. Also, stressful encounters in
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4June 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 875

fpsyg-07-00875 June 10, 2016 Time: 12:31 # 5
Kerdijk et al. The Role of Others in Coping with Stress
TABLE 2 | Frequency of coping by dimension for competition and training, whether situation was viewed as a threat or challenge or influenced by others.
Situation Type Influence of Others Total (n=68)
Coping dimension Competition (n=36) Training (n=32) Threat (n=37) Challenge (n=31) Yes (n=35) No (n=33)
Problem-focused 19 (52.8%)9(28.1%)12 (35.1%)15 (48.4%)16 (45.7%)12 (36.4%)28 (41.2%)
Emotion-focused 8 (22.2%)5(15.6%)5(13.5%)8(25.8%)9(25.7%)4(12.1%)13 (19.1%)
Avoidance coping 3 (8.3%)8(25.0%)8(21.6%)3(9.7%)4(11.4%)7(21.2%)11 (16.2%)
No Coping 6 (16.7%)10 (31.3%)11 (29.8%)5(16.1%)6(17.1%)10 (30.3%)16 (23.5%)
Total 36 (53.0%)32 (47.0%)37 (54.4%)31 (45.6%)35 (51.5%)33 (48.5%)68 (100%)
which others were said to play a role were more likely to be
appraised as a challenge, and were more likely to occur during
competitions. In contrast, when it was rated that others were not
influencing coping, the situation was more likely to be appraised
as a threat and occurred more often during training situations.
Study 2: Interviews
Participants
Six participants (two males, four females), aged 24–29 years
(M=25.8 years; SD =2.3) from a variety of sports (soccer, ice-
hockey, futsal and cricket) took part in the interview part of this
research. Their sport experience varied between 3 and 20 years
(M=13.3 years, SD =6.2). All participants provided consent
before the start of the research.
Procedure
Six team athletes were interviewed face-to-face, within 3 days of
their last game, to examine the effect of others on the appraisal
of stressors and on the way athletes coped with such situations.
Interviews were conducted either in a private room at Victoria
University, Melbourne or over Skype with participants in the
Netherlands. The semi-structured interviews lasted between 20
and 45 min and only focussed on game situations. The interviews
were transcribed verbatim before being analyzed.
An interview guide consisting of open-ended questions was
developed. The participants were asked to describe a specific
situation in their last game that caused them stress which was
influenced by team members or other significant individuals.
After the participants described the situation they were asked to
describe what they did to cope with the situation and to explain
what team members or other significant individuals, in their
opinion, did to help or influence the way they coped with the
stressor.
Data Analysis
The interviews were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach
(Braun and Clarke, 2006). The interviews were read and re-read
by the first researcher, and during the second reading stressors,
feelings and thoughts, coping, and the influence of others was
highlighted with different colors. If necessary, notes on the coping
or influence of others were written down in the left-hand margin.
The highlighted text blocks that referred to coping and the
influence of others were extracted and ordered into categories.
The third author also analyzed a subsample of the interviews.
Following discussion both researchers achieved 100% agreement
on the stress and coping categories generated and the statements
attributed to these categories.
RESULTS STUDY 2
In the interviews, 37 situations were reported in which the
stressful encounter and the use of coping strategies was
influenced by others. The raw data were coded into six first-order
categories, which in turn were collapsed into three second-order
categories (see Table 3). In the Support category two first-order-
categories were identified that were related to Individual support
and Team spirit. The most quotes were related to the second-
order category Communication, which consisted of three first-
order categories: Negative communication and style, Positive
communication and style and Mixed message. The result showed
that in most cases teammates were the sender of the messages
that influenced the stress and coping process. In most cases the
athletes valued the way others influenced their coping behavior.
DISCUSSION
The findings of our studies show that teammates play an
important role in the experience and appraisal of stress and
coping in team sports. In approximately 50% of stressful
encounters athletes reported that others influenced the way
they appraised and coped with the situation but others did not
influence stress intensity levels. When others influenced the stress
and coping process situations were more likely to be appraised as
a challenge and more adaptive problem- and emotion-focussed
coping strategies were used. When a stressful encounter was
appraised as a threat it was less like to be influenced by others
and more maladaptive avoidance coping and no coping was
reported. This is the first study that has examined the role the
social environment context on the stress and coping process. Both
studies indicated that athletes appraisal of the stressful encounter
and the way they cope is influenced by the way others and in
particular teammates respond. The diary study indicated that this
happened in around 50% of all the stressful encounters during
both competition and training.
The type of stressors reported and the notion that four
stressors (Official, Performance/Outcome, Teammate and Error)
accounted for 66.1% of the reported stressors is in line with results
of previous longitudinal studies (Nicholls et al., 2006;Gan et al.,
2009) in which a small number of stressors reoccurred over time.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5June 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 875

fpsyg-07-00875 June 10, 2016 Time: 12:31 # 6
Kerdijk et al. The Role of Others in Coping with Stress
TABLE 3 | Results of the qualitative data analysis.
Second order Theme First order Themes Raw data
Support Individual support They were saying don’t worry about it... I think you are really good in this and so
on.
They were giving me heaps of tips and stuff. Which was pretty good.
Team spirit I think it is important to get everyone enjoying that they are out there. As soon
as they start to enjoy it out there, the performance seems to take care of itself.
Having some motivation or positive reinforcement helps. Knowing that in that
situation I assisted the team and helped to achieve the goal that everyone
wants to achieve.
Effort Effort After one of us has spoken and said ‘let’s work on this’
If people are putting in a lot of effort, you tend to join them in that...
Communication Negative messages and style He starts yelling at me and blaming me...
In a team meeting, two team mates blamed and accused me of things, they
made me feel like the black sheep of the team.
Positive Messages and style When we talk in games it tends to work better.
If people start to talk more, more smiles, and a better positive energy.
Mixed messages One told me to step left, the other told me to step right. I did what I thought
was the best option for that movement.
No it is more that they just want the best out of you. And they go like you
should be doing this or this. Everyone means well, but people might provide
help when you don’t really need it.
Previous studies have also indicated that athletes report higher
levels of stress intensity during competition compared to training
(Nicholls et al., 2009) and when they appraise a situation as a
threat in comparison to a challenge (Anshel et al., 2001). This
is in line with the findings of the current study where the diary
participants reported higher stress intensity during competition
and when they appraised the situation as a threat. Interestingly,
when the athletes indicated that other had an influence on the
stress and coping process they were more likely to appraise the
situation as a challenge. However, the influence of others did not
influence self-reported stress intensity levels.
The coping strategy an athlete uses is indirectly influenced
through the appraisal of the stressor. Results from the diary
study show that an athlete is more likely to use an avoidance
coping strategy or no coping when the stressor is appraised as
a threat (Anshel et al., 2001;Levy et al., 2010). It appears that
the context (competition or training) is also a factor of influence
for the selection of a coping strategy. Athletes will more likely
use a problem- and emotion-focused coping strategy when they
experience a stress situation during competition independent of
rating of stress intensity.
Previous research has suggested that team athletes are more
likely to use emotion and avoidance coping strategies (Nicholls
et al., 2005, 2007). The results of the present study found that the
team athletes used more problem- and emotion-focused coping
strategies to deal with stress. Nicholls et al. (2012) recently found
that challenge appraisal was more likely associated with using
more adaptive problem-focused coping strategies. However, the
different findings between previous studies and the present
study could also because of variations in the categorization of
the coping strategies (Nicholls and Polman, 2007). This study
adopted three higher order coping dimensions and a no coping
dimension, whereas Nicholls et al. (2007) included no coping
in the avoidance coping dimension. Also, previous studies used
quantitative methods while the present research collected data
qualitatively.
This is the first study which has demonstrated that the social
environment through important others influence coping in sport.
A novel finding is that in these situations the athlete positively
valued the uncalled contribution of others, which was more
likely to result in the use of adaptive problem- or emotion-
focussed coping strategies. These findings were corroborated by
the data from the interviews. The team athletes mostly felt the
influence on their coping through uncalled-for communication
and encouragement that was given by their team members.
These mainly verbal behaviors of team-mates influenced the
way the athletes coped with the stressful encounter. However,
they are not part of the actual coping strategies employed to
deal with the situation. Importantly, the social environment
appears to have resulted in athletes employing more adaptive
coping strategies, which ultimately would result in enhanced
performance and satisfaction although this would require further
research.
The interview data suggests that the influence of others
appeared mostly to have an indirect effect on coping of the
athletes through its appraisal. It has to be stressed that the
influence of others in this study is not the same as social
support, which is generally classified as an emotion-focused
coping strategy (Nicholls et al., 2007). Hence, if this was the
case than it would be expected that stress intensity would have
been lower in the diary study. Also, the participants reported the
influence they felt from the uncalled behavior of others during the
stress and coping process (our definition). This is different from
seeking social support, in which the athlete appraises the stressor
and uses informational or emotional social support from others
as a coping strategy (Nicholls et al., 2007).
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6June 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 875

fpsyg-07-00875 June 10, 2016 Time: 12:31 # 7
Kerdijk et al. The Role of Others in Coping with Stress
A strength of the present research is the use of two different
methods to examine the effect of the social environment context
through others on the stress and coping of team athletes. The
diary study used a homogenous group of field hockey athletes
limiting the generalizability of the findings. Therefore, for the
interview part of the study athletes from different sports were
recruited to ascertain whether the findings of the diary study
were applicable to other team sports. Also, the present study
cannot conclude whether others are the cause or the effect on
the differences in appraisal and the use of coping strategies. It
could be that athletes feel the influence of others and therefore
will cope with the situation directly by focussing on the task or by
dealing with the resulting emotions. However, it is also possible
that the use of these coping strategies will cause the team athletes
to experience influence of others on their stress and coping.
Future research should try to distinguish whether the influence
of teammates is causing athletes to choose the selection of a
particular coping strategy, or whether it is the use of these coping
strategies that allows athletes to experience more influence of the
environment through others. Future research could examine the
different types of reactions of teammates and which is of most
influence on team athlete’s stress and coping process (verbal vs.
non-verbal). Knowing which teammate behavior is responsible
for behavioral changes in team athletes can be of value to athletes
to cope more effectively thereby optimizing performance.
The present research tried to diminish retrospective recall
by asking, and frequently reminding participants to complete
their diaries as soon as possible after a competition or training.
Even though the time between the competition/training and
diary completion was reduced there is the possibility for
retrospective bias or distortion. Participants’ reports could have
been influenced by the way situation was resolved. Finally, when
participants reported an influence of the uncalled behavior of
others, they could only report on the effect of others on their
appraisal of stress and coping of which they were consciously
aware. However, this does not rule out the possibility of an
influence of others that was not recognized by the participants,
and therefore not reported in the diaries or interviews.
Team athletes often experience stress in which their appraisal
and coping is influenced by their social environmental context
through others (teammates in particular). The intensity of the
stress is highest during game situations or when the athletes
appraise the situation as a threat. However, others are not of
influence on the stress intensity. In challenge situations athletes
use more problem- and emotion-focus coping strategies whereas
avoidance and no coping is more frequently reported in threat
situations. Future studies need to look more closely into which
behavior of others is of influence on the stress and coping of team
athletes. The present study provides novel findings of the effect
of the social environment can have on the stress and coping of
team athletes and suggests that others can influence the coping
with stress in athletes. This would provide a new portal for sport
psychologists or coaches for future interventions.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
RP research idea, study design, data analysis paper writing. CK
Data collection, data analysis, paper writing. JV: Study design,
paper writing.
REFERENCES
Aldwin, C. M. (2007). Stress, Coping, and Development, 2nd Edn, New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Anshel, M. H., Jamieson, J., and Raviv, S. (2001). Cognitive appraisal and coping
strategies following acute stress among skilled competitive male and female
athletes. J. Sport Behav. 24, 128–134.
Anshel, M. H., and Kaissidis, A. N. (1997). Coping style and situational appraisal as
predictors of coping strategies following stressful events in sport as a function
of gender and skill level. Br. J. Psychol. 88, 263–276. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-
8295.1997.tb02634.x
Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res.
Psychol. 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Carron, A. V., Loughead, T. M., and Bray, S. R. (2005). The home advantage
in sport competitions: courneya and Carron’s (1992) conceptual framework a
decade later. J. Sports Sci. 23, 395–407. doi: 10.1080/02640410400021542
DeLongis, A., and Holtzman, S. (2005). Coping in context: the role of stress,
social support and personality in coping. J. Pers. 73, 1–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2005.00361.x
Gan, Q., Anshel, M. H., and Kim, J. K. (2009). Sources and cognitive
appraisal of acute stress as predictors of coping style among male and
female Chinese athletes. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 7, 68–88. doi:
10.1080/1612197X.2009.9671893
Giacobbi, P., Foore, B., and Weinberg, R. S. (2004). Broken clubs and expletives: the
sources of stress and coping responses of skilled and moderately skilled golfers.
J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 16, 166–182. doi: 10.1080/10413200490437688
Gottlieb, B. (2000). “Selecting and planning support interventions,” in
Social Support Measurement and Intervention, S. Cohen, L. Underwood,
and B. Gottlieb Eds, 195–220. London: Oxford University Press. doi:
10.1093/med:psych/9780195126709.003.0006
Kaiseler, M., Polman, R. C. J., and Nicholls, A. R. (2012a). Gender differences
in appraisal and coping: An examination of the situational and dispositional
hypothesis. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 43, 1–14.
Kaiseler, M., Polman, R. C. J., and Nicholls, A. R. (2012b). Indirect and
direct effects of the big five personality dimensions on appraisal, coping
and coping effectiveness in sport. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 12, 62–72. doi:
10.1080/17461391.2010.551410
Krohne, H. W. (1993). “Vigilance and cognitive avoidance as concepts in coping
research,” in Attention And Avoidance: Strategies in Coping with Aversiveness,
ed. H. W. Krohne (Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber), 19–50.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and Emotion: A New Stheynsis. New York, NY: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping, New York, NY:
Springer.
Levy, A. R., Nicholls, A. R., and Polman, R. C. J. (2010). Pre-competitive
confidence, coping and subjective performance in sport. Scand.
J. Med. Sci. Sports 21, 721–729. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.
01075.x
Maykut, P., and Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning Qualitative Research: a
Philosophic and Practical Guide. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
McGuire, E. J., Courneya, K. S., Widmeyer, W. M., and Carron, A. V. (1992).
Relationship between game location and aggression in professional hockey.
J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 14, 148–158.
Nicholls, A. R., Holt, N. L., Polman, R. C. J., and Bloomfield, J. (2006). Stressors,
coping, and coping effectiveness among professional rugby union players. Sport
Psychol. 20, 314–329.
Nicholls, A. R., Holt, N., Polman, R. C. J., and James, W. (2005). Stress and coping
among international adolescent golfers. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 17, 333–340. doi:
10.1080/10413200500313644
Nicholls, A. R., Levy, A. R., Grice, A., and Polman, R. C. J. (2009). Stress appraisal,
coping, and coping effectiveness among international cross-country runners
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7June 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 875

fpsyg-07-00875 June 10, 2016 Time: 12:31 # 8
Kerdijk et al. The Role of Others in Coping with Stress
during training and competition. etitive anxiety, and subjective performance
among athletes. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 9, 285–293. doi: 10.1080/17461390902836049
Nicholls, A. R., Polman, R. C. J., and Levy, A. (2012). A path analysis of stress
appraisal, emotions, coping and performance satisfaction among athletes.
Psychol. Sport Exerc. 13, 263–270. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.12.003
Nicholls, A. R., and Polman, R. C. J. (2007). Coping in sport: a systematic review.
J. Sports Sci. 25, 11–31. doi: 10.1080/02640410600630654
Nicholls, A. R., Polman, R. C. J., Levy, A. R., Taylor, J., and Cobley, S. (2007).
Stressors, coping, and coping effectiveness: gender, type of sport, and skill
differences. J. Sports Sci. 25, 1521–1530. doi: 10.1080/02640410701230479
Parkes, K. R. (1986). Coping in stressful episodes: the role of individual differences,
environmental factors, and situational characteristics. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51,
1277–1292. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1277
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2016 Kerdijk, van der Kamp and Polman. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this
journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution
or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8June 2016 | Volume 7 | Article 875