An organisational stress review: Conceptual and theoretical issues in competitive sport

Abstract

This chapter provides a review of current issues in organizational stress in competitive sport. Two main areas are addressed: (a) conceptual and operational considerations, culminating in definitions of stress-related constructs, and (b) theoretical relationships among stress, emotions and performance, based on a meta-model outlining key processes, moderators and consequences. As the chapter progresses, attention focuses on the practical implications and research directions emanating from the literature review.

Full text

In: Literature Reviews in Sport Psychology ISBN 1-59454-904-4
Editors: S. Hanton and S. D. Mellalieu, pp.1- © 2006 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Chapter 10
AN ORGANIZATIONAL STRESS REVIEW:
CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL ISSUES
IN COMPETITIVE SPORT
David Fletcher,
∗
Sheldon Hanton
University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, United Kingdom
Stephen D. Mellalieu
Swansea University, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
This chapter provides a review of current issues in organizational stress in
competitive sport. Two main areas are addressed: (a) conceptual and operational
considerations, culminating in definitions of stress-related constructs, and (b) theoretical
relationships among stress, emotions and performance, based on a meta-model outlining
key processes, moderators and consequences. As the chapter progresses, attention focuses
on the practical implications and research directions emanating from the literature review.
Key words: transactional perspective, relational meaning, stressor-strain relationships, meta-
model, sport performers
INTRODUCTION
Sport in the new millennium is firmly established as a global industry. Spurred on by
national pride, sport has successfully traversed almost every border to influence the lives of
nearly everyone on the planet (Maguire, Jarvie, Mansfield, and Bradley, 2002; Westerbeek
∗ Correspondence concerning this chapter should be addressed to David Fletcher, Cardiff School of Sport,
University of Wales Institute, Cardiff (UWIC), Cyncoed, Cardiff CF23 6XD, United Kingdom. Telephone:
4429-2041-7104. Fax: 4429-2041-6768. E-mail: DFletcher@uwic.ac.uk

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 2
and Smith, 2003). Indeed, Westerbeek and Smith (2003) observed that sport as an institution
has such a penetrating affect on modern life that there are few places of refuge. Through the
expansion of the globalized economy, the explosion of commercialism, the progress of
technology and the media, the crossover with entertainment, and the impact of Western
culture, sport has become an almost universal phenomenon. It may well be that it was never
intended to be such an immense business enterprise, nor anticipated that elite performers
could command the emotional and financial commitment of billions of otherwise rationale
people (Wann, Melnick, Russell, and Pease, 2001; Westerbeek and Smith, 2003). But the
reality is, competitive sport is currently entrenched in the fabric of contemporary society and
shows no sign of receding.
Allied to these developments has been the rapid evolution of sport organizations. Making
up an integral part of the sport industry is a wide array of public, private and voluntary
organizations. A sport organization has been conceived as “a social entity involved in the
sport industry; it is goal-directed, with a consciously structured activity system and a
relatively identifiable boundary” (Slack, 1997, p. 5). It is important to recognize, however,
that when considered in the broadest sense, precise definition becomes elusive because of the
intricate systems of historically and socially constructed hierarchies, with constantly changing
frontiers. Indeed, an organization often has multiple constituents that have overlapping,
sometimes ambiguous, relationships with other sport and nonsport organizations. These
include, for example, national governing bodies and international federations; governmental
agencies and departments; sports leagues and events; high performance and local
participation sports teams, squads and clubs; athletes’ agents and representatives; various
business enterprises, including media, entertainment, and advertising groups; sponsorship and
merchandising companies; doping control; medical personnel; lawyers; gambling; and so the
list goes on.
This highly complex social and organizational environment imposes numerous demands
on sport performers and other personnel that function within it. As a result, athletes frequently
seek advice from psychologists on dealing with the pressures that accompany their
participation in competitive sport, particularly at the higher levels. It has become apparent
that, in many instances, organizations have not been sufficiently active in recognizing and
addressing such issues. In fact, well-respected International Olympic Committee (IOC)
member, Dr. Rubén Acosta Hernández, recently commented that:
Athletes naturally want to win. However, they often bear the brunt of their country’s poor
organizational structures. They rebel against their national sport organizations for being
unsupportive, neglecting their duties, eluding their responsibilities, and shying away from
accountability. In developing countries, many organizations conceal their incompetence
behind political influence and sometimes a hesitant media’s fear of retaliation. Athletes have
needs – such as a place to practice sports, an event to compete in, an instructor to improve
their skills and abilities, and a performance to achieve – that most sport organizations today
are not truly satisfying. If these needs continue to be forgotten, athletes will feel compelled to
break the inertia of their own sport organizations and look elsewhere for… the fulfillment of
their dreams… (Acosta Hernández, 2002, p. 6)
In view of these observations, it is perhaps somewhat surprising that researchers have
failed to systematically investigate stress in sport organizations. This is in contrast to the
considerable empirical attention focused on the demands and responses commonly associated

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 3
with competitive performance. More than two decades of study have generated a substantial
body of evidence on the competitive stress experience, particularly anxiety and its
relationship with performance (see, for recent reviews, Burton, 1998; Mellalieu, Hanton, and
Fletcher, this volume; Woodman and Hardy, 2001b). Much less is known, however, about
athletes’ experiences of stress related to the organizational environment within which they are
operating. Despite repeated calls for research (see, e.g., Hardy and Jones, 1994; Hardy, Jones,
and Gould, 1996; Jones, 1995b), psychologists’ understanding of this area remains limited.
The preponderance of organizational stress knowledge has been derived from research
conducted in business, medical and educational settings; thus, in the absence of systematic
work in the athletic domain, this review draws heavily from this knowledge base to help
guide theory and research in sport psychology. The few sport-related studies that exist have
tended towards the analysis of elite or professional performers (Fletcher and Hanton, 2003a;
Woodman, 2003; Woodman and Hardy, 2001b). This is, of course, not to suggest that
recreational or participation-based sport is free from organizational stress, only that it may be
more prevalent and pertinent at the higher levels of competitive performance.
This chapter is about organizational stress in competitive sport and concepts, theories and
research relating to this area. The review of literature comprises two major sections. The first
considers conceptual and operational issues and provides a contemporary definition of
organizational stress based on a transactional perspective. The second section discusses a
meta-model of stress, emotions and performance and the theoretical relationships among key
processes, moderators and consequences of the organizational stress process.
CONCEPTUAL AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES
Almost all reviews of stress (and anxiety) in sport begin by drawing attention to the
difficulties associated with, and the confusion surrounding, the way in which stress-related
terms have been conceptualized and operationalized (see, e.g., Jones and Hardy, 1990; Hardy
et al., 1996; Woodman and Hardy, 2001b). Stress has variously been defined as an
environmental stimulus, a person’s response, or the result of an interaction between the
person and the environment. As the body of knowledge has developed, particularly that
surrounding the appraisal of stimuli and the interpretation of responses, researchers have
increasingly considered the nature of the interaction and, most importantly, the psychological
processes through which it takes place (Jones, 1990; Jones and Hardy, 1989; Woodman and
Hardy, 2001b).
The fact that stress has been related to a range of conditions (i.e., stimulus, response,
interaction) has impeded systematic development in both sport and mainstream psychology.
For this reason, some commentators have suggested that the stress concept be relegated to a
secondary position behind a more general framework of “stress research” (e.g., House, 1974),
or even abandoned altogether because it is too all encompassing a phenomenon to investigate
(e.g., Kasl, 1983). However, we agree with Cooper, Dewe, and O’Driscoll (2001) who
maintained that it is important scholars continue to pursue and debate the nature of stress for
two main reasons. First, conceptualizations give a sense of time and historical perspective to
research that, in turn, provide an insight into why certain approaches prevail and the
explanatory potential of such work. Second, operational definitions have a key role to play in

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 4
determining the nature and direction of research and provide conceptual boundaries to help
guide theoretical and empirical development.
The vague rhetoric often surrounding the study of stress in sport is perhaps best
exemplified by the pervasive use of the terms “competition stress” and “noncompetition
stress”. While at first glance these labels may seem intuitively reasonable, Fletcher and
Hanton (2003a) argued that the latter term is too imprecise to adequately contribute to theory
and practice and does little to capture the essence of the stress experience. To this end, they
proffered the terms competitive stress, organizational stress, and personal stress to
conceptually differentiate between major categories of stress in sport performers. Their
rationale for this distinction related to three main areas: (a) the specific origins and nature of
the stimuli encountered; (b) the differences in the psychological processes underlying the
responses to these demands; (c) the appropriateness of interventions to manage competitive,
organizational and personal strain (cf. Fletcher and Hanton, 2003b; Hanton, Fletcher, and
Coughlan, 2005; Jones, 2002; Woodman and Hardy, 2001a).
Due to the definitional difficulties in this area and the relative infancy of organizational
stress in the sport psychology literature, this section provides an overview of traditional views
of stress, discusses their strengths and limitations, and describes the evolution of a
transactional conceptualization. We conclude the section by providing definitions of relevant
constructs, including a contemporary conceptualization of organizational stress based on a
transactional perspective.
Stress as a Stimulus and a Response
The phrase “being under stress” is one that most sport performers can relate to. Implied in
this expression are environmental stimuli exerting demands on an athlete. The origins of
stimulus-based definitions of stress can be found in physics and engineering (Hinkle, 1973;
Mason, 1975), where stress refers to external pressure applied to a structure and strain to the
deformation of that structure. The aphorism “the straw that breaks the camel’s back” has been
used to illustrate the essence of this approach (see Cooper et al., 2001). The meaning being
that a person who is constantly assailed by demands (i.e., stress) may encounter just one more
apparently minor or innocuous event that will disrupt the delicate balance in his or her
functioning (i.e., strain). In short, this perspective conceives stress as an environmental or
independent variable.
In sport psychology, definitions of stress are often embedded in a stimulus-based
conceptualization emphasizing external events or “some demand [which] is placed upon the
individual” (Hardy et al., 1996, p. 141). These events or demands, which are commonly
referred to as stressors, reflect an athlete’s environmental conditions and potential sources of
strain. Over the past fifteen years or so, qualitative research has unearthed a wide range of
“sources of stress” in sport performers (e.g., Campbell and Jones, 2002b; Giacobbi, Foore,
and Weinberg, 2004; Giacobbi, Lynn, Wetherington, Jenkins, Bodendorf, and Langley, 2004;
Gould, Jackson, and Finch, 1993; Holt and Hogg, 2002: James and Collins, 1997; Noblet and
Gifford, 2002; Park, 2004; Scanlan, Stein, and Ravizza, 1991; see also Dugdale, Eklund, and
Gordon, 2002). Collectively, the stressors identified in these studies were associated with
competitive performance (e.g., opponents), the sport organization within which the athlete
was operating (e.g., finances), and personal “nonsporting” life events (e.g., family).

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 5
Of course, sport performers don’t just talk of “being under stress”; they also speak of
actually “being stressed”. This phrase refers not so much to environmental stimuli but an
athlete’s responses to such demands. The origins of response-based definitions of stress can
be found in physiology and medicine (Hinkle, 1973; Mason, 1975). In the 1930s and 1940s,
Hans Selye (1936, 1946) introduced the notion of stress-related illness in terms of the general
adaptation syndrome (GAS), proposing that stress is a nonspecific response of the body to a
demand. The stages of response described within the GAS are: alarm, resistance, and
exhaustion. The alarm stage is essentially analogous to what Cannon (1914, 1915, 1929,
1932, 1935) labeled the emergency reaction, or “fight or flight” response, involving a
neuroendocrine reaction to mobilize the body physiologically for action. In short, this
approach considers stress as a person or dependent variable.
Response-based conceptualizations of stress are also popular among sport psychologists
(see, e.g., Franks, 1994; Kellmann and Kallus, 2001; Tenenbaum, Jones, Kitsantas, Sacks,
and Berwick, 2003a, 2003b). This perspective was reflected in two independent interview
studies conducted with figure skaters, which adopted the following definition of stress:
When we discuss stress or pressure now, I am referring to the negative emotions,
feelings, and thoughts that you might have had with respect to your skating experience. These
would include feelings of apprehension, anxiety, muscle tension, nervousness, physical
reactions (such as butterflies in the stomach, shaking, or nervous sweating), thoughts centered
on worry and self-doubt, and negative statements to yourself. (Gould, Jackson, and Finch,
1993, p. 136; Scanlan et al., 1991, p. 105; see also Giacobbi et al., 2004; James and Collins,
1997)
At this juncture it is interesting to note that Selye (1950, 1956), in developing his ideas on
stress, actually attempted to apply the previously mentioned analogy from physics and
engineering, where stress represents the stimulus and strain the response. But Selye, who was
an Austro-Hungarian, misunderstood the English terminology and labeled a person’s response
as “stress”, thereby spoiling the analogy and – to his later regret – causing confusion as to
whether stress should be conceived as a stimulus or a response (Selye, 1973, 1975, 1976a,
1976b, 1976c; see also Levi, 1996, 1998). In some instances, sport psychologists appear to
have circumvented this ambiguity by essentially operationalizing stress as both a stimulus and
a response. For example, the “sources of stress” research noted earlier typically included
performers’ competitive anxiety responses, such as worries and doubts, under the rubric of
“sources of stress”. Smith, Smoll, and Wiechman (1998) summarized this approach in their
review of anxiety in sport:
The term stress is used in two different but related ways. First, it is used in relation to
situations (termed “stressors”) that place significant demands on the organism… The second
use of the term stress refers to the responses of individuals to stressors… including aversive
emotional states, such as anxiety, depression, and anger. (pp. 105-106)
Regardless of whether one conceptualizes stress as a stimulus, a response, or both, there
are a number of limitations associated with these approaches (Appley and Trumbull, 1986;
Cooper et al., 2001; Cox, 1978, 1985, 1990; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Lazarus and
Launier, 1978; Mason, 1975). First, they largely overlook individual differences that account
for the fact that responses to stimuli do not always follow the same pattern. Much of this

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 6
drawback can be summed up by the observation that two sport performers in a similar
situation, such as a conflict with management, will often react in different ways. Second, by
focusing on the distinct components of what is an ongoing process they tend to draw attention
away from the process itself. Hence, researchers can only conclude that demands have the
potential to result in strain or that responses may be a negative reaction to a stressor. A
stimulus or response can only be regarded as a stressor or strain when the two components are
considered in relation to one another. Third, these approaches fail to fully capture the
dynamics of the overall stress process. It is the relationship between the person and the
environment, and the psychological processes that underpin this relationship, which are
pivotal in understanding the nature of stress.
In spite of these shortcomings, some scholars (e.g., Hobfoll, Schwarzer, and Chon, 1996)
have argued that a key strength of stimulus and response-based definitions is their impact on
research designs which, as a result, are able to rely on empirical observations rather than
inferences of abstract processes. Indeed, studies that have adopted this paradigm have
generated a substantial amount of information relating to the stressors encountered by sport
performers and the nature of their responses to these demands. Such an approach is insightful
and necessary; however, it is important that researchers continue to progress by exploring the
complex relationship that exists between a person and the environment (Lazarus, 1999;
Woodman and Hardy, 2001b). Recent efforts in sport psychology to examine this relationship
have tended to focus on the notion of interaction.
Stress as an Interaction
The interactional approach to defining stress emphasizes the interaction between a person
and the environment (Appley and Turmbull, 1967). As sport psychology researchers have
recognized the limitations of stimulus and response-based conceptualizations, they have
increasingly used the term “interaction” to describe their perspective of stress (see, e.g.,
Anshel, Kim, Kim, Chang, and Eom, 2001; Campbell and Jones, 2002b; Fletcher and Hanton,
2003b; Holt and Dunn, 2004; Jones, 1990, 1991; Jones and Hanton, 2001; Kelley, 1994;
Kelley, Eklund, and Ritter-Taylor, 1999; Kelley and Gill, 1993; Martens, 1971; Martens,
Vealey, and Burton, 1990; Martin, Kelley, and Dias, 1999; Martin, Kelley, and Eklund, 1999;
Vealey, Udry, Zimmerman, and Soliday, 1992; Woodman and Hardy, 2001a). In statistical
terms, an interaction refers to the combined effect of two (or more) independent variables on
a dependent variable. Hence, interaction implies a cause and effect, whereby the person and
the environment give rise to cognitive-emotional reactions but nonetheless maintain their
distinctiveness (Appley and Turmbull, 1986; Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984).
The causal variables are considered detachable structural components which remain
unchanged and independent of each other during their interaction. However, although
interaction is certainly relevant, it is also important to recognize that during stressful
encounters the person and the environment can, and often do, mutually affect one another
(Lazarus, 1981; Lazarus and Launier, 1978). Furthermore, the meaning the person construes
from his or her relationship with the environment occurs at a higher level of abstraction than
the distinct variables themselves. Therefore, in addition to interaction, sport psychologists
need to consider the dynamics of transaction and relational meaning.

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 7
Stress as a Transaction and the Notion of Relational Meaning
Transactional definitions of stress are less focused on the specific components of an
interaction and more concerned with the psychological processes – such as the cognitive-
motivational-relational concepts of appraisal and coping – that underpin an encounter (cf.
Dewey and Bentley, 1949; Lazarus and Launier, 1978). Stress is viewed as an ongoing
transaction between the environmental demands and a person’s resources, with strain
resulting from an imbalance between these demands and resources (Cox, 1978, 1985;
McGrath, 1970; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Rather than implying static relationships
involving statistical correlations between variables, Lazarus (1998) argued that the term
transaction adds meaning to a person’s interaction with his or her environment:1
Transaction… is much more than interaction… [it] brings the causal variables together at
a higher level of abstraction; namely, the relational meaning constructed by the individual
who is confronted by (or selects) a particular environment. (p. xix)
Contemporary definitions adopting a transactional perspective emphasize that stress
neither resides in the person nor the environment, but in the relationship between the two
(Lazarus, 1981). It is conceived as a dynamic cognitive state reflecting a person’s continuous
transaction with his or her environment. Hence, in the study of organizational stress in sport,
researchers should focus their attention on the critical issues surrounding, and cognitive
processes underpinning, a performer’s relationship with his or her sport organization. What
distinguishes this approach from others is the importance it places on the ongoing process – in
particular those features that link the components of the process – and its emphasis on the
reciprocal and adaptive nature of the process itself (Aldwin, 2000; Cooper et al., 2001).
The transactional perspective recognizes the recursive principle that a person, the
environment, and psychological reactions all mutually affect one another. Relevant here is
cybernetics theory (Ashby, 1966; Weiner, 1948), which states that cognitive functioning
involves the processing of information and use of feedback to control purposeful behavior.
This process essentially represents a homeostatic mechanism operating to maintain a state of
equilibrium where behavior is directed at reducing deviations from a specific goal-state
(Carver and Scheier, 1981, 1985; Cummings and Cooper, 1979, 1998; Edwards, 1992, 1998;
Kagan and Levi, 1975; Latack, Kinicki, and Prussia, 1995; Levi, 1998; McGrath, 1976;
Miller, Galanter, and Pribram, 1960; Powers, 1973; Tapp, 1985). Hence, a transactional
approach suggests that while environmental demands and personal characteristics combine to
influence how sport performers might react to a situation; how they react will, through the
processes of coping and adaptation, in turn, affect environmental conditions, personal
resources, and future reactions.
Sport psychologists have recognized for some time now the concept of stress as a process
(see, e.g., Craft, Magyar, Becker, and Feltz, 2003; Dugdale et al., 2002; Gill, 1994, 2000;
Gould, 1987; Gould and Krane, 1992; Jones, 2002; Martens, 1977; Martens et al., 1990;
Passer, 1982; Spielberger, 1989; Tenenbaum et al., 2003a, 2003b; Wrisberg, 1994). However,
1 In elaborating on the difference between interaction and transaction, Lazarus (1999) made an enlightening
analogy with the terms perception and apperception; to apperceive is to consider the implications of and add
meaning to what is perceived.

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 8
the term transaction, despite making some sporadic appearances in the literature (i.e., Gill,
1994; Rotella and Lerner, 1993; Smith, 1985, 1986) and becoming well established in
mainstream psychology, has generally been overlooked by our field. We suspect this has been
largely due to the ascendance of interactional definitions, which is unfortunate because, as
noted above, the term “interaction” fails to truly capture the essence of the stress experience
(Lazarus, 1990). Nevertheless, transactional conceptualizations have made a recent
resurgence (see Anshel, Jamieson, and Raviv, 2001; Campbell and Jones, 2002b; Dugdale et
al., 2002; Giacobbi, Lynn et al., 2004; Gill, 2000; Hammermeister and Burton, 2001; Holt
and Hogg, 2002; Jones, 2002; Kim and Duda, 2003; Tenenbaum et al., 2003a), a trend that
needs to continue if significant advances are to be made in the study of stress in sport
(Fletcher and Hanton, 2003a; see also Hanton et al., 2005).
Inherent in transactional definitions of stress is the notion of relational meaning, which
focuses on the meaning a person construes from his or her relationship with the environment
(Lazarus, 1991b, 1998; Lazarus and Launier, 1978). In his recent work, Lazarus (2000c) cited
relational meaning as the “conceptual bottom line” (p. 665) of his approach and arguably the
most appropriate term to describe the overall dynamics of the stress process:
Because of confusion between what interaction and transaction are all about, it is better to
use the term relational meaning, as it is construed by the person… Psychology needs to
develop a new conceptual language. Instead of the traditional stimulus and response
phraseology, which implies that the two terms are separable, we need a language of
relationships. (Lazarus, 1999, p.13)
In line with the assumptions underlying the transactional paradigm, relational meaning is
not found in the environment or person alone. It takes the conjoining of both environmental
demands and personal characteristics to generate cognitive-evaluative reactions and ascribe
meaning to an encounter. Sport psychology researchers have yet to truly espouse the notion of
relational meaning (Lazarus, 2000a, 2000b). However, its overarching importance in the
stress process would suggest that it offers considerable potential for furthering theory and
practice in our field (Fletcher and Hanton, 2003a; see also Hanton et al., 2005).
Definitions of Stress-Related Constructs
Stress has proved to be a heuristic but vague construct in the field of sport psychology;
hence, careful consideration has been given here to defining organizational stress before
considering theoretical issues in this area. Whilst it is important that conceptualizing stress
does not become an onerous initiation for investigators, the key message to emerge from the
definitional debate is that it is not just an obligatory exercise in semantics. As Cooper et al.
(2001) pointed out, operational definitions have a fundamental impact on the nature and
direction of theory and research. Furthermore, researchers in this area have a moral obligation
to define stress so that they capture the experiences of those whose lives they wish to
investigate. In line with the transactional perspective of stress, this review adopts the
following conceptual definitions (cf. Cooper et al., 2001; Fletcher and Hanton, 2003a):

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 9
− Stress: an ongoing process that involves individuals transacting with their
environments, making appraisals of the situations they find themselves in, and
endeavoring to cope with any issues that may arise (adapted from Lazarus, 1998,
1999).
− Stressors: environmental demands (i.e., stimuli) encountered by an individual.
− Strain: an individual’s negative psychological, physical and behavioral responses to
stressors.
Stressors, therefore, are events, situations or conditions, and strain is a person’s negative
reaction to stressors. The term stress should not be used to describe specific components of
the transaction between the person and the environment (Lazarus, 1990), but rather to
represent the overall process incorporating stressors, strains, appraisals and coping responses.
Consequently, the tautology “sources of stress” should be avoided since stress already
encapsulates the sources of this process (i.e., stressors); however, the term sources of strain
may be useful when referring to those stressors that give rise to negative responses. In
extending these conceptualizations, we propose the following organizational stress-related
definitions (cf. Cooper et al., 2001; Fletcher and Hanton, 2003a):
− Organizational stress:2 an ongoing transaction between an individual and the
environmental demands associated primarily and directly with the organization
within which he or she is operating (adapted from Woodman and Hardy, 2001a).
− Organizational stressors:3 environmental demands (i.e., stimuli) associated primarily
and directly with the organization within which an individual is operating.
− Organizational strain: an individual’s negative psychological, physical and
behavioral responses to organizational stressors.
As alluded to in the introduction of this chapter, identifying issues associated with an
organization is rarely straightforward due to the complex nature of the social and
organizational environment. It may, therefore, be more operationally useful to consider what
is not deemed organizational stress. Those issues not normally directly related to the
organization, such as demands associated primarily with competitive performance (e.g.,
opponents) and personal “nonsporting” life events (e.g., family), should not be considered
aspects of the organizational stress process (cf. Fletcher and Hanton, 2003a, 2003b; Hanton et
al., 2005; Woodman and Hardy, 2001a).
2 In mainstream psychology, the term organizational stress is often used interchangeably with “occupational
stress”, “workplace stress”, and “job stress”. We suggest the later terms are perhaps best avoided in a competitive
sport context because of the ambiguity often surrounding professional/amateur performers and paid/voluntary
personnel that function within sport organizations.
3 It is worth noting that some organizational psychologists have proposed the term “psychosocial hazards” in
preference to stressors (and “sources of stress”). This is to bring stress terminology more in line with legislation
which governs psychological health at work and the requirements it places on employers relating to risk
assessment and the monitoring and control of hazards (see, e.g., Cox, 1993; Rick and Briner, 2000; Rick, Briner,
Daniels, Perryman, and Guppy, 2001).

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 10
A META-MODEL OF STRESS, EMOTIONS AND PERFORMANCE
The preceding commentary has focused on conceptual and operational issues relating to
organizational stress in competitive sport. It is important, however, that definitional debate
eventually gives way to a more theoretical- or model-based discussion that provides some
insight to help guide inquiry (cf. Popper, 1959). Of course, for theories to aid understanding
they require a sound conceptual basis from which models can arise. To this end, scholars have
urged researchers investigating stress to employ theoretical models that reflect the sequence
of events in transactions (e.g., McGrath, 1970, 1976) and the meaning a person construes
from his or her relationship with the environment (e.g., Lazarus, 1998, 1999). Without this
conceptual grounding, it is difficult to develop a robust body of knowledge because there are
no defined boundaries to be supported or refuted (Cook and Campbell, 1979).
In most instances, theories emerge from a combination of personal intuition, systematic
observation, and analytical thinking (Siegrist, 1998). They are conceived to identify those
critical components within complex realities that determine outcomes. Gall, Borg, and Gall
(1996) defined theory as “an explanation of a certain set of observed phenomena in terms of a
system of constructs and laws that relate these constructs to each other” (p. 8). Theoretical
models are, therefore, instrumental in illustrating causal relationships among concepts and
explaining or predicting variance in observations. They provide not only a platform upon
which rational planning can occur but also stimulate systematic lines of inquiry (Levanthal,
1997).
Given the somewhat belated recognition of organizational stress in sport, it is perhaps not
surprising that psychologists’ understanding of the relationships among organizational
stressors, emotional responses, and athletic performance remains limited (Fletcher and
Hanton, 2003a). Interestingly, it is also worth noting that while competitive stress researchers
have investigated the anxiety-performance relationship in some detail, most of the theoretical
models in this area offer little or no explanation of how and/or why stress-related constructs
might affect sport performance (Woodman and Hardy, 2001b). The juxtaposition of these
points stimulated Fletcher and Fletcher (2004, 2005) to extensively review the approaches
adopted by models which have provided the theoretical context for investigating stress.
Following a synthesis of pertinent mainstream and sport psychology theories, they developed
a meta-model outlining the relationships among stress, emotions and performance (see Figure
1). It was described as a “meta-model” for a number of reasons. First, it offered a
supraordinate and integrative perspective of the stress process and its relationship with human
performance. Second, it subsumed the fundamental assumptions and relationships consistent
throughout existing theoretical work in this area. Third, it was designed to accommodate the
psychological processes that underlie performers’ responses to any conceivable situation,
thereby encompassing competitive, organizational and personal stressors. Finally, it was
intended that it would provide a high degree of explanatory potential for any person
functioning in a demanding “performance” environment. Such persons might include athletes,
business managers, performing artists, public speakers, and emergency and armed service
personnel.

Figure 1. A meta-model of stress, emotions and performance (reproduced with permission from Fletcher and Fletcher, 2004, 2005).

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 12
To the best of our knowledge, the meta-model is the first theoretical explanation that was
conceived to be readily applicable to the study of organizational stress-related constructs in
sport performers. The model’s conceptual foundations, theoretical framework, practical
implications, and research directions have been discussed in detail elsewhere (see Fletcher
and Fletcher, 2004, 2005; Fletcher and Hanton, 2004; see also Mellalieu et al., this volume).
This section, therefore, provides an overview of these aspects as they relate to stress in sport
organizations.
Conceptual Foundations
Prominent in the development of the meta-model was Lazarus’ cognitive-mediational-
relational theory of emotions (Lazarus, 1991b, 1993, 1998, 1999, 2000a). Lazarus’ theory is
based around the notion of relational meaning and the evaluative process of appraisal.
According to the theory, relational meaning is the cognitive foundation of emotion, where
emotions are the response to appraisal mechanisms. Put simply, the theory relates to how a
person thinks about what is happening and how he or she reacts.
In addition to Lazarus’ theory, the meta-model drew from the following models from
mainstream psychology: the person-environmental (P-E) fit model of stress (Edwards, 1991;
French, Rogers, and Cobb, 1974); the stress cycle model (McGrath, 1976); the facet model of
occupational stress (Beehr, 1998; Beehr and Newman, 1978; Newman and Beehr, 1979); the
cybernetic model of workplace stress (Cummings and Cooper, 1979, 1998; Edwards, 1992,
1998); the job demands-control model of stress (Karasek, 1979); the general systems model
of stress (Cox and McKay, 1981); a model of stress and human performance (Sanders, 1983);
and the control theory of the job stress process (Spector, 1998). This selection of models was
by no means exhaustive, but it did serve to identify a number of common features that reflect
the assumptions underpinning contemporary stress theory. Several points of convergence
were highlighted, in particular the notion that stress entails a sequence of events that includes:
(a) the presence of demands; (b) a set of cognitive processes through which demands are
evaluated; and (c) the generation of responses to demands (cf. Cooper et al., 2001; Kahn and
Byosiere, 1992). Much of this work is based on the fundamental premise that strain occurs
when there is an imbalance or misfit between the environmental demands and personal
resources.
The above theories were supplemented with the following models from sport psychology:
the notion of directional anxiety interpretations (Jones, 1991; 1995a, 1995b); a conceptual
model for integrating arousal construct terminology (Gould and Krane, 1992); a control
model of debilitative and facilitative competitive state anxiety (Jones, 1995b); the application
of Hanin’s individual zones of optimal functioning model to emotions and athletic
performance (Hanin, 1997); a model illustrating factors that affect the arousal-performance
relationship (Landers and Boutcher, 1998); the application of Lazarus’ cognitive-mediational-
relational theory of emotions to sport (Lazarus, 2000a, 2000b); and a basic model of stress
and coping (Jones, 2002). Although their terminology often differs, these models share a
number of key theoretical themes which contributed to the development of the meta-model.
Most of these theories are generally congruent with those from mainstream psychology in that
they place an emphasis on some kind of cognitive-evaluative process. However, what often

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 13
distinguishes this work from the previously mentioned models is the attention they give to the
relationship between emotions – particularly anxiety – and performance.
Theoretical Framework
The meta-model itself offers a theoretical explanation of the relationships among stress,
emotions and performance (see Figure 1). The basic premise being that stressors arise from
the environment the performer operates in, are mediated4 by the processes of perception,
appraisal and coping, and, as a consequence, result in positive or negative responses, feeling
states, and outcomes. This ongoing process is moderated by various personal and situational
characteristics. The meta-model can be divided into three main theoretical stages: (a) person-
environment (P-E) fit; (b) emotion-performance (E-P) fit; and (c) coping and overall outcome
(COO).
Stage 1: Person-environment (P-E) Fit
This stage focuses on the notion of P-E fit, which is either explicitly or implicitly
common to most contemporary theories of psychological stress. It proposes that strain arises
not from the person or environment separately, but rather by their misfit or incongruence with
one another (Caplan, 1983, 1987a, 1987b; Caplan and Harrison, 1993; Caplan, Cobb, French,
Harrison, and Pinneau, 1975; Edwards, 1991, 1996; Edwards, Caplan, and Harrison, 1998;
French, Caplan, and Harrison, 1982; French, Rogers, and Cobb, 1974; Harrison, 1978, 1985;
Kulka, 1979). Hence, the main point here relates to an individual’s ability to manage an
encounter, which, of course, represents the essence of a transactional process. Central to this
stage are personal perception and an (initial) cognitive process of relational meaning
involving the appraisal of stressors resulting in emotional responses.
Before proceeding, it is important to note the distinction between the processes of
personal perception and cognitive appraisal, which is a difference seldom stated in the extant
literature (Lazarus, 1999). Perception refers to a person’s awareness of the environment they
are operating in and is filtered, modified and supplemented by perceptual distortions (e.g.,
repression, denial, illusion), construction processes (Weick, 1979), social information
(Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978), information processing capabilities (March and Simon, 1958),
and organizational structures with limited access to objective information (Caplan, 1987b;
Harrison, 1978). Appraisal (or apperception), which will be discussed in more detail later,
refers to a person’s cognitive evaluation of the meaning and significance of a perceived
demand (Lazarus, 1966).
Following on from this point, another important distinction is made between objective
and subjective representations of environmental stressors (Parasuraman and Alutto, 1981;
Spector, 1998, 1999). Objective stressors include competitive, organizational and personal
demands as they exist independent of the person’s perceptions, whereas subjective stressors
refer to those demands that are perceived by the person. Environmental stressors have
4 A mediator is defined as a variable that “accounts for the relation between the predictor and the criterion” (Baron
and Kenny, 1986, p. 1176). A mediator, therefore, provides a link between one variable and another. In contrast,
a moderator is a variable that “affects the direction and/or strength of the relation between an independent or
predictor variable and a dependent or criterion variable” (Baron and Kenny, 1986, p. 1174). That is, some third
factor that exerts an influence on the correlation between two variables.

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 14
commonly been conceived by scholars as major life events (see, e.g., Dohrenwend and
Dohrenwend, 1974; Holmes and Rahe, 1967; Sarason, Johnson, and Siegel, 1978; Turner and
Wheaton, 1995) and daily hassles (see, e.g., Eckenrode and Bolger, 1995; Kanner, Coyne,
Schaefer, and Lazarus, 1981; Lazarus, 1984b; Monroe, 1983). Over the past few decades,
researchers have attempted to measure and study these phenomena within a sport context
(e.g., Albinson and Pearce, 1998; Bramwell, Masuda, Wagner, and Holmes, 1975; Hamilton,
Hamilton, Meltzer, Marshall, and Molnar, 1989; Passer and Seese, 1983; Rushall, 1987,
1990; Williams, Tonymon, and Andersen, 1991). Regarding major life events, recent studies
have identified the organizational structure and climate as a significant factor affecting elite
performers’ preparation for, and performance in, the Olympic Games (Gould, Guinan,
Greenleaf, Mudbery, and Peterson, 1999; Pensgaard and Duda, 2002). From a slightly
different perspective, the role of daily hassles in the development of overtraining syndrome in
athletes has also been investigated (Kentta and Hassmen, 1998; Meehan, Bull, Wood, and
James, 2004). These findings are particularly interesting in the context of this review because
they suggest that both major and relatively “minor” organizational-related events can have a
significant impact on athletes’ well-being and performance.
The initial work investigating organizational stress in sport did not begin with a clearly
defined conceptualization or theoretical model. Indeed, the research did not even begin with a
focus on organizational stress at all. Rather, it emerged from the studies mentioned earlier
examining “sources of stress” in sport performers (i.e., Gould, Jackson, and Finch, 1993;
Scanlan et al., 1991; see also Campbell and Jones, 2002b; Dugdale et al., 2002; Giacobbi,
Foore et al., 2004, Giacobbi, Lynn et al., 2004; Holt and Hogg, 2002: James and Collins,
1997; Noblet and Gifford, 2002; Park, 2004). This empirical work revealed a wide range of
stressors, including a significant number associated with the sport organization within which
the athlete was operating (Hardy and Jones, 1994; Hardy et al., 1996; Jones, 1995b). Stressors
identified were broadly related to the following areas: preparation and performance problems;
judges decisions and competition organization; coach and teammate influences; coaching,
managerial, and administrative decisions; social support; accommodation, travel, nutrition,
and training facilities; and financial and time pressures.
Given the likely prominence of sub-optimal group dynamics within these areas,
Woodman and Hardy (1998, 2001a) developed a theoretical framework of organizational
stress in sport based on Carron’s (1982) model of group cohesion. This framework
represented the first theoretical inroad into the study of organizational stressors in athletes and
highlighted four main stress-related areas: environmental issues, personal issues, leadership
issues, and team issues (cf. Carron, 1982). In developing their work, Woodman and Hardy
(2001a) interviewed elite performers from a single sport with regard to the organizational
stressors they encountered in preparation for major international competitions. The main
environmental issues identified were: selection, the training environment, and finances. The
main personal issues were: nutrition, injury, and goals and expectations. The main leadership
issues were: coaches, and coaching styles. The main team issues were: team atmosphere,
support network, roles, and communication. Fletcher and Hanton (Fletcher, 2001; Fletcher
and Hanton, 2003b; Hanton et al., 2005) provided considerable support for these findings
with samples from a wide range of sports. They also identified a number of additional
environmental issues: accommodation, travel, competition environment, and safety.
Interestingly, the primary focus of Hanton et al.’s study was the comparison of organizational
stressors with competitive stressors in elite performers. Contrary to what the wider literary

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 15
context might suggest, they found that this population appears to experience (and recall) more
stressors associated primarily and directly with the sport organization than with competitive
performance. Furthermore, they appear more likely to mention varied organizational stressors
but similar competitive stressors, probably because the former are essentially extraneous and
widely distributed whereas the latter are, by definition, inherent and endemic to elite sport.
This recent line of inquiry has highlighted organizational stress as an important research
domain in contemporary sport psychology and has also provided consultants with a wide
range of stressors that athletes’ encounter. However, the application of Carron’s (1982) model
of group cohesion to organizational stress has raised some concerns relating predominately to:
(a) the subsequent bias of the framework toward interpersonal dynamics, and (b) the
appellation of the different categories within the structure (Fletcher and Hanton, 2003a; see
also Bringer, Johnston, and Brackenridge, 2004). In an attempt to overcome these limitations
and avoid premature theory building in this area, Fletcher and Hanton (2003a) proposed an
alternative framework of organizational stressors in sport performers (see Figure 2). The
conceptual foundations of this structure were derived from recent research developments in
the fields of organizational behavior (see, for a review, Cooper et al., 2001) and sport
psychology (e.g., Fletcher and Hanton, 2003b; Hanton et al., 2005). Specifically, the
framework consists of a three-level hierarchical structure of organizational stressors. Based
on Cooper et al.’s work, five general dimensions were identified: factors intrinsic to the sport;
roles in the sport organization; sport relationships and interpersonal demands; athletic career
and performance development issues; and, organizational structure and climate of the sport.
Preliminary evidence for the conceptual integrity of the new framework was recently
presented in an exploratory study with high-level performers (Hanton and Fletcher, 2003) and
a brief report which reflected on potential stressors within each dimension (Hanton and
Fletcher, 2005).
While stressors are clearly a salient feature of sport performers’ lives, they only reflect
one component of the stress process and say little about the evaluative mechanisms underling
an encounter. The cognitive process of appraisal is pivotal here (Arnold, 1960; Grinker and
Spiegel, 1945; Lazarus, 1964, 1966; Speisman, Lazarus, Mordkoff, and Davison, 1964). As
mentioned earlier, appraisal relates to how a person evaluates his or her transactions with the
environment. People constantly evaluate the significance of what is happening with respect to
its implications for well-being and what might be done about it. In the context of
organizational stress in sport, cognitive appraisal involves evaluating the relevance of a
stressor, for example a conflict with management, and its personal significance for well-
being. If the conflict is considered meaningful, the performer then evaluates whether he or she
has the sufficient personal resources available to cope with the stressor. Situational variables
that influence the appraisal process include demands, constraints, opportunities and culture.
Personal variables include goals and goal hierarchies, beliefs about self and world, and
personal resources (Lazarus, 1998, 1999).

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 16
Figure 2. A conceptual framework of organizational stressors in sport performers (adapted with
permission from Fletcher and Hanton, 2003a; Hanton and Fletcher, 2003, 2005).

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 17
According to Lazarus’ (1966) original theory of psychological stress, there are two types
of appraisal: primary and secondary. Primary appraisal involves the evaluation of an
encounter with regard to whether or not it is relevant to one’s values, goal commitments,
beliefs about self and world, and situational intentions. During this process, a person
considers the implications of what is at stake (“how does this affect me?”), thus giving
meaning to an encounter. The meanings that best express a stressful encounter are those
involving harm/loss, threat and challenge (Lazarus, 1966, 1981; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984;
Lazarus and Launier, 1978). It is important to note that these categories can occur
simultaneously in a transaction and should, therefore, only be separated for the convenience
of analysis. The term “primary” is used because if the encounter is considered meaningless
there is no potential for further cognitive processes. Secondary appraisal begins if meaning is
ascribed to an encounter. This process is concerned with the identification and availability of
coping resources to deal with the harm/loss, threat and challenge (“what can I do about
this?”). Lazarus (1999) emphasized a number of points concerning this stage of the process.
First, this mechanism is nothing more than an evaluation of coping options and is not actually
the initiation or implementation of coping strategies. Second, the term “secondary” is not
intended to connote a process of less importance, but rather an evaluative reaction to the
identification of a significant encounter.
Over the past few decades a substantial amount of mainstream psychology research has
supported the fundamental premise of Lazarus’ appraisal-centered theory of stress and coping
(see, for a list of studies, Lazarus, 1999). This literature is supplemented by a growing
number of studies in sport psychology that have investigated athletes’ appraisals (e.g.,
Anshel, Jamieson et al., 2001; Campbell and Jones, 2002a; Dugdale et al., 2002;
Hammermeister and Burton, 2001; Holt and Dunn, 2004; Kim and Duda, 2003; Lewthwaite,
1990). While this line of inquiry did not specifically examine cognitive-evaluative reactions
to organizational stressors, its findings do suggest that such mechanisms may play an
important role in this process in sport. For example, Anshel, Jamieson et al. (2001) found that
performers who were criticized or reprimanded by a coach reported high levels of threat,
moderate levels of harm/loss, and low levels of challenge appraisals. Other research has
shown that some anxious endurance athletes evaluate adverse environmental conditions as
particularly threatening (Hammermeister and Burton, 2001). In a study of elite male
wheelchair basketball players, Campbell and Jones (2002a) found that the demands or costs
of the sport, negative coach style/behavior, and relationship issues were more negatively
appraised (i.e., threat or harm/loss) than other sources of stress. Other elite performers
evaluated unexpected stressors as more threatening than expected stressors (Dugdale et al.,
2002), particularly selection-related issues (Holt and Dunn, 2004). Collectively, these
findings indicate that the cognitive mechanism of appraisal is central in determining how
sport performers react to the stressors they encounter (cf. Anshel, Kim et al., 2001; Burton,
1998; Burton and Naylor, 1997; Gill, 1994; Rotella and Lerner, 1993; Tenenbaum et al.,
2003a; see also Anderson and Williams, 1988; Smith, 1980, 1985, 1986).
In developing his theory, Lazarus (1991b, 1993, 1995, 1999; Lazarus and Lazarus, 1994)
has increasingly emphasized the role of appraisal in generating emotions, a trend which has
been reflected in the sport psychology literature (Gill, 2000; Lazarus, 2000a; Vallerand and
Blanchard, 2000; see also Gill, 1994; Gould and Urdy, 1994; Jones, 1995b; Vallerand, 1983).
According to this perspective, how a person evaluates a stressor will determine whether or not
he or she exhibits a strain reaction. It is generally accepted that there are three major

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 18
categories of possible stress responses or strain: physiological, psychological and behavioral
(Cooper et al., 2001; Kahn and Byosiere, 1992). For the reminder of this subsection we focus
on psychological responses; not because they are necessarily the primary or most frequent
reactions to organizational stressors, but because of the available space and central focus of
this book.
Particularly prominent within this category of responses are the emotions and their
associated cognitive and somatic symptoms. Theorists have commonly attempted to classify
emotions based upon their affective tone or valence (see, e.g., Ekman, Friesen, and Ellsworth,
1982; Izard, 1977; Lazarus, 1993). Lazarus (1995), for instance, proposed 15 discrete
emotions which he grouped together under three main headings: positive emotions (i.e.,
happiness, pride, relief, love), negative emotions (i.e., anger, anxiety, guilt, shame, sadness,
envy, jealousy, disgust), and mixed emotions (i.e., hope, compassion, gratitude). Each
emotion “tells a different tale” about how a person appraises the environmental demands he
or she encounters (Lazarus, 1999). Factors that influence the generation of emotions include
goal relevance, goal congruence, type of ego involvement, options for coping, coping
potential, and future expectations. In a recent excursion into the sport psychology literature,
Lazarus (2000b) selected a number of emotions (i.e., anger, anxiety, guilt, relief, happiness
and pride) that he considered most important in competitive sport and discussed their
influence on athletic performance.
Given that models of stress are essentially theories about emotion (Lazarus, 1993), it is
perhaps somewhat surprising that the study of emotions within an organizational context is
sparse. Indeed, Pekrun, and Frese (1992) began their review of emotions in work and
achievement by stating that “there is little research that speaks directly to the issue of work
and emotions… organizational psychology ought to take the issue of emotions at work more
seriously” (p. 153). A number of reasons have been posited for this lack of interest (see, e.g.,
Briner, 1995; Cooper et al., 2001; Wright and Doherty, 1998). First, in their search for the
happy and productive worker, researchers have frequently confounded emotions (e.g.,
happiness) with attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction). Second, a “myth of rationality” appears to
persist whereby behavior is largely viewed in rational-cognitive terms and emotions are
regarded as something of an inconvenience. Finally, of all the possible responses to stressors,
emotions may be the most difficult to measure and study.
Within the field of sport psychology, there has been a recent surge of theoretical and
empirical interest in the topic of emotions (see, e.g., Cerin 2003; Cerin, Szabo, Hunt, and
Williams, 2000; Cerin, Szabo, and Williams, 2001; Gauvin and Spence, 1998; Hanin, 1993,
1997, 2000; Mellalieu, 2003; Pensgaard and Duda 2002, 2003; Robazza, this volume). This
has served to establish the importance of the emotions in sport and their potential affect on
athletes’ well-being and performance. This attention has, however, tended to focus on
competitive issues as the antecedents of emotional responses. In one of the few published
examples of an organizational antecedent, Pensgaard and Duda (2002) relate an occasion
when an Olympic champion reacted angrily to a coach’s defensive tactics. In another
example, Lazarus (2000b) uses interpersonal conflict to illustrate how anger is likely to be a
principal emotion in organizational contexts:
With respect to anger in competitive sports, actions by… [a] referee, ball handler, the
spectators, coach, wife, or lover with whom an angry verbal interchange the night before may
have deprived the athlete of needed relaxation and sleep, can readily get the athlete’s goat.

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 19
The object of one’s anger is the person whom one blames for an offense and toward whom
one wants to exact revenge in order to repair a wounded self-esteem. (p. 243)
Stage 2: Emotion-performance (E-P) Fit
This stage focuses upon the notion of E-P fit which proposes that negative feeling states
occur when the relationship between an emotion and performance is out of equilibrium
(Fletcher and Fletcher, 2004, 2005). A negative feeling state essentially reflects those
emotional responses that are interpreted as debilitative to performance. Hence, the main point
here is an individual’s ability to deal with his or her cognitive and somatic reactions to
stressors which, of course, continues the theme of a transactional relationship. Central to this
stage is a (further) cognitive process of relational meaning involving the appraisal of
emotions resulting in feeling states.
Sport psychologists are increasingly considering the “orientation” of athletes’ emotions in
relation to their consequences for performance (cf. Hanin, 1997, 2000; see also Jones, 1991,
1995a, 1995b). In the present context, orientation refers to the nature of emotional responses:
that is, will these cognitive and somatic symptoms have a positive or negative effect on
performance? Fletcher and Fletcher (2004, 2005) referred to this process as the notion of
facilitating and debilitating dimensions of emotional responses or “emotional orientation”.
This approach is, of course, either explicitly or implicitly common to many
conceptualizations of the emotions in sport (see, e.g., Hanin, 1997, 2000; Cerin, 2003;
Pensgaard and Duda, 2003), including anger (see, e.g., Isberg, 2000) and anxiety (see, e.g.,
Burton, 1990; Mahoney and Avener, 1977; Murray, 1989; Parfitt, Jones, and Hardy, 1990;
Rotella and Lerner, 1993; Nordell and Sime, 1993; Jones, 1991, 1995a, 1995b). According to
Hanin (1997, 2000), emotions can be categorized as positive or negative based on two
dimensions: hedonic tone (i.e., pleasantness-unpleasantness) and functional impact (i.e.,
optimizing-dysfunctional). It is the later of these dimensions which is relevant to the second
stage of the meta-model. More specifically, the cognitive mechanism underpinning this
dimension involves the interpretation and labeling of an emotion with regard to its effect on
performance. Jones (1995b) described such a process as:
A further level of cognitive appraisal which has the function of interpreting the
meaningfulness of the cognitive and physiological symptoms experienced following earlier
appraisal of the congruence between situational demands and ability to meet those demands.
(p. 463)
Fletcher and Fletcher (2004, 2005) elaborated on this second cognitive process by
distinguishing between two additional types of appraisal: tertiary and quaternary. Tertiary
appraisal involves the evaluation of an emotion with regard to whether or not it is relevant to
one’s performance. During this process, a person considers the implications of what is at
stake (“how does this emotion and performance affect me?”), thus giving meaning to
symptoms. It is important to note that emotions can occur simultaneously in a transaction and
should, therefore, only be separated for the convenience of analysis. If an emotion is
considered meaningless there is no potential for further cognitive processes. Quaternary
appraisal begins if meaning is ascribed to an emotion. This process is concerned with the
identification and availability of coping resources to deal with the emotion (“what can I do
about this emotion?”). This mechanism is nothing more than an evaluation of coping options

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 20
and is not actually the initiation or implementation of coping strategies. Furthermore, the
terms “tertiary” and “quaternary” are not intended to connote processes of less importance
than “primary” and “secondary” appraisal, but rather an interpretative reaction to emotional
responses to stressors. Fletcher and Fletcher (2004, 2005) suggested that how a person
interprets and labels an emotion with regard to its affect on performance will determine the
nature of his or her feeling state. It was hypothesized that performers who have confidence in
their ability to control and cope with their emotional responses will experience facilitative
feeling states.
Emotional orientations, therefore, refer to how performers interpret their emotions and
associated symptoms on a facilitative-debilitative continuum. In an organizational context,
one performer might label their anger in response to a conflict with management as having a
debilitative effect on performance and, consequently, feel frustrated and in a futile state.
Another performer who is also angry due to a similar event might label such an emotional
response as facilitative and spur him or her into investing more effort and being more
determined, thus resulting in a motivated feeling state (cf. Lazarus, 2000b). Hence, two
performers experiencing almost identical emotional responses to their initial appraisal
mechanisms might interpret their symptoms at opposite ends of a facilitative-debilitative
continuum. Another common organizational-related occurrence is the upheaval of managerial
and coaching staff, which often results in changes to funding criteria, team selection, and
training programs. Two hypothetical performers, who have the same emotional responses to
these events, say, for example, a degree of anxiety about the future, could interpret their
symptoms differently with regard to performance. For one individual, the anxiety they are
experiencing may result in feelings of apprehension about his or her competitive career, but
conversely, the other one may feel excited about his or her performance prospects (cf. Jones,
1995a). In this way, a person’s emotional responses and associated symptoms – regardless of
whether they are positive or negative reactions to his or her initial appraisal mechanisms –
might be positively or negatively orientated with regard to performance, depending on the
further level of cognitive appraisal.
It is possible, perhaps even likely, that a feeling state in which symptoms are interpreted
as being facilitative to performance bears little resemblance to the initial emotional responses
to stressors. The complex cocktail of emotions that a performer is experiencing can
potentially be interpreted and labeled in a functional or dysfunctional way depending on the
powerful influence of personal and situational characteristics. Such characteristics moderate
the processes described above and help account for variance in emotions and feeling states
across performers. Put another way, these factors may serve as buffers or exacerbates of P-E
and E-P relationships (see Bolger and Zuckerman, 1995; Cohen and Edwards, 1989; Semmer,
1996). Specifically, such variables affect performers’ resilience or vulnerability to stressors
and help account for the variance in consequences by influencing whether psychological
responses are positively or negatively toned.
Of the numerous modifiers identified in the mainstream psychology literature, Type A/B
behavior pattern (TABP/TBBP; Ganster, 1987; George, 1992), positive/negative affect
(Schaubroeck, Ganster, and Fox, 1992; Spector, Zapf, Chen, and Frese, 2000), hardiness (Orr
and Westman, 1990; Kobasa, 1979), self-esteem (Ganster and Schaubroeck, 1995; Pierce,
Gardner, Dunham, and Cummings, 1993), and self-confidence and self-efficacy (Jex and
Gudanowski, 1992; Schaubroeck and Merritt, 1997) appear to be among the most influential
individual difference variables. In addition to those outlined above, several other personality

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 21
and dispositional factors have been implicated as potential moderators: optimism/pessimism
(Chang, 1998); locus of control (Perrewe, 1987); neuroticism (Bolger and Zuckerman, 1995);
emotional state (Watson and Clark, 1984); constructive thinking (Epstein and Meier, 1989);
hope (Snyder, Harris, Anderson, Holleran, Irving, Sigmon, Yoshinobu, Gibb, Langelle, and
Harney, 1991); learned resourcefulness (Rosenbaum, 1990); sense of coherence (Antonovsky,
1987); coping styles (Menaghan, 1983); self-reliance (Quick, Joplin, Nelson, Mangelsdorff,
and Fiedler, 1996); alexithymia (Taylor and Bagby, 2000); and perfectionism (Frost and
Marten, 1990). Among the situational moderators and other variables that might influence P-
E and E-P relationships include: the degree of available autonomy or control (Jones and
Fletcher, 1996); social support (Winnubst and Schabracq, 1996); individual physiological
susceptibility; gender; and flexibility (see Beehr, 1998; Quick, Quick, Nelson, and Hurrell,
1997).
Interestingly, it is likely that the ubiquitous term, “mental toughness”, represents a
composite variable which is a conglomerate of the more manifest personal moderators (cf.
Dienstbier, 1989; Garmezy and Masten, 1986; Rutter, 1987; Semmer, 1996; Wofford and
Daly, 1997; Wofford, Goodwin, and Daly, 1999; Wolff, 1995). To illustrate, performers high
in mental toughness might posses more TBBP, more positive affect, more hardiness, more
self-esteem, and more self-confidence and self-efficacy, thus inoculating them against the risk
of negative consequences. Conversely, performers low in mental toughness might posses
more TABP, more negative affect, less hardiness, less self-esteem, and less self-confidence
and -efficacy, thus predisposing them to greater risk of negative responses. Mental toughness
can, therefore, be defined as “an individual’s propensity to manage the demands of
environmental stressors, ranging from an absolute resilience to extreme vulnerability”
(Fletcher, 2005, p. 1246; Fletcher and Fletcher, 2005, p. 158). It is likely, of course, that the
relevance of the moderators that constitute mental toughness will depend on the combination
of the different personal, organizational and competitive stressors encountered by a performer
in a particular situation. Unfortunately, empirical research investigating these moderators and
the notion of mental toughness in relation to organizational stress in sport is virtually
nonexistent.
Stage 3: Coping and Overall Outcome (COO)
This stage focuses on coping with stress-related reactions and proposes that negative
outcomes occur through the inadequate or inappropriate use of coping strategies (Fletcher and
Fletcher, 2004, 2005). Sub-optimal well-being and/or performance is essentially a reflection
of an individual’s inability to cope. Hence, the main point here relates to an individual’s
ability to cope with his or her environmental stimuli and personal responses which, of course,
continues the theme of a transactional relationship. Central to this stage is the cognitive
process of personal coping resulting in overall outcomes.
There is general agreement that coping is a major component of the overall transactional
stress process (Aldwin, 2000; Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, Delongis, and Gruen,
1986; Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). Following a review of the coping literature, Dewe, Cox,
and Ferguson (1993) highlighted three main characteristics of coping: (a) relational in that it
reflects the relationship between a person and the environment (Folkman, 1982); (b) a process
in contrast to the more traditional trait-context orientated approaches (Cox, 1987, Edwards,
1988, Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, De Longis, and Gruen, 1986); and (c) integrative
in nature linking other components of the stress process (Cox and Ferguson, 1991).

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 22
Consistent with these themes, they defined coping as “the cognitions and behaviors, adopted
by the individual following the recognition of a stressful encounter, that are in some way
designed to deal with that encounter or its consequences” (Dewe et al., 1993, p. 7). Hence,
coping involves the occurrence of an event which impinges upon the person, appraisal of that
event as threatening to oneself, and the engagement of cognitive or behavioral strategies to
remove or alleviate the threat (O’Driscoll and Cooper, 1994).
The most common approach to studying coping can be described as taxonomic, where
researchers attempt to categorize coping strategies based upon the focus of a particular
cognition or behavior. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) differentiate between two major coping
strategies: (a) problem-focused, in which an individual attempts to deal with the
environmental demands he or she encounters and (b) emotion-focused, in which an individual
attempts to deal with his or her emotional responses to stressors. This is captured in the meta-
model where coping strategies focus on eliminating or reducing the quantity, frequency
and/or intensity of the demands or on modifying individuals’ responses through altering
personal or situational moderators resulting in a more favorable reappraisal of the stressors.
The functions of coping in the organizational stress process have been the focus of
considerable interest to mainstream psychology researchers. The extant literature generally
goes well beyond the mere description of coping strategies by delineating the conditions
under which different strategies are employed and assessing the effectiveness of such
strategies. However, because the literature on coping with organizational stress is so diverse
and voluminous, the interested reader is directed to relevant reviews of this area for more
information (e.g., Dewe et al., 1993; Newton, 1989; O’Driscoll and Cooper, 1994). Within
the sport psychology literature, the process of coping has attracted increasing attention in
recent years (see, e.g., Anshel, Kim et al., 2001; Crocker, Kowalski, and Graham, 1998;
Hardy et al., 1996; Hoar, Kowalski, Gaudreau, and Crocker, this volume). This interest has
tended to focus on performers’ ability to cope with competitive-related demands and
emotions (see, e.g., Campen and Roberts, 2001; Crocker and Graham, 1995; Hammermeister
and Burton, 2001; Holt and Dunn, 2004; Kim and Duda, 2003; Krohne and Hindel, 1988;
Nicholls, Holt, & Polman, 2005; Williams and Krane, 1992), although a significant number
of studies have touched on coping in organizational-related contexts such as environmental
conditions, training programs, travelling arrangements, injury rehabilitation, expectations and
pressure, interpersonal relationships with coaches and teammates, and communication with
the media and officials (see, e.g., Anshel and Delany, 2001; Anshel, Jamieson et al., 2001;
Crocker, 1992; Crocker and Isaak, 1997; Dugdale et al., 2002; Gould, Eklund, and Jackson,
1993; Gould, Finch, and Jackson, 1993; Hanson, McCullagh, and Tonymon, 1992; Holt and
Hogg, 2002; Madden, Kirkby, and McDonald, 1989; Madden, Summer, and Brown, 1990;
Nicholls, Holt, Polman, & James, 2005). Collectively, the findings suggest that sport
performers use a wide range of strategies to cope with organizational stressors and strain.
These include multiple problem- and emotion-focused strategies which are often used in
combination with one another. There is also some evidence to show that different strategies
are used to deal with organizational stressors compared to competitive stressors. Furthermore,
these strategies may be related to the specific demands encountered by the performer. Finally,
coping strategies are often so well learned that some performers automatically execute them
in response to particular organizational-related events.
Depending largely on the usage and effectiveness of coping strategies, a wide range of
positive or negative overall outcomes may occur. For example, lack of effective stress

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 23
management may lead to significant decrements in well-being, feelings of disengagement
from the sport, dissatisfaction, and reduced athletic performance (Burton, 1990; Hardy et al.,
1996; Schmidt and Stein, 1991). Prolonged maladaptive coping may ultimately induce a
chronic, highly debilitating form of strain know as burnout (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993;
Hobfoll and Shirom, 1993; Smith, 1986). Conversely, effective stress management may lead
to significant increases in well-being, sport satisfaction, self-esteem, and enhanced athletic
performance (Aldwin, 2000; Aldwin and Stokols, 1988; Antonovsky, 1987; Dienstbier, 1989;
Eysenck and Calvo, 1992; Fay, Sonnentag, and Frese, 1998; Folkman and Moskowitz, 2000;
Hardy, 1990, 1997, 1998; Hardy and Fazey, 1987; Hardy et al., 1996; Humphreys and
Revelle, 1984; Ickovics and Park, 1998; Lazarus, 2000b, 2000c; Mahoney and Avener, 1977;
Masters, 1992; Wegner, 1989, 1994, 1997; Woodman and Hardy, 2001b). Prolonged adaptive
coping may ultimately lead to experiences of flow, resonance and self-actualization (Jackson
and Csikszentmihalyi, 1999; Maslow, 1968; Newburg, Kimiecik, Durand-Bush, and Doell,
2002).
Unfortunately, there are virtually no studies investigating the psychological and
performance-related outcomes of organizational stress in sport. In the first of two notable
exceptions, Noblet, Rodwell, and McWilliams (2003) found that job control and work support
were significant predictors of job satisfaction in professional Australian footballers and that
social support has a significant impact on both job satisfaction and psychological health
outcomes. In the second, Fletcher and Hanton (2003c) examined the mechanisms by which
organizational stress might affect sport performance. They found that poorly managed
organizational issues were generally detrimental to performance via three possible routes:
concentration disruption, maladaptive emotional responses, and dysfunctional changes in
activation levels. These findings add empirical support to recent theoretical advances which
state that emotions can affect performance via complex changes in cognitive, motivational
and attentional functioning (see Botterill and Brown, 2002; Cerin et al., 2000; Hanin, 1997,
2000; Janelle, 2002; Jones, 2003; Lazarus, 2000b; Mellalieu, 2003; Vallerand and Blanchard,
2000).
Practical Implications
Despite the growing recognition that organizational stress can potentially affect athletes’
well-being and performance, the amount of attention given by sport organizations and
psychologists to addressing this issue has been limited, particularly when compared to the
strategies designed to deal with competitive stress (see, e.g., Anshel, in press; Burton, 1990;
Hardy et al., 1996). Moreover, researchers have commented on the general lack of
congruence that often exists between applied practices and theoretical and empirical work in
this area of performance enhancement (see, e.g., Fletcher and Hanton, 2003a, 2004; Hanton
and Fletcher, 2005; Hanton and Jones, 1999a, 1999b; Hardy et al., 1996; Jones and Hardy,
1990). They have argued for a more cogent approach to stress management in sport, one that
is underpinned by a rational evidence-based philosophy.
To this end, Fletcher and Hanton (2004) further developed the meta-model by
superimposing a multi-intervention framework for understanding stress management in
performance environments (see Figure 3). The overlay of this structure helps bridge the gap
between theory and practice and also facilitates knowledge transfer from mainstream

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 24
psychology (e.g., Briner and Reynolds, 1999; Cooper et al., 2001; Murphy, 1995; Murphy,
Hurrell, Sauter, and Keita, 1995; Quick and Quick, 1997; Quick, Quick, and Nelson, 1998).
As a result, Fletcher and Hanton (2003a, 2004) argued that efforts to manage the stress
process in performers can be differentiated by: (a) the level at which an intervention occurs
(i.e., primary, secondary, tertiary); (b) the scope of the intervention activity; (c) its target; and
(d) the assumptions underlying each intervention (Cooper et al., 2001; Quick and Quick,
1997; see also Last, 1988; Winett, 1995). Although the levels of intervention outlined in
Figure 3 are designed to manage any of the potential stressors that performers may encounter,
the remainder of this subsection will focus on their application in sport-related organizational
settings.
Primary interventions are based on the assumption that the most effective way to combat
strain is to eliminate or at least reduce the quantity, frequency and/or intensity of
organizational stressors, hence alleviating the overall demand placed upon sport performers.
This type of intervention is the most proactive and preventative approach to stress
management and involves altering training and competition environments, technologies, or
organizational structures. Examples include: rule changes, role restructuring, organizational
restructuring, profiling the organization, and educational workshops. Secondary interventions
focus on stress management training to modify sport performers’ psychological responses to
stressors, rather than adapting the organizational conditions. These interventions aim
primarily to increase performers’ awareness of their stress-related reactions and to enhance
their resiliency to stressors through “mental toughness” training programs. Examples include:
stress management training, communication and information sharing, “wellness” programs,
contingency planning incorporating “what if?” scenarios, and simulation training. Tertiary
interventions are concerned with minimizing the damaging consequences of stressors by
helping athletes cope more effectively with reduced well-being or performance as a result of
strain. These interventions focus on the rehabilitation and treatment of problems once they
have occurred. Examples include: performer assistance programs, clinical counseling, and
educational coping programs.
These levels of intervention are, of course, not mutually exclusive and to some extent
there is overlap between the different strategies. For example, Cooper et al. (2001) describe
how conflict resolution sessions may be useful for preventing the onset or development of
interpersonal conflict (i.e., primary intervention) and/or confronting and dealing with conflict
after it has already surfaced (i.e., secondary intervention). Nevertheless, this framework
presents a systematic approach to stress management that can aid consultants in optimizing
well-being and performance in athletes. Clearly, the choice of approach will have a
significant impact on the efficacy of interventions and such strategies need to be tailored to
address the specific issues manifested within a sport organization.

Figure 3. A multi-intervention framework for understanding stress management in performance environments (reproduced with permission from Fletcher and
Hanton, 2004).

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 26
At this juncture, it is worth exploring some of the practical issues and guidelines relating
to the implementation of stress management interventions. Burton’s (1990) observation that
“stress management is a topic that is easier to theorize about than to apply effectively” (p.
171) is particularly pertinent in the context of this discussion. The climate within sport
organizations is often characterized by a skepticism of psychological support, particularly if
senior management suspect that an assessment may portray an unfavorable picture of the
organization. Hence, given the often sensitive nature of organizational-related issues,
consultants should continually emphasize that a greater understanding of this area can provide
a positive stimulus for change (Fletcher and Hanton, 2003b; Woodman and Hardy, 2001a).
Despite the potential benefits, a psychologist working in a sport organization should not lose
sight of the fact that this is one of the most demanding of environments:
The psychology professional wishing to consult for a sport organization faces an often
daunting and confusing task. There are few areas where psychological consultation presents
the challenges that are to be found in the sport world. (Perna, Neyer, Murphy, Ogilvie, and
Murphy, 1995, p. 235)
There are many reasons why difficulties may arise when attempting to implement
organizational-level stress management interventions. These appear to relate predominately to
a historical emphasis of placing the onus for stress management on athletes, senior
management’s beliefs about the impact of the organizational environment on performers, and
the financial, legal and political repercussions of making organizational-level changes
(Acosta Hernández, 2002; Fletcher and Hanton, 2003a; Hardy et al., 1996). On the occasions
when systematic stress management has been evident in sport, the focus has tended to be on
psychological skills training to tackle performers’ anxiety responses associated with
competitive performance (e.g., Hanton and Jones, 1999b; Mamassis and Doganis, 2004). Our
intention here is not to undervalue such individual-orientated approaches but simply to
highlight that these may not be sufficient in combating all aspects of stress experienced by
performers. It may be that this situation has arisen due to the heavy bias that currently exists
in many sport psychology certification programs toward psychological skills training and
performance enhancement techniques (Hanton and Fletcher, 2005; Woodman and Hardy,
2001a). Another contributory factor may be that, from a managerial perspective, such
strategies are often less costly and can be more readily implemented than longer-term
organizational restructuring. Interestingly, Cooper et al. (2001) also suggested that, in the
business domain, fear of litigation might have resulted in management abnegating their
responsibilities in an attempt to circumvent the legal and political ramifications of excessive
organizational strain. Regardless of the specific underlying reasons, a climate and culture has
prevailed in sport where organizations have tended to resist change when it involved
alterations to their practices and procedures.
When this observation is considered in relation to recent empirical findings (i.e., Hanton
et al., 2005), it becomes evident that consultants will probably need to exercise a degree of
flexibility and pragmatism to optimize the effectiveness of their work. To elaborate, as
mentioned earlier, Hanton et al.’s work indicates that whereas competitive stressors are, not
surprisingly, inherent and endemic to elite sport, organizational stressors are, on the other
hand, essentially extraneous and widely distributed. Hence, they went on to argue that it may
be judicious for consultants to focus on secondary level interventions to restructure

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 27
performers’ responses to competitive stressors and, in contrast, to focus on primary
interventions to reduce organizational stressors. However, while it is certainly important to
tailor interventions to meet the specific demands encountered by performers, it is also
important to balance this need with the constraints imposed by the managerial politics that
exist within sport organizations. Furthermore, organizational stress management is not solely
about attempting to eliminate stressors. Consultants need to appreciate the ever-changing
nature of environments and that some organizational demands are an unavoidable part of
contemporary sport. Organizational stress management interventions must also enable
performers to develop their own personal resources and enhance their “mental toughness” to
cope with stressors and strain. Indeed, it may be that positive consequences result from such
an approach:
Some organizational stress is both inevitable and desirable. The intent of preventative
stress management is to maximize eustress and performance, is to minimize distress, but not
to eliminate stress. While this is an ongoing process, people at work need not be left with the
problem of Sisyphus, king of Corinth in Greek mythology. Sisyphus was left in a state of
perpetual, hopeless, joyless struggle after he tricked Death and was condemned to push a rock
endlessly up a hill, only to have the rock always roll back down before the task was finished.
(Quick et al., 1998, p. 265)
Findings from mainstream psychology indicate that organizational-level interventions are
generally most effective when implemented systematically and as a result of careful
monitoring of the environment (Burke, 1993; Ivancevich and Matteson, 1987; Murphy,
1988). The processes of assessment and evaluation are critical here. In terms of conducting an
organizational level “stress audit”, an interdisciplinary approach that utilizes techniques from
psychology, physiology and medicine is likely to provide to the most complete picture of the
organization and its influences. It should also be emphasized that assessment is an ongoing
process involving continued analysis, rather than intermittent snapshot evaluations.
Diagnostic methods could include self-monitoring, behavioral observation, self-report
inventories, survey questionnaires, interviews, and organizational profiling. Turning to the
process of evaluation, a wide range of surveillance indicators and research methods can be
employed to assess the impact of stress management interventions on organizational stress-
related consequences. These methods should, of course, not only be valid, reliable and
feasible but also produce findings that are understandable and meaningful to executive boards
and managerial committees (see, e.g., Woodman and Hardy, 1997). A fundamental feature of
these recommendations will likely be the establishment and maintenance of communication
lines and a dismantling of policies that stimulate, rather than help to alleviate, the negative
consequences of organizational stress. Strategies should encourage supportive organizational
norms, which recognize that the experience of stress is not a sign of performer weakness or
incompetence. The importance of involving athletes and coaches in this process should not be
underestimated. An active participation in the stress management process, which promotes
greater individual control over the organizational environment, has been repeatedly
emphasized in the mainstream psychology literature (Murphy, 1995; Schurman and Israel,
1995).
Finally, in view of the points raised here, the authors concur with Ravizza’s (1988)
recommendation that consultants should pay careful attention to the constantly unfolding

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 28
“organizational politics” within contemporary sport. Of central importance is identifying the
key decision-makers within an organization and the personnel (e.g., performance directors)
whose input will likely influence any potential interventions. It is also worth noting who
within the organization is receptive to psychological support (Hardy et al., 1996). The extent
of commitment from all layers of the organization – the executive board, managerial
committees, technical and support staff, coaches, athletes – to alleviating the negative
consequences of stress is critical to the success of stress management interventions. However,
as Hardy et al. (1996) pointed out, consultants should tread carefully in the milieu of
organizational politics and not confuse an informed awareness with over involvement:
Effective consultants, then, must become politically astute so they can understand and
hopefully circumvent potential politically based problems. However, in the authors’
experience, it is usually a grave mistake for consultants to become involved in organizational
politics, so being politically astute certainly should not be interpreted as meaning being
politically active. (pp. 292-293)
To summarize, the practical implications of the meta-model offer a rational evidence-
based approach to understanding stress management in performance environments.
Consultants’ efforts to implement such interventions will be more effective if a number of
steps are taken. These include: (a) identification of potential organizational stressors; (b)
thorough assessment of the levels of organizational strain experienced by performers; and (c)
implementation of interventions designed to resolve problems and deal with symptoms
(Cooper et al., 2001). The challenge remains to convince personnel of the advantages of
systematic stress management that benefits not only athletes’ well-being and performance, but
also the sport organization as a whole.
Research Directions
To conclude this section, we suggest some directions for future research in this area.
These suggestions are not intended to be exhaustive, nor are they presented in any specific
order of importance, but they do highlight what we believe are the key issues to be addressed
if psychologists are to further their understanding of organizational stress in sport. In light of
the foregoing discussion, the majority of these research questions can be categorized under
five main areas: (a) objective and subjective stressors, (b) appraisal mechanisms relating to
responses and feeling states, (c) personal and situational characteristics that moderate the
process, (d) coping processes and strategies, and (e) effects on well-being and performance.
Objective and Subjective Stressors
There is considerable debate in the mainstream psychology literature about whether
organizational stressors should be studied objectively or subjectively (see, e.g., Spector,
1999). From an objective standpoint, it is argued that certain stressors transcend individual
cognitions and, therefore, attention should focus on establishing a consensus on which events
represent significant stressors. On the other hand, the subjective position emphasizes that it is
a person’s perception and appraisal of a stimulus that is the critical factor in determining its
potential significance. It is likely, of course, that progress will only be made in this area by

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 29
examining the implications of both objective and subjective aspects of the stress process
(Cooper et al., 2001; Spector, 1999). Future researchers in sport psychology may also wish to
investigate the different properties of stressors, such as the intensity (high vs. low demand;
Cooper et al., 2001), duration (acute vs. chronic; Anshel, Kim et al., 2001; Elliot and
Eisdorfer, 1982), prevalence (frequent vs. infrequent occurrence, Fletcher and Hanton,
2003b), quantity (many vs. few demands; Hanton et al., 2005), and other aspects such as the
timing (e.g., competition vs. training settings; Fletcher and Hanton, 2003b), specificity
(specific vs. global demand; Fletcher and Hanton, 2003b), closeness (proximal vs. distal to
the individual; Jessor, 1981), and weighting (additive or multiplicative; Cooper et al., 2001).
Finally on the topic of stressors, two other important areas of study are (a) the interface
between, and (b) the interactive impact of competitive, organizational and personal stressors
(Hanton et al., 2005). To elaborate briefly, it is likely that managing the interface between
these categories of stressors places further demands on performers (cf. O’Driscoll, 1996),
particularly for those competing at a subelite or amateur standard. Furthermore, the combined
effect of all the different stressors encountered by performers needs to be considered because,
as Cooper et al. (2001) pointed out, “the whole (effect) may well be more than the sum of the
parts!” (p. 53).
Appraisal Mechanisms Relating to Responses and Feeling States
The meta-model points to two processes of relational meaning that link the performer to
the environment. These are operationalized in terms of cognitive-evaluative appraisal
mechanisms. Further research efforts are needed to explore the explanatory potential of these
concepts and their role in the stress process in sport. In terms of performers’ responses to
organizational stressors, future research should consider adopting an interdisciplinary
approach, combining information from psychometric testing (e.g., self-report measures),
behavioral analysis (e.g., observational techniques), and physiological indices (e.g., blood
pressure, catecholamines and cortisol levels). From a psychological perspective, it is
important that researchers consider the distinction between what has been described as
display rules (emotions that are expected to be expressed) and feeling rules (emotions that
should be felt). Put simply, performers functioning in a sport organizations may express
certain appropriate, organizationally desired emotions, which are different from the emotions
actually being felt (cf. Ashforth and Humphrey, 1993; Briner, 1995; Rafaeli and Sutton,
1987). It is also worth examining in greater detail the intensity and frequency of emotional
responses (cf. Brief and Weiss, 2002; Fisher, 2002; Pekrun and Frese, 1992) and how these
dimensions mediate emotional orientations. Given the likely complexity of these
relationships, it appears that identifying how performers’ responses interact and give rise to
feeling states presents a challenging, but potentially fruitful, line of work for future
researchers.
Personal and Situational Characteristics that Moderate the Process
The potential influences of the organizational stress process can be considered under two
broad categories: (a) personality and dispositional variables, and (b) situational and social
variables. It is important that future researchers examine these areas because developing
adaptive characteristics and climates will likely play an important role in helping performers
deal with organizational stressors that cannot be changed and hence have to be “lived with”.
Findings from mainstream psychology suggest that some of the most influential individual

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 30
difference variables include: Type A/B behavior pattern (TABP/TBBP; Ganster, 1987;
George, 1992); positive/negative affect (Schaubroeck, Ganster, and Fox, 1992; Spector, Zapf,
Chen, and Frese, 2000); hardiness (Orr and Westman, 1990; Kobasa, 1979); self-esteem
(Ganster and Schaubroeck, 1995; Pierce, Gardner, Dunham, and Cummings, 1993); self-
confidence and self-efficacy (Jex and Gudanowski, 1992; Schaubroeck and Merritt, 1997);
the degree of available autonomy or control (Jones and Fletcher, 1996); and social support
(Winnubst and Schabracq, 1996). One important issue to consider in this area of research is
the possible confounding of effects due to a lack of conceptual differentiation and
measurement redundancy between such variables as optimism, self-esteem, negative
affectivity, and neuroticism (Cooper et al., 2001). Researchers examining the significance of
mental toughness in sport will need to demonstrate that composite constructs exert direct and
interactive influences on the stress process. Hence, a complete understanding of mental
toughness and moderator effects can only be obtained if they are studied within the context of
a transactional conceptualization of stress.
Coping Processes and Strategies
Despite the accumulated knowledge on coping generated by mainstream and sport
psychology researchers, there is still little known about the specific strategies that athletes use
to cope with organizational stress. For researchers wishing to explore this area, their first
priority should be to develop coping classifications systems that take into account not just the
focus (problem vs. emotion) of a particular strategy but also its form (cognitive or behavioral)
and the variety of different strategies used (Latack and Havlovic, 1992). Some potential
research areas include: (a) the coping strategies used with specific organizational stressors,
(b) the effectiveness of such strategies, (c) the personal and situational characteristics which
moderate the use of strategies in organizational contexts, (d) the mediational properties of
coping in the organizational stress process, and (e) the relationship between coping and
performers’ well-being and performance. Finally, sport psychologists should ensure that their
research designs clearly reflect the conceptual distinction between coping “behaviors” and
“styles”. Cooper et al. (2001) hypothesized that specific behaviors function as mediators
between stressor-strain relationships, with dispositional styles moderating the strength of this
relationship.
Effects on Well-being and Performance
A fundamental issue pervading stress research in general is the effect of strain responses
on human performance. It behooves sport psychology researchers to examine the mechanisms
by which stress responses might affect sport performance (Fletcher and Hanton, 2003c) and
how much performance variance might be accounted for by organizational strain (Woodman
and Hardy, 2001a). Researchers working in this area should be wary of potential
physiological, biomechanical and tactical confounds that may threaten the internal validity of
their studies. For example, a performer may identify a lack of food or inappropriate diet as a
correlate of poor performance at a competition, but the question remains as to what extent
performance decrement is due to psychological mechanisms relating to dysfunctional
responses, or physiological mechanisms relating to glycogen depletion (Fletcher and Hanton,
2003c). Other issues that warrant more systematic investigation relate to the impact of
organizational strain on psychological health (Noblet et al., 2003), athletic burnout (cf. Smith,
1986), and overtraining syndrome (Meehan et al., 2004). Greater attention needs to be given

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 31
to the specific nature of the stressor-strain relationships that are instrumental in affecting the
overall outcomes of the process. For example, dissatisfaction with the sport (or aspects of the
organization) may have a differential impact on performers who vary in terms of sport
involvement. It may be that sport dissatisfaction is more salient for elite athletes whose
performance is central to their self-esteem than for nonelite athletes whose performance is
peripheral. Future research needs to clearly define the impact of organizational strain on a
range of psychological and performance indices.
In addition to these main areas, scholars may wish to further examine the fundamental
theoretical tenets of the meta-model. Fletcher and Fletcher (2004) acknowledged that a
potential limitation of the model concerns the validity of the linear stage framework evident
within its structure. Jones (1990) recognized this potential drawback in stress-performance
models over a decade ago when he provocatively posed the question, “do sports performers
process information in a strict serial manner, so that a stage becomes passive once it has
processed information and passed it on to the next stage?” (p. 37). Indeed, while it has been
argued that “the one-dimensional scheme can be used as a frame of reference for interpreting
when and how a second dimension operates” (Sanders, 1980, p. 335), more recent evidence
from cognitive neuroscience indicates that sequential, unitary approaches are rather simplistic
and that parallel, multiple processes offer a more ecologically valid conceptualization
(Gazzaniga, 1989; Ornstein and Thompson, 1984). For scholars working in this area, parallel
distributive processing theory may be instructive (Hinton, 1992; McClelland, Rumelhart, and
the PDP Research Group, 1987; Rogers, and McClelland, 2004; Rumelhart, McClelland, and
the PDP Research Group, 1987; Scientific American, 1999). This theory is grounded in
models of networked knowledge – sometimes known as “neural networks” or
“connectionism” – and posits that the activation of a single brain node stimulates pathways to
other nodes, and so forth. In this way, node activity spreads and can occur simultaneously in
multiple parts of the brain, with ongoing processing occurring in parallel and being
distributed via neural connections throughout the cognitive system. Aldwin’s (2000)
comments on hemispheric brain functioning suggest that such an approach may have utility in
refining the meta-model and, therefore, enhancing psychologists’ understanding of
performers ongoing appraisals of demands and responses:
If emotional processing is mediated more by the right hemisphere, and rational
processing by the left hemisphere, then it should not be surprising that both mechanisms are
involved and that one can inform the other… (p. 41)
The adaptation of the meta-model to accommodate recent developments in cognitive
neuroscience would offer, in the authors’ opinion, something of a middle ground in the
cognition-emotion debates of stress reactions (see Ellis, 1985; Lazarus, 1981, 1982, 1984a
1991a; Parkinson, and Manstead, 1992; Zajonc, 1980, 1984). On the one hand, Lazarus
(1981, 1982, 1984a 1991a) argued that the cognitive process of appraisal is primary in
determining an individual’s emotional responses. On the other hand, Zajonc (1980, 1984)
argued that emotional responses occur before, and may be at odds with, the cognitive process
of appraisal. Hence, if the two processes of relational meaning in the meta-model operate in
parallel then it is likely that both cognitions and emotions can simultaneously occupy primary
positions in the stress process. Put simply, in any instant a performer is thinking and
responding, and also experiencing emotions and reacting to them.

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 32
Such theoretical advances are likely to open up further avenues of inquiry relating to the
level and speed of cognitive processing in sport performers (cf. LeDoux, 1995; Murphy,
2001). Lazarus (1999) has argued that appraisal mechanisms can operate at a conscious or
unconscious level, and over time or instantaneously:
…there are two main contrasting ways an appraisal can come about. First, the process of
appraising can be deliberate and largely conscious. Second, it can be intuitive, automatic, and
unconscious. The distinction is important because the circumstances of appraising vary
greatly. Sometimes an appraisal requires a slow, deliberate search for information on which to
predicate how we should react, especially about what can be done to cope with one’s
predicament. At other times, a very rapid appraisal is called for. (p. 82)
Interestingly, it has been argued that these two modes operate in an often simultaneous
and parallel fashion, and may in fact be contradictory (Aldwin, 2000; Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus,
and commentators, 1995). The proposal that there may be two conflicting appraisals at the
same time appears to provide a cognitive explanation as to why an athlete may experience
primarily negative emotional responses to a stressor (e.g., anger, anxiety), and yet
simultaneously be able to maintain an overall positive feeling state in terms of their outlook
on performance (e.g., anticipatory excitement). Indeed, this notion is well-supported by the
literature addressing multiple affective systems (e.g., Cacioppo, Gardner, and Berntson, 1999;
Davidson, 1992; Gray, 1994) and meta-moods (e.g., Mayer and Gaschke, 1988; Mayer,
Salovey, Gomberg-Kaufman, and Blainey, 1991; Mayer and Stevens, 1994). Unraveling the
complexities of parallel cognitive processing and the levels at which it may occur represents
one of the major challenges for sport psychologists investigating the stress-emotion-
performance relationship.
Finally, we conclude this section with a selection of research questions that are
particularly worthy of further investigation if psychologists are to gain a more comprehensive
understanding of organizational stress in sport:
− What are the experiences of organizational stress in “non-performing” personnel
(Woodman and Hardy, 2001a), such as coaches (cf. Kelley, 1994; Kelley, Eklund,
and Ritter-Taylor, 1999; Taylor, 1992), managers and directors (cf. Busser, 1990;
Byers, 1987; Copeland and Kirsch, 1995; Martin, Kelley, and Eklund, 1999), support
team professionals (cf. Reid, Stewart, and Thorne, 2004; Sullivan and Nashman,
1998), and officials, referees and umpires (cf. Anshel and Weinberg, 1995; Rainey,
1995, 1999; Rainey and Hardy, 1999)?
− What are the characteristics and qualities of optimally functioning organizations
(Fletcher and Hanton, 2003b; Weinberg and McDermott, 2002)? What are the most
effective strategies for managing organizational stress in sport settings (Woodman
and Hardy, 2001a)? To what extent can consultants teach performers the necessary
skills to cope with organizational stress (cf. Dewe et al., 1993)? What
methodological designs are most appropriate for the evaluation of organizational
stress management interventions (cf. Beehr and O’Hara, 1987; Hanton and Fletcher,
2005)?

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 33
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This chapter has reviewed literature on organizational stress from the fields of
mainstream and sport psychology in order to reflect on what this work can tell us about stress
in sport organizations. This discussion helps to focus attention on the important conceptual
and theoretical issues relating to organizational stress in competitive sport, how such issues
affect performers, and the role psychologists can play in better understanding the nature of
this phenomenon. Also, this review has hopefully provided the groundwork for scholars and
academics in their efforts to identify future areas of fertile research. While many issues arise
from the preceding discussion, there are two questions particularly worthy of consideration:
What Methodologies Should we Employ to Investigate Organizational Stress
in Sport?
A critical concern for researchers is to ensure that their work captures the complex and
dynamic nature of the stress process in sport organizations. The conceptual stance adopted in
this chapter has viewed stress as relational in nature, involving ongoing transactions between
the performer and the environment. This theme was developed within the meta-model, in
which a series of cognitive-evaluative processes were outlined to best express the relational-
transactional nature of stress in performance environments. Hence, if understanding
organizational stress in sport is best advanced by exploring individual appraisals and
subjective meanings, then researchers must utilize methods that capture the contextual
richness of such processes and the idiographic nature of the stress experience. This raises an
important question of whether the prevailing research methodologies in sport psychology,
based largely on cross-sectional designs, satisfactorily capture the dynamics of this process.
Indeed, Spicer (1997) argued that rather than addressing the notion of a transaction,
traditional research methods employed in mainstream psychology simply reflect an
interactional perspective of stress where the various structural components (stressors, strain,
and coping) are operationalized as static constructs.
In contrast, the transactional conceptualization suggests that research needs to explore the
ongoing interplay that exists among stress-related constructs and examine the possibility of
multidirectional (mutual) causality. Given the complexity of such relationships, longitudinal,
prospective, and microanalytic approaches would appear to be among some of most effective
research strategies because they provide an opportunity to clarify casual relationships that are
otherwise indeterminable through cross-sectional analysis (see Kahn and Byosiere, 1992;
Lazarus, 2000c). Cooper et al. (2001) suggested that such approaches are probably best
operationalized through multivariate analysis and qualitative techniques to expand the scope
of research and generate a richer understanding of the organizational stress process.
How do We Measure Organizational Stress in Sport?
Measurement is an important aspect of the scientific method and, as Fletcher and Hanton
(2003b) pointed out, it will be very difficult to make significant advances in sport

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 34
psychologists’ understanding of this area without valid and reliable measures. While there are
a number of inventories which assess organizational-related issues in a sport context (see,
e.g., Albinson and Pearce, 1998; Bramwell et al., 1975; Rushall, 1987, 1990), these
instruments have rarely been exposed to rigorous psychometric testing or employed in
systematic research programs. Hence, it appears that researchers are now at a critical stage in
building a body of knowledge; namely, that there exists an urgent need to develop a
comprehensive measure of organizational stress in sport performers.
Of paramount importance in the progress toward such a measure is the establishment of
validity, reliability, relevancy, sensitivity and stability criteria. While space unfortunately
precludes a discussion of these issues, it is worth highlighting some key implications that
researchers will need to pay careful attention to: (a) the nature and content of items, (b) the
scoring of response scales, and (c) the manner in which psychometrics are established (cf.
Cooper et al., 2001; Dewe, 2000). Given the conceptual ambiguity that has existed in this
area, researchers must be particularly wary of measurement confounding and ensure that
inventories do not purport to assess one construct (e.g., a stressor) when in reality they tap
into another (e.g., a strain).
In conclusion, this chapter has discussed a wide range of issues and challenges facing
sport psychologists and organizations in the early years of the twenty-first century.
Consideration has been given to the ever-changing context in which performers function, in
particular how sociocultural, political, economic, occupational and technological forces shape
sport organizations and how they in turn can affect athletes’ well-being and performance.
While experiencing some organizational demands is an unavoidable aspect of contemporary
sport, there is much that can be done to influence the consequences and overall outcomes of
this phenomenon at both an individual and organizational level. Only a concerted effort from
the sport community as whole will result in sustained improvements in the well-being and
performance of athletes, sport organizations and ultimately the societies in which they live
and function. However, the damaging consequences of neglecting these issues are, according
to Acosta Hernández (2002), likely to only be matched by their far-reaching impact:
The worst enemy of a sport organization today is neither another sport organization, nor
another sport, nor the social environment, nor the athletes, nor even their critics or opponents;
public enemy number one is the local organizational structure and the sport organization
itself… Inertia, combined with a lack of organizational structure, the absence of
administrative procedures, and the ineptitude of managers, will not only destroy the sport
organization itself but also the sport movement as we know is today. (p. 7)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This review is part of an ongoing program of work currently being undertaken by the
authors addressing conceptual and measurement issues within the context of stress and
anxiety in sport. We would like to thank Mr. Jim Fletcher for his insightful comments on
earlier drafts of this chapter.

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 35
REFERENCES
Acosta Hernández, R. (2002). Managing sport organizations. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Albinson, J. G., and Pearce, W. (1998). The Athlete Daily Hassle Scale (4th ed.). Ontario:
Queens University.
Aldwin, C. M. (2000). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective. New
York: Guilford.
Aldwin, C. M., and Stokols, D. (1988). The effects of environmental change on individuals
and groups: Some neglected issues in stress research. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 8, 57-75.
Anderson, C. A., and Williams, J. M. (1988). A model of stress and athletic injury: Prediction
and prevention. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 721-786.
Anshel, M. H. (in press). Strategies for preventing and managing stress and anxiety in sport.
In D. Hackford, J. Duda, and R. Lidor (Eds.), Handbook of research in applied sport
psychology. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Anshel, M. H., and Delany, J. (2001). Sources of acute stress, cognitive appraisals, and
coping strategies of male and female child athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 329-
353.
Anshel, M. H., Jamieson, J., and Raviv, S. (2001). Cognitive appraisals and coping strategies
following acute stress among skilled competitive male and female athletes. Journal of
Sport Behavior, 24, 129-143.
Anshel, M. H., Kim, K. W., Kim, B. H., Chang, K. J., and Eom, H. J. (2001). A model for
coping with stressful events in sport: Theory, application, and future directions.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 32, 43-75.
Anshel, M. H., and Weinberg, R. S. (1995). Sources of acute stress in American and
Australian basketball referees. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7, 11-22.
Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and
stay well. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Appley, M. H., and Trumbull, R. (1967). On the concept of psychological stress. In M. H.
Appley and R. Trumbull (Eds.), Psychological stress. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts.
Appley, M. H., and Trumbull, R. (1986). A conceptual model for the examination of stress
dynamics. In M. H. Appley and R. Trumbull (Eds.), Dynamics of stress: Physiological,
psychological, and social perspectives (pp. 21-45). New York: Plenum.
Arnold, M. B. (1960). Emotion and personality. Vol I: Psychosocial aspects. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Ashby, W. R. (1966). An introduction to cybernetics. New York: Wiley.
Ashforth, B. E., and Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: The influence
of identify. Academy of Management Review, 18, 88-115.
Baron, R., and Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 36
Beehr, T. A. (1998). An organizational psychology meta-model of occupational stress. In C.
L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 6-27). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Beehr, T. A., and Newman, J. E. (1978). Job stress, employee health, and organizational
effectiveness: A facet analysis model, and literature review. Personnel Psychology, 31,
365-399.
Beehr, T. A., and O’Hara, K. (1987). Methodological designs for the evaluation of
occupational stress interventions. In S. Kasl and C. Cooper (Eds.), Stress and health:
Issues in research methodology (pp. 79-112). New York: Wiley.
Bolger, N., and Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890-902.
Botterill, C., and Brown, M. (2002). Emotion and perspective in sport. International Journal
of Sport Psychology, 33, 38-60.
Bramwell, S. T., Masuda, M., Wagner, N. N., and Holmes, T. H. (1975). Psychological
factors in athletic injuries: Development and application of the Social and Athletic
Readjustment Rating Scale (SARRS). Journal of Human Stress, 1, 6-20.
Brief, A., and Weiss, H. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307.
Briner, R. B. (1995, April). The experience and expression of emotion at work. Paper
presented at the 1995 British Psychological Society Occupational Psychology
Conference, Warwick, UK.
Briner, R. B., and Reynolds, S. (1999). The costs, benefits and limitations of organizational
level stress interventions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 647-664.
Bringer, J. D., Johnston, L. H., and Brackenridge, C. H. (2004). Maximizing transparency in a
doctoral thesis: The complexities of writing about the use of QSR*NVIVO within a
grounded theory study. Qualitative Research, 4, 247-265.
Burke, R. (1993). Organizational-level interventions to reduce occupational stressors. Work
and Stress, 7, 77-87.
Burton, D. (1990). Multimodal stress management in sport: Current status and future
directions. In G. Jones and L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and performance in sport (pp. 171-
201). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
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.
Burton, D., and Naylor, S. (1997). Is anxiety really facilitative? Reaction to the myth that
cognitive anxiety always impairs performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9,
295-303.
Busser, J. A. (1990). The relationship between stress and wellness for public leisure service
managers. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 8, 44-59.
Byers, S. K. (1987). Organizational stress: Implications for health promotion managers.
American Journal of Health Promotion, 2, 21-27.
Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., and Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect system has parallel
and integrative processing components: Form follows function. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 76, 839-855.

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 37
Campbell, E., and Jones, G. (2002a). Cognitive appraisal of sources of stress experienced by
elite male wheelchair basketball players. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19, 100-
108.
Campbell, E., and Jones, G. (2002b). Sources of stress experienced by elite male wheelchair
basketball players. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19, 82-99.
Campen, C., and Roberts, D. C. (2001). Coping strategies of runners: Perceived effectiveness
and match to precompetitive anxiety. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 145-161.
Cannon, W. B. (1914). The emergent function of the adrenal medulla in pain and the major
emotions. American Journal of Physiology, 33, 356-372.
Cannon, W. B. (1915). Bodily changes in pain, hunger, fear, and rage: An account of recent
researches into the function of emotional excitement. New York: Appleton.
Cannon, W. B. (1929). Organization for physiological homeostasis. Physiological Review, 9,
339-430.
Cannon, W. B. (1932). The wisdom of the body (2nd ed.). New York: Norton.
Cannon, W. B. (1935). Stresses and strain of homeostasis. American Journal of Medical
Science, 189, 1-14.
Caplan, R. D. (1983). Person-environment fit: Past, present, and future. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.),
Stress research (pp. 35-78). New York: Wiley.
Caplan, R. D. (1987a). Person-environment fit in organizations: Theories, facts, and values.
In A. W. Riley and S. J. Zaccaro (Eds.), Occupational stress and organizational
effectiveness (pp. 103-140). New York: Praeger.
Caplan, R. D. (1987b). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate
dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31,
248-267.
Caplan, R. D., Cobb, S., French, J. R. P., Jr., Harrison, R. V., and Pinneau, S. R., Jr. (1975).
Job demands and worker health: Main effects and occupational differences. Cincinnati,
OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Caplan, R. D., and Harrison, R. V. (1993). Person-environment fit theory: Some history,
recent developments, and future directions. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 253-275.
Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123-138.
Carver, C. S., and Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory
approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Carver, C. S., and Scheier, M. F. (1985). Self-consciousness, expectancies, and the coping
process. In T. M. Field, P. M. McCabe, and N. Schniederman (Eds.), Stress and coping
(pp. 305-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cerin, E. (2003). Anxiety versus fundamental emotions as predictors of perceived
functionality of pre-competitive emotional states, threat, and challenge in individual
sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 223-238.
Cerin, E., Szabo, A., Hunt, N., and Williams, C. (2000). Temporal patterning of competitive
emotions: A critical review. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 605-626.
Cerin, E., Szabo, A., and Williams, C. (2001). Is the experience sampling method (ESM)
appropriate for studying pre-competitive emotions? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 2,
27-45.

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 38
Chang, E. (1998). Dispositional optimism and primary and secondary appraisal of a stressor:
Controlling for confounding influences and relations to coping and psychological and
physical adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1109-1120.
Cohen, S., and Edwards, J. R. (1989). Personality characteristics as moderators of the
relationship between stress and disorder. In W. J. Neufeld (Ed.), Advances in the
investigation of psychological stress (pp. 235-283). New York: Wiley.
Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues
for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., and O’Driscoll, M. P. (2001). Organizational stress: A review and
critique of theory, research, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Copeland, B. W., and Kirsch, S. (1995). Perceived occupational stress among NCAA
Division I, II, and III athletic directors. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 70-77.
Cordes, C., and Dougherty, T. (1993). A review and integration of research on job burnout.
Academy of Management Review, 18, 621-656.
Cox, T. (1978). Stress. New York: Macmillan.
Cox, T. (1985). Stress (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Cox, T. (1987). Stress, coping and problem solving. Work and Stress, 1, 5-14.
Cox, T. (1990). The recognition and measurement of stress: Conceptual and methodological
issues. In J. R. Wilson and N. E. Corlett (Eds.), Evaluation of human work: A practical
ergonomics methodology (pp. 628-647). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis.
Cox, T. (1993). Stress research and stress management: Putting theory to work. London:
HMSO.
Cox, T., and Ferguson, E. (1991). Individual differences, stress and coping. In C. L. Cooper
and R. Payne (Eds.), Personality and stress: Individual differences in the stress process
(pp. 7-30). New York: John Wiley.
Cox, T., and McKay, C. (1981). A transactional approach to occupational research. In E. N.
Corlett and J. Richardson (Eds.), Stress, work design and productivity (pp. 91-115). New
York: John Wiley.
Craft, L. L., Magyar, T. M., Becker, B. J., and Feltz, D. L. (2003). The relationship between
the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 and sport performance: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 44-65.
Crocker, P. R. E. (1992). Managing stress by competitive athletes: Ways of coping.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 161-175.
Crocker, P. R. E., and Graham, T. R. (1995). Coping by competitive athletes with
performance stress: Gender differences and relationships with affect. The Sport
Psychologist, 9, 325-338.
Crocker, P. R. E., and Isaak, K. (1997). Coping during competitions and training sessions:
Are youth swimmers consistent? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 355-369.
Crocker, P. R. E., Kowalski, K. C., and Graham, T. R. (1998). Measurement of coping
strategies in sport. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology
measurement (pp. 149-161). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Cummings, T. G., and Cooper, C. L. (1979). A cybernetic theory of occupational stress.
Human Relations, 32, 395-418.
Cummings, T. G., and Cooper, C. L. (1998). A cybernetic theory of organizational stress. In
C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 101-121). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 39
Davidson, R. J. (1992). Emotion and affective style: Hemispheric substrates. Psychological
Science, 3, 39-43.
Dewe, P. (2000). Measures of coping with stress at work: A review and critique. In P. Dewe,
M. Leiter, and T. Cox (Eds.), Coping, health and organizations (pp. 3-28). New York:
Taylor and Franics.
Dewe, P., Cox, T., and Ferguson, E. (1993). Individual strategies for coping with stress at
work: A review. Work and Stress, 7, 5-15.
Dewey, J., and Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon Press.
Dienstbier, R. A. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness: Implications for mental and
physical health. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 84-100.
Dohrenwend, B. S., and Dohrenwend, B. P. (1974). Stressful life events: Their nature and
effects. New York: Wiley.
Dugdale, J. R., Eklund, R. C., and Gordon, S. (2002). Expected and unexpected stressors in
major international competition: Appraisal, coping, and performance. The Sport
Psychologist, 16, 20-33.
Eckenrode, J., and Bolger, N. (1995). Daily and within-day event measurement. In S. Cohen,
R. C. Kessler, and L. U. Gordon (Eds.), Measuring stress: A guide for health and social
scientists (pp. 80-101). New York: Oxford University Press.
Edwards, J. R. (1988). The determinants and consequences of coping with stress. In C. L.
Cooper and R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping and consequences of stress and work (pp.
233-263). New York: John Wiley.
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and
methodological critique. International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 6, 283-357.
Edwards, J. R. (1992). A cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 17, 238-274.
Edwards, J. R. (1996). An examination of competing versions of the person-environment fit
approach to stress. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 292-339.
Edwards, J. R. (1998). Cybernetic theory of stress, coping, and well-being: Review and
extension to work and family. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress
(pp. 122-152). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., and Harrison, R. V. (1998). Person-environment fit theory:
Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence and directions for future research. In C. L.
Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 28-67). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., and Ellsworth, P. (1982). Conceptual ambiguities. In P. Ekman
(Ed.), Emotion in the human face (2nd ed., pp. 7-20). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Elliott, G. R., and Eisdorfer, C. (Eds.). (1982). Stress and human health: Analysis and
implications for research. New York: Springer.
Ellis, A. (1985). Cognition and affect in emotional disturbance. American Psychologist, 40,
471-472.
Epstein, S., and Meier, P. (1989). Constructive thinking: A broad coping variable with
specific components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 332-350.
Eysenck, M. W., and Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing
efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409-434.

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 40
Fay, D., Sonnentag, S., and Frese, M. (1998). Stressors, innovation, and personal initiative. In
C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 170-189). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Fisher, C.D. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of real-time affective reactions at work.
Motivation and Emotion, 26, 3-30.
Fletcher, D. (2001). Sources of organisational stress in elite sports performers. Unpublished
master’s thesis, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, United Kingdom.
Fletcher, D. (2005). “Mental toughness” and human performance: Definitional, conceptual
and theoretical issues [Abstract]. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 1246-1247.
Fletcher, D., and Fletcher, J. (2004, September). A meta-model of stress, emotions and
performance: Conceptual foundations, theoretical framework, and research directions.
Oral presentation presented at the annual meeting of the British Association of Sport and
Exercise Sciences, Liverpool, UK.
Fletcher, D., and Fletcher, J. (2005). A meta-model of stress, emotions and performance:
Conceptual foundations, theoretical framework, and research directions [Abstract].
Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 157-158.
Fletcher, D., and Hanton, S. (2003a, April). Research in organisational stress and British
Olympic athletes: Conceptual, theoretical and practical issues. In S. J. Bull (Chair),
Building and supporting an Olympic management team. Symposium conducted at the
meeting of the British Olympic Association Psychology Advisory and Steering Group,
Milton Keynes, UK.
Fletcher, D., and Hanton, S. (2003b). Sources of organizational stress in elite sports
performers. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 175-195.
Fletcher, D., and Hanton, S. (2003c, October). The effects of organizational stress upon
sports performance: An exploratory study. Poster session presented at the annual meeting
of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.
Fletcher, D., and Hanton, S. (2004, October). A meta-model of stress, emotions and
performance: Practical implications for applied sport psychologists. Poster session
presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport
Psychology, Minneapolis, MN.
Folkman, S. K. (1982). An approach to the measurement of coping. Journal of Occupational
Behavior, 3, 95-107.
Folkman, S. K., Lazarus, R., Dunkel-Schetter, C., De Longis, A., and Gruen, R. (1986).
Dynamics of a stressful encounter: Cognitive Appraisal, coping and encounter outcomes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 992-1003.
Folkman, S. K., and Moskowitz, J. T. (2000). Positive affect and the other side of coping.
American Psychologist, 55, 647-654.
Franks, B. D. (1994). What is stress? Quest, 46, 1-7.
French, J., Caplan, R., and Harrison, R. V. (1982). The mechanisms of job stress and strain.
New York: Wiley.
French, J. R. P., Jr., Rogers, W. L., and Cobb, S. (1974). Adjustment as person-environment
fit. In G. V. Coelho, D. A. Hamburg, and J. E. Adams (Eds.), Coping and adaptation (pp.
316-333). New York: Basic Books.
Frost, R. O., and Marten, P. A. (1990). Perfectionism and evaluative threat. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 14, 559-572.

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 41
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., and Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th
ed.). New York: Longman.
Ganster, D. C. (1987). Type A behavior and occupational stress. In J. M. Ivancevich and D.
C. Ganster (Eds.), Job stress: From theory to suggestion (pp. 61-84). New York:
Haworth Press.
Ganster, D. C., and Schaubroeck, J. (1995). The moderating effects of self-esteem on the
work stress-employee health relationship. In R. Crandall and P. Perrewe (Eds.),
Occupational stress: A handbook (pp. 167-177). Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis.
Garmezy, N., and Masten, A. S. (1986). Stress, competence, and resilience: Common
frontiers for therapist and psychopathologist. Behavior Therapy, 17, 500-521.
Gauvin, L., and Spence, J. C. (1998). Measurement of exercise-induced changes in feeling
states, affect, mood, and emotions. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise
psychology measurement (pp. 325-336). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information
Technology.
Gazzaniga, M. S. (1989). Organization of the human brain. Science, 245, 947-952.
George, J. (1992). The role of personality in organizational life: Issues and evidence. Journal
of Management, 18, 185-213.
Giacobbi, P. R., Jr., Foore, B., and Weinberg, R. S. (2004). Broken clubs and expletives: The
sources of stress and coping responses of skilled and moderately skilled golfers. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 166-182.
Giacobbi, P. R., Jr., Lynn, T. K., Wetherington, J. M., Jenkins, J., Bodendorf, M., and
Langley, B. (2004). Stress and coping during the transition to university for first-year
female athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 1-20.
Gill, D. L. (1994). A sport and exercise psychology perspective on stress. Quest, 46, 20-27.
Gill, D. L. (2000). Psychological dynamics of sport and exercise (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Gould, D. (1987). Promoting positive sport experiences for children. In J. R. May and M. J.
Asken (Eds.), Sport psychology: The psychological health of the athlete (pp. 77-98). New
York: PMA.
Gould, D., Eklund, R. C., and Jackson, S. A. (1993). Coping strategies used by U.S. Olympic
wrestlers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 83-93.
Gould, D., Finch, L. M., and Jackson, S. A. (1993). Coping strategies used by national
champion figure skaters. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 453-468.
Gould, D., Guinan, D., Greenleaf, C., Mudbery, R., and Peterson, K. (1999). Factors affecting
Olympic performance: Perceptions of athletes and coaches from more and less successful
teams. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 371-394.
Gould, D., Jackson, S. A., and Finch, L. M. (1993). Sources of stress in national champion
figure skaters. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15, 134-159.
Gould, D., and Krane, V. (1992). The arousal-athletic performance relationship: Current
status and future directions. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 119-
142). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Gould, D., and Urdy, E. (1994). Psychological skills for enhancing performance: Arousal
regulation strategies. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26, 478-485.
Gray, J. A. (1994). Three fundamental emotion systems. In P. Ekman and R. J. Davidson
(Eds.), The nature of emotions: Fundamental questions (pp. 243-247). New York: Oxford
University Press.

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 42
Grinker, R. R., and Spiegel, J. P. (1945). Men under stress. Philadelphia, PA: Blakiston.
Hamilton, L. H., Hamilton, W. G., Meltzer, J. D., Marshall, P., and Molnar, M. (1989).
Personality, stress, and injuries in professional ballet dancers. American Journal of Sports
Medicine, 17, 263-267.
Hammermeister, J., and Burton, D. (2001). Stress, appraisal, and coping revisited: Examining
the antecedents of competitive state anxiety with endurance athletes. The Sport
Psychologist, 15, 66-90.
Hanin, Y. L. (1993). Optimal performance emotions in top athletes. In S. Serpa, J. Alves, V.
Ferreira, and A. Paula-Brito (Eds.), Sport psychology: An integrated approach.
Proceedings from the VIII World Congress of Sport Psychology (pp. 229-232). Lisbon,
Portugal: ISSP.
Hanin, Y. L. (1997). Emotions and athletic performance: Individual zones of optimal
functioning model. European Yearbook of Sport Psychology, 1, 29-72.
Hanin, Y. L. (2000). Individual zones of optimal functioning (IZOF) model: Emotion-
performance relationships in sport. In Y. L. Hanin (Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 65-89).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hanson, S. J., McCullagh, P., and Tonymon, P. (1992). The relationship of personality
characteristics, life stress, and coping resources to athletic injury. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 14, 262-272.
Hanton, S., and Fletcher, D. (2003, October). Toward a conceptual understanding of
organizational stress in sports performers. Poster session presented at the annual meeting
of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, Philadelphia, PA.
Hanton, S., and Fletcher, D. (2005). Organizational stress in competitive sport: More than we
bargained for? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 36, 273-283.
Hanton, S., Fletcher, D., and Coughlan, G. (2005). Stress in elite sport performers: A
comparative study of competitive and organizational stressors. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 23, 1129-1141.
Hanton, S., and 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., and Jones, G. (1999b). The effects of a multmodal intervention program on
performers: II. Training the butterflies to fly in formation. The Sport Psychologist, 13,
22-41.
Hardy, L. (1990). A catastrophe model of anxiety and performance. In G. Jones and L. Hardy
(Eds.), Stress and performance in sport (pp. 81-106). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Hardy, L. (1997). Three myths about applied consultancy work. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 9, 277-294.
Hardy, L. (1998). Responses to the reactants on three myths in applied consultancy work.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 212-219.
Hardy, L., and Fazey, J. (1987, June). The inverted-U hypothesis: A catastrophe for sport
psychology? Paper presented at the annual conference of the North American Society for
the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Vancouver, Canada.
Hardy, L., and Jones, G. (1994). Current issues and future directions for performance related
research in sport psychology. Journal of Sports Sciences, 12, 61-90.
Hardy, L., Jones, G., and Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for
sport: Theory and practice of elite performers. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 43
Harrison, R. V. (1978). Person-environment fit and job stress. In C. L. Cooper and R. Payne
(Eds.), Stress and work (pp. 175-205). New York: Wiley.
Harrison, R. V. (1985). The person-environment fit model and the study of job stress. In T. A.
Beehr and R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human stress and cognition in organizations (pp. 23-55).
New York: Wiley.
Hinkle, L. E., Jr. (1973). The concept of “stress” in the biological and social sciences.
Science, Medicine and Man, 1, 31-48.
Hinton, G. E. (1992, September). How neural networks learn from experience. Scientific
American, 267, 144-151.
Hoar, S. D., Kowalski, K. C., Gaudreau, P., and Crocker, P. R. E. (this volume). A review of
coping in sport. In S. Hanton and S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport
psychology. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Hobfall, S. E., Schwarzer, R., and Chon, K-K. (1996). Disentangling the stress labyrinth:
Interpreting the meaning of the term stress as it is studied. Japanese Health Psychology,
4, 1-22.
Hobfoll, S., and Shirom, A. (1993). Stress and burnout in the workplace. In R. Golembiewski
(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 41-60). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Holmes, T. H., and Rahe, R. H. (1967). The Social Readjustment Rating Scale. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.
Holt, N. L., and Dunn, J. G. H. (2004). Longitudinal idiographic analyses of appraisal and
coping responses in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5, 213-222.
Holt, N. L., and Hogg, J. M. (2002). Perceptions of stress and coping during preparations for
the 1999 women’s soccer World Cup finals. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 251-271.
House, J. S. (1974). Occupational stress and coronary heart disease: A review and theoretical
integration. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 15, 12-27.
Humphreys, M. S., and Revelle, W. (1984). Personality, motivation, and performance: A
theory of the relationship between individual differences and information processing.
Psychological Review, 91, 153-184.
Ickovics, J. R., and Park, C. L. (1998). Paradigm shift: Why a focus on health is important.
Journal of Social Issues, 52, 237-244.
Isberg, L. (2000). Anger, aggressive behavior, and athletic performance. In Y. L. Hanin (Ed.),
Emotions in sport (pp. 113-133). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ivancevich, J., and Matteson, M. (1987). Organizational level stress management
interventions: A review and recommendations. Journal of Organizational Behavior
Management, 8, 229-248.
Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum Press.
Jackson, S. A., and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Flow in sports: The keys to optimal
experiences and performances. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
James, B., and Collins, D. (1997). Self-presentational sources of competitive stress during
performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19, 17-35.
Janelle, C. M. (2002). Anxiety, arousal and visual attention: A mechanistic account of
performance variability. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 237-251.
Jessor, R. (1981). The perceived environment in psychological theory and research. In D.
Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective (pp.
297-317). Hillsdale, HJ: Erlbaum.

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 44
Jex, S., and Gudanowski, D. (1992). Efficacy beliefs and work stress: An exploratory study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 509-517.
Jones, F., and Fletcher, B. C. (1996). Job control and health. In M. Schabracq, J. Winnubst,
and C. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of work and health psychology (pp. 33-50). New York:
John Wiley.
Jones, G. (1990). A cognitive perspective on the processes underlying the relationship
between stress and performance in sport. In G. Jones and L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and
performance in sport (pp. 17-42). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Jones, G. (1991). Recent developments and current issues in competitive state anxiety
research. The Psychologist, 4, 152-155.
Jones, G. (1995a). Competitive anxiety in sport. In S. J. H. Biddle (Ed.), European
perspectives on exercise and sport psychology (pp. 128-153). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Jones, G. (1995b). More than just a game: Research developments and issues in competitive
anxiety in sport. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 449-478.
Jones, G. (2002). Performance excellence: A personal perspective on the link between sport
and business. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 268-281.
Jones, G., and Hanton, S. (2001). Pre-competitive feeling states and directional anxiety
interpretations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 385-395.
Jones, G., and Hardy, L. (1989). Stress and cognitive functioning in sport. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 7, 41-63.
Jones, G., and Hardy, L. (1990). Stress and performance in sport. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Jones, M. V. (2003). Controlling emotions in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 471-486.
Kagan, A. R., and Levi, L. (1975). Health and environment – psychosocial stimuli: A review.
In L. Levi (Ed.), Society, stress and disease – childhood and adolescence (pp. 241-260).
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kahn, R. L., and Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 571-648). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., and Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Comparison of two
modes of stress management: Daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. Journal
of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 1-39.
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for
job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308.
Kasl, S. (1983). Pursuing the link between stressful life experiences and disease: A time for
reapprasisal. In C. I. Cooper (Ed.), Stress research (pp. 79-102). New York: Mentor
Books.
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., and Ritter-Taylor, M. (1999). Stress and burnout among
collegiate tennis coaches. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 21, 113-130.
Kelley, B. C., and Gill, D. L. (1993). An examination of personal/situational variables, stress
appraisal, and burnout in collegiate teacher-coaches. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 64, 94-102.
Kellmann, M., and Kallus, K. W. (2001). Recovery-stress questionnaire for athletes: User
manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 45
Kentta, G., and Hassmen, P. (1998). Overtraining and recovery: A conceptual model. Sports
Medicine, 26, 25-39.
Kim, M. S., and Duda, J. L. (2003). The coping process: Cognitive appraisals of stress,
coping strategies, and coping effectiveness. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 406-425.
Kobasa, S. (1979). Stressful life events, personality and health: An inquiry into hardiness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1-11.
Krohne, H. W., and Hindel, C. (1988). Trait anxiety, state anxiety, and coping behaviors as
predictors of athletic performance. Anxiety Research, 1, 225-235.
Kulka, R. A. (1979). Interaction as person-environment fit. In L. R. Kahle (Ed.), New
directions for methodology of behavioral science (pp. 55-71). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Landers, D. M., and Boutcher, S. H. (1998). Arousal-performance relationships. In J. M.
Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (3rd
ed., pp. 170-184). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Last, J. M. (1988). A dictionary of epidemiology (2nd ed.). New York: International
Epidemiological Association.
Latack, J. C., and Havlovic, S. J. (1992). Coping with job stress: A conceptual evaluation
framework for coping measures. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 13, 479-508.
Latack, J. C., Kinicki, A. J., and Prussia, G. E. (1995). An integrative process model of
coping with job loss. Academy of Management Review, 20, 311-342.
Lazarus, R. S. (1964). A laboratory approach to the dynamics of psychological stress.
American Psychologist, 19, 400-411.
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S. (1981). The stress and coping paradigm. In C. Eisdorfer, D. Cohen, A.
Kleinman, and P. Maxim (Eds.), Models for clinical psychopathology (pp. 177-214).
New York: Spectrum.
Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. American
Psychologist, 37, 1019-1024.
Lazarus, R. S. (1984a). On the primacy of cognition. American Psychologist, 39, 124-129.
Lazarus, R. S. (1984b). Puzzles in the study of daily hassles. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
7, 375-389.
Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 3-13.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991a). Cognition and motivation in emotion. American Psychologist, 46,
352-367.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991b). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing
outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 1-21.
Lazarus, R. S. (1995). Vexing research problems inherent in cognitive-mediational theories of
emotion – and some solutions. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 183-265.
Lazarus, R. S. (1998). Fifty years of the research and theory of R. S. Lazarus: An analysis of
historical and perennial issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. London: Free Association.
Lazarus, R. S. (2000a). Cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. In Y. L. Hanin
(Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 39-63). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Lazarus, R. S. (2000b). How emotions influence performance in competitive sports. The
Sport Psychologist, 14, 229-252.

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 46
Lazarus, R. S. (2000c). Toward better research on stress on coping. American Psychologist,
55, 665-673.
Lazarus, R. S., and commentators. (1995). Vexing problems inherent in cognitive-mediational
theories of emotion, and some solutions. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 183-265.
Lazarus, R. S., and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., and Launier, R. (1978). Stress-related transactions between person and
environment. In L. A. Pervin and M. Lewis (Eds.), Perspectives in interactional
psychology (pp. 287-327). New York: Plenum.
Lazarus, R. S., and Lazarus, B. N. (1994). Passion and reason: Making sense of our
emotions. New York: Oxford University Press.
LeDoux, J. E. (1995). Emotion: Clues from the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 209-
235.
Levanthal, H. (1997). Systems as frameworks, theories and models: From the abstract to the
concrete instance. Journal of Health Psychology, 2, 160-162.
Levi, L. (1996). Introduction: Spice of life or kiss of death? In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Handbook
of stress, medicine, and health (pp. 1-10). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Levi, L. (1998). Preface: Stress in organizations – theoretical and empirical approaches. In C.
L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. v-xii). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Lewthwaite, R. (1990). Threat perception in competitive trait anxiety: The endangerment of
important goals. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 280-300.
Madden, C. C., Kirkby, R. J., and McDonald, D. (1989). Coping styles of competitive middle
distance runners. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 287-296.
Madden, C. C., Summer, J. J., and Brown, D. F. (1990). The influence of perceived stress in
coping with competitive basketball. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, 21-
35.
Maguire, J., Jarvie, G., Mansfield, L., and Bradley, J. (2002). Sport worlds: A sociological
perspective. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Mahoney, M. J., and Avener, M. (1977). Psychology of the elite athlete: An exploratory
study. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 135-141.
Mamassis, G., and Doganis, G. (2004). The effects of a mental training program on juniors
pre-competitive anxiety, self-confidence, and tennis performance. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 16, 118-137.
March, J. G., and Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
Martens, R. (1971). Anxiety and motor behavior: A review. Journal of Motor Behavior, 2,
151-179.
Martens, R. (1977). Sport competition anxiety test. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Martens, R., Vealey, R. S., and Burton, D. (1990). Competitive anxiety in sport. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Martin, J. J., Kelley, B. C., and Dias, C. (1999). Stress and burnout in female high school
athletic directors. Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal, 8, 101-116.
Martin, J. J., Kelley, B. C., and 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.
Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 47
Mason, J. W. (1975). A historical view of the stress field. Journal of Human Stress, 1, 6-12,
22-36.
Masters, R. S. W. (1992). Knowledge, knerves, and know-how: The role of explicit versus
implicit knowledge in the breakdown of a complex motor skill under pressure. British
Journal of Psychology, 83, 343-358.
Mayer, J. D., and Gaschke, Y. N. (1988). The experience and meta-experience of mood.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 102-111.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Gomberg-Kaufman, S., and Blainey, K. (1991). A broader
conception of mood experience. Journal of Personlity and Social Psychology, 60, 100-
111.
Mayer, J. D., and Stevens, A. A. (1994). An emerging understanding of the reflective (meta-)
experience of mood. Journal of Research in Personlity, 28, 351-373.
McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., and the PDP Research Group (1987). Parallel
distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Vol. 2:
Psychological and biological models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McGrath, J. E. (1970). A conceptual formulation for research on stress. In J. E. McGrath
(Ed.), Social and psychological factors in stress (pp. 10-21). New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
McGrath, J. E. (1976). Stress and behavior in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1351-1395). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Meehan, H. L., Bull, S. J., Wood, D. M., and James, D. V. B. (2004). The overtraining
syndrome: A multicontextual assessment. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 154-171.
Mellalieu, S. D. (2003). Mood matters: But how much? A comment on Lane and Terry
(2000). Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 99-114.
Mellalieu, S. D., Hanton, S., and Fletcher, D. (this volume). A competitive anxiety review:
Recent directions in sport psychology research. In S. Hanton and S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.),
Literature reviews in sport psychology. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Menaghan, E. G. (1983). Individual coping efforts: Moderators of the relationship between
life stress and mental health outcomes. In H. B. Kaplan (Ed.), Psychosocial stress:
Trends in theory and research (pp. 157-191). New York: Academic Press.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., and Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Monroe, S. M. (1983). Major and minor life events as predictors of psychological distress:
Further issues and findings. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6, 189-205.
Murphy, L. (1988). Workplace interventions for stress reduction and prevention. In C. L.
Cooper and R. Payne (Eds.), Causes, coping and consequences of stress at work (pp.
301-339). New York: Wiley.
Murphy, L. (1995). Occupational stress management: Current status and future directions. In
C. Cooper and D. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 1-14).
New York: Wiley.
Murphy, L., Hurrell, J., Sauter, S., and Keita, G. (Eds.) (1995). Job stress interventions.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Murphy, S. T. (2001). Feeling without thinking: Affective primacy and the nonconscious
processing of emotion. In J. A. Bargh and D. K. Apsley (Eds.), Unraveling the

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 48
complexities of social life: A festschrift in honor of Robert B. Zajonc (pp. 39-53).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Murray, J. M. (1989). Competitive anxiety as positive affect. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Newburg, D., Kimiecik, J., Durand-Bush, N., and Doell, K. (2002). The role of resonance in
performance excellence and life engagement. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14,
249-267.
Newman, J. E., and Beehr, T. A. (1979). Personal and organizational strategies for handling
job stress: A review of research and opinion. Personal Psychology, 32, 1-43.
Newton, T. J. (1989). Occupational stress and coping with stress: A critique. Human
Relations, 42, 441-461.
Nicholls, A. R., Holt, N. L., and Polman, R. C. J. (2005). A phenomenological analysis of
coping effectiveness in golf. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 111-130.
Nicholls, A. R., Holt, N. L., Polman, R. C. J., and James, D. W. G. (2005). Stress and coping
among international adolescent golfers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 333-
340.
Noblet, A. J., and Gifford, S. M. (2002). The sources of stress experienced by professional
Australian footballers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 1-13.
Noblet, A. J., Rodwell, J., and McWilliams, J. (2003). Predictors of the strain experienced by
professional Australian footballers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 184-193.
Nordell, K. A., and Sime, W. (1993). Competitive trait anxiety, state anxiety, and perceptions
of anxiety: Interrelationships in practice and in competition. The Journal of Swimming
Research, 9, 19-24.
O’Driscoll, M. P. (1996). The interface between job and off-job roles: Enhancement and
conflict. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11, 279-306.
O’Driscoll, M. P., and Cooper, C. L. (1994). Coping with work related stress: A critique of
existing measures and proposal for an alternative methodology. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 67, 343-354.
Ornstein, R., and Thompson, R. F. (1984). The amazing brain. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Orr, E., and Westman, M. (1990). Does hardiness moderate stress, and how? A review. In M.
Rosenbaum (Ed.), Learned resourcefulness: On coping skills, self-control and adaptive
behavior (pp. 64-94). New York: Springer.
Parasuraman, S., and Alutto, J. A. (1981). An examination of the organizational antecedents
of stressors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 48-67.
Parfitt, G., Jones, G., and Hardy, L. (1990). Multidimensional anxiety and performance. In G.
Jones and L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and performance in sport (pp. 43-80). Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
Park, J. K., (2004). The perceived sources of competitive stress in Korean national athletes.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 35, 207-231.
Parkinson, B., and Manstead, A. S. R. (1992). Appraisal as a cause of emotion. Review of
Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 122-149.
Passer, M. W. (1982). Children in sport: Participation motives and psychological stress.
Quest, 33, 231-244.
Passer, M. W., and Seese, M. D. (1983). Life stress and athletic injury: Examination of
positive versus negative events and three moderator variables. Journal of Human Stress,
9, 11-16.

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 49
Pekrun, R., and Frese, M. (1992). Emotions in work and achievement. International Review
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7, 153-200.
Pensgaard, A. M., and Duda, J. L. (2002). “If we work hard we can do it!” A tale from an
Olympic (gold) medallist. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 219-236.
Pensgaard, A. M., and Duda, J. L. (2003). Sydney 2000: The interplay between emotions,
coping, and the performance of Olympic-level athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 253-
267.
Perna, F. P., Neyer, M., Murphy, S. M., Ogilvie, B. C., and Murphy, A. (1995). Consultations
with sport organizations: A cognitive-behavioral model. In S. M. Murphy (Ed.), Sport
psychology interventions (pp. 235-252). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Perrewe, P. (1987). The moderating effects of activity level and locus of control in the
personal control-job stress relationship. International Journal of Psychology, 22, 179-
193.
Pierce, J., Gardner, D., Dunham, R., and Cummings, L. (1993). Moderation by organization-
based self-esteem of role condition-employee response relationships. Academy of
Management Journal, 36, 271-288.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic Books.
Powers, W. T. (1973). Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago: Aldine.
Quick, J. C., Joplin, J. R., Nelson, D. L., Mangelsdorff, A. D., and Fiedler, E. (1996). Self-
reliance and military service training outcomes. Journal of Military Psychology, 8, 279-
293.
Quick, J. C., and Quick, J. D. (1997). Stress management programs. In L. H. Peters, C. R.
Greer, and S. A. Youngblood (Eds.), The Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of human
resource management. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Quick, J. C., Quick, J. D., Nelson, D. L., and Hurrell, J. J., Jr. (1997). Preventative stress
management in organizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Quick, J. D., Quick, J. C., and Nelson, D. L. (1998). The theory of preventive stress
management in organizations. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress
(pp. 246-268). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rafaeli, A., and Sutton, R. I. (1987). Expressions of emotions as part of the work role.
Academy of Management Review, 12, 23-37.
Rainey, D. W. (1995). Sources of stress among baseball and softball umpires. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 7, 1-10.
Rainey, D. W. (1999). Sources of stress, burnout, and intention to terminate among basketball
referees. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 578-588.
Rainey, D. W., and Hardy, L. (1999). Sources of stress, burnout and intention to terminate
among rugby union referees. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 797-806.
Ravizza, K. (1988). Gaining entry with athletic personnel for season-long consulting. The
Sport Psychologist, 2, 234-274.
Reid, C., Stewart, E., and Thorne, G. (2004). Multidisciplinary sport science teams in elite
sport: Comprehensive servicing or conflict and confusion? The Sport Psychologist, 18,
204-217.
Rick, J., and Briner, R. B. (2000). Psychosocial risk assessment: Problems and prospects.
Occupational Medicine, 50, 310-314.
Rick, J., Briner, R. B., Daniels, K., Perryman, S., and Guppy, A. (2001). A critical review of
psychosocial hazard measures. Norwich, UK: HSE Books.

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 50
Robazza, C. (this volume). Emotion in sport: An IZOF perspective. In S. Hanton and S. D.
Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport psychology. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Rogers, T. T., and McClelland, J. L. (2004). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed
processing approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rosenbaum, M. (Ed.) (1990). Learned resourcefulness: On coping skills, self-control, and
adaptive behavior. New York: Springer.
Rotella, R. J., and Lerner, J. D. (1993). Responding to competitive pressure. In R. N. Singer,
M. Murphey, and L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (528-
541). New York: Macmillan.
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., and the PDP Research Group (1987). Parallel
distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Vol. 1:
Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rushall, B. S. (1987). Daily analysis of life demands for athletes. Spring Valley, CA: Sports
Science Associates.
Rushall, B. S. (1990). A tool for measuring stress tolerance in elite athletes. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 51-66.
Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331.
Salancik, G. R., and Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job
attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.
Sanders, A. F. (1980). Stage analysis of reaction processes. In G. E. Stelmach and J. Requin
(Eds.), Tutorials on motor behavior (pp. 331-354). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Sanders, A. F. (1983). Towards a model of stress and human performance. Acta
Psychologica, 53, 64-97.
Sarason, I. G., Johnson, J. H., and Siegel, J. M. (1978). Assessing the impact of life changes:
Development of the Life Experiences Survey. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 46, 932-940.
Scanlan, T. K., Stein, G. L., and Ravizza, K. (1991). An in-depth study of former elite figure
skaters: III. Sources of stress. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 102-120.
Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D., and Fox, M. (1992). Dispositional affect and work-related
stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 322-335.
Schaubroeck, J., and Merritt, D. (1997). Divergent effects of job control on coping with work
stressors: The key role of self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 738-754.
Schmidt, G. W., and Stein, G. L. (1991). Sport commitment: A model integrating enjoyment
dropout and burnout. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8, 254-265.
Schurman, S., and Israel, B. (1995). Redesigning work systems to reduce stress: A
participatory action research approach to creating change. In L. Murphy, J. Hurrell, S.
Sauter, and G. Keita (Eds.), Job stress interventions (pp. 235-264). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Scientific American (Eds.). (1999). The Scientific American book of the brain. New York:
The Lyons Press.
Selye, H. (1936). A syndrome produced by diverse nocuous agents. Nature, 138, 32.
Selye, H. (1946). The general adaptation syndrome and the distress of adaptation. Journal of
Clinical Endocrinology, 6, 117-196.
Selye, H. (1950). The physiology and pathology of exposure to stress. Montreal: Acta.
Selye, H. (1956). The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 51
Selye, H. (1973). Evolution of the stress concept. American Scientist, 61, 692-699.
Selye, H. (1975). Confusion and controversy in the stress field. Journal of Human Stress, 1,
37-44.
Selye, H. (1976a). Forty years of stress research: Principle remaining problems and
misconceptions. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 115, 53-56.
Selye, H. (1976b). Stress in health and disease. Oxford, UK: Butterworths.
Selye, H. (1976c). The stress of life (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Semmer, N. (1996). Individual differences, work stress and health. In M. Schabracq, J.
Winnubst, and C. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of work and health psychology (pp. 51-86).
New York: Wiley.
Siegrist, J. (1998). Adverse health effects of effort-reward imbalance at work. In C. L. Cooper
(Ed.), Theories of organizational stress (pp. 190-204). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Slack, T. (1997). Understanding sport organizations: The application of organization theory.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Smith, R. E. (1980). Development of an integrated coping response through cognitive-
affective stress management training. In I. G. Sarason and C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Stress
and anxiety (Vol. 7, pp. 265-280). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Smith, R. E. (1985). A component analysis of athletic stress. In M. Weiss and D. Gould
(Eds.), Competitive sports for children and youths: Proceedings of the Olympic Scientific
Congress (pp. 107-112). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Smith, R. E. (1986). Toward a cognitive-affective model of athletic burnout. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 8, 35-50.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., and Wiechman, S. A. (1998). Measurement of trait anxiety in
sport. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp.
105-127). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T.,
Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C., and Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways:
Development and validation of an individual difference measure of hope. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570-585.
Spector, P. E. (1998). A control theory of the job stress process. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.),
Theories of organizational stress (pp. 153-169). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Spector, P. E. (1999). Objective versus subjective approaches to the study of job stress.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 737.
Spector, P. E., Zapf, D., Chen, P., and Frese, M. (2000). Why negative affectivity should not
be controlled in job stress research: Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 79-95.
Speisman, J. C., Lazarus, L., Mordkoff, A. M., and Davison, L. A. (1964). The experimental
reduction of stress based on ego-defense theory. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 68, 367-380.
Spicer, J. (1997). Systems analysis of stress and coping: A testing proposition. Journal of
Health Psychology, 2, 167-170.
Spielberger, C. D. (1989). Stress and anxiety in sports. In D. Hackfort and C. D. Spielberger
(Eds.), Anxiety in sports: An international perspective (pp. 3-17). New York:
Hemisphere.

David Fletcher, Sheldon Hanton and Stephen D. Mellalieu 52
Sullivan, P. A., and Nashman, H. W. (1998). Self-perceptions of the role of USOC sport
psychologists in working with Olympic athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 95-103.
Tapp, J. T. (1985). Multisystems holistic model of health, stress and coping. In T. M. Field, P.
M. McCabe, and N. Schniederman (Eds.), Stress and coping (pp. 285-304). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Taylor, G. J., and Bagby, R. M. (2000). An overview of the alexithymia construct. In R. Bar-
On and J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence (pp. 40-67). New
York: Wiley.
Taylor, J. (1992). Coaches are people too: An applied model of stress management for sports
coaches. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 4, 27-50.
Tenenbaum, G., Jones, C. M., Kitsantas, A., Sacks, D. N., and Berwick, J. P. (2003a). Failure
adaptation: Psychological conceptualization of the stress response process in sport.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 34, 1-26.
Tenenbaum, G., Jones, C. M., Kitsantas, A., Sacks, D. N., and Berwick, J. P. (2003b). Failure
adaptation: An investigation of the stress response process in sport. International Journal
of Sport Psychology, 34, 27-62.
Turner, R. J., and Wheaton, B. (1995). Checklist measurement of stressful life events. In S.
Cohen, R. C. Kessler, and L. U. Gordon (Eds.), Measuring stress: A guide for health and
social scientists (pp. 29-58). New York: Oxford University Press.
Vallerand, R. J. (1983). On emotion in sport: Theoretical and social psychological
perspectives. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 197-215.
Vallerand, R. J., and Blanchard, C. M. (2000). The study of emotion in sport and exercise:
Historical, definitional, and conceptual perspectives. In Y. L. Hanin (Ed.), Emotions in
sport (pp. 3-37). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Vealey, R. S., Udry, E. M., Zimmerman, V., and Soliday, J. (1992). Intrapersonal and
situational predictors of coaching burnout. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14,
40-58.
Wann, D. L., Melnick, M. J., Russell, G. W., and Pease, D. G. (2001). Sports fans: The
psychological and social impact of spectators. New York: Routledge.
Watson, D., and Clark, L. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience negative
aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-498.
Wegner, D. M. (1989). White bears and other unwanted thoughts: Suppression, obsession,
and the psychology of mental control. New York: Viking.
Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34-52.
Wegner, D. M. (1997). Why the mind wanders. In J. D. Cohen and J. W. Schooler (Eds.),
Scientific approaches to consciousness (pp. 295-315). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Weinberg, R., and McDermott, M. (2002). A comparative analysis of sport and business
organizations: Factors perceived critical for organizational success. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 14, 282-298.
Weiner, N. (1948). Cybernetics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Westerbeek, H., and Smith, A. (2003). Sport business in the global marketplace. Basingstoke,
UK: MacMillan.
Williams, J. M., and Krane, V. (1992). Coping styles and self-reported measures of state
anxiety and self-confidence. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 4, 134-143.

Organizational Stress in Competitive Sport 53
Williams, J. M., Tonymon, P., and Anderson, M. B. (1991). Effects of stressors and coping
resources on anxiety and peripheral narrowing in recreational athletes. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 3, 126-141.
Winett, R. A. (1995). A framework for health promotion and disease prevention and
programs. American Psychologist, 50, 341-350.
Winnubst, J., and Schabracq, M. (1996). Social support, stress and organization: Toward
optimal matching. In M. Schabracq, J. Winnubst, and C. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of
work and health psychology (pp. 87-102). New York: Wiley.
Wofford, J. C., and Daly, P. (1997). A cognitive process approach to understanding
individual differences in stress response propensity. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 2, 134-147.
Wofford, J. C., Goodwin, V. L., and Daly, P. S. (1999). Cognitive-affective stress propensity:
A field study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 687-707.
Wolff, S. (1995). The concept of resilience. Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Psychiatry, 29, 565-574.
Woodman, T. (2003). Le stress organisationnel dans le sport de haut niveau (Organizational
stress in high-level sport). In C. Le Scanff (Ed.) Le Manuel de Psychologie du Sport:
L’intervention en Psychologie du Sport (The Handbook of Sport Psychology: Sport
Psychology Interventions, 2nd ed., pp. 357-375). Paris: EP.S.
Woodman, T., and Hardy, L. (1997, Winter). Getting the management right. Coaching Focus,
36, 17-18.
Woodman, T., and Hardy, L. (1998, March). Le stress organisationnel: une étude de cas
(Organizational stress: A case study). Presentation made at the Journées nationales
d’études de la société Française de psychologie du sport, Poitiers, France.
Woodman, T., and Hardy, L. (2001a). A case study of organizational stress in elite sport.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 207-238.
Woodman, T., and Hardy, L. (2001b). Stress and anxiety. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas,
and C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 290-318). New York:
Wiley.
Wright, T. A., and Doherty, E. M. (1998). Organizational behavior “rediscovers” the role of
emotional well-being. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 481-485.
Wrisberg, C. A. (1994). The arousal-performance relationship. Quest, 6, 60-77.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American
Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
Zajonc, R. B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39, 117-123.