ARTICLE IN PRESS

Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124

www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport

Relationships between sources of acute stress and athletes coping style in competitive sport as a function of gender
Mark H. Anshela,, Toto Sutarsob
a

Department of Health and Human Performance, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132 USA b Information Technology Division, Murfreesboro, TN 37132 USA Available online 3 March 2006

Abstract Objectives: The objectives of this study were to determine athletes sources of acute stress (SAS) perceived as highly intense and experienced during the competitive event, their respective coping styles (CS) for two different (highly intense) stress sources (SAS), the relationship between the acute stressors and their CS (approach and avoidance coping in cognitive and behavioral forms), and the generalizability of the SAS and the CS scales as a function of gender. Method: Athletes (N 332, 176 males and 156 females, M age 21.6 years) who were former or current sports competitors for their high school or college team completed a two-part inventory generated for this study. The athletes were asked to indicate their perceived stress intensity for common SASs (part 1) and the manner in which they typically coped with two of the stressors perceived as the most intense (part 2). Theory-driven categories of acute stress sources were labelled performance-related and coach-related, and CSs were grouped as approach-behavioral, approach-cognitive, and avoidance-cognitive. Intrareliability (Cronbach alphas) for the stressor and coping style items were .81 and .82, respectively. Results: General CS was signicantly related to general sources of acute stress (po:0001). Structural equation models indicated that the athletes coping styles were positively related to their respective acute stressors category. The coping stress style three-factor model showed a good t with the data. The results of the analyses indicated valid and reliable relationships between CS and SAS among the athletes. The results indicated that athletes who experienced intense coach-related acute stress was more likely to use primarily an approach-behavior CS followed by the other CS. Finally, the athletes gender was a mediating variable in determining CS in response to selected sources of stress.

Corresponding author. Fax: +1 615 898 5020.

E-mail address: manshel@mtsu.edu (M.H. Anshel). 1469-0292/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.01.003

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124

Conclusions: Structural equation model techniques showed that athletes who experienced acute stress used their respective CS consistently. The CS three-factor model showed a good t with the data. In addition, gender mediates the relationship between source of stress and subsequent use of CS. Future studies in this area are needed to determine whether situational characteristics within sports contests inuence the athletes coping responses, an additional test of trait and contextual coping theory. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Acute stress; Coping style; Competitive sport; Sources of stress; Gender differences

Sources of acute stress (SAS) and athletes coping style (CS) in competitive sport as a function of gender Coping with stress in sport has received increased attention by researchers in recent years. While much about the coping process has yet to be understood, it has been generally acknowledged that effective coping strategies are inherent to successful sport performance and that maladaptive (ineffective) coping is detrimental to both the performance and satisfaction of sports competitors (Anshel, Kim, Kim, Chang, & Eom, 2001; Krohne & Hindel, 1988). Plausible explanations for poor sport performance following maladaptive coping include heightened muscular tension (Anshel, Kim, et al., 2001) and narrowed attentional focusing (Krohne & Hindel, 1988). Given the prevalence of experiencing acute stress in sport, surprisingly little is known about the coping process following stressful events experienced during the contest, and the extent to which coping styles (CS) can be identied among competitive athletes. Researchers generally agree that coping with acute stress is primarily a function of both personal and situational characteristics (Kaissidis-Rodanos, Anshel, & Porter, 1997; Suls & Fletcher, 1985), a framework known as the contextual, or interactional, coping theory (Miller, 1992). Personal characteristics in the sport psychology literature include the athletes CS (Anshel, 1996; Anshel, Williams, & Williams, 2000; Madden, Kirkby, & McDonald, 1989) and their cognitive appraisal of stressful events (Lonsdale & Howe, 2004). Situational factors would include sources of stressful events (Anshel & Delany, 2001; Noblet & Gifford, 2002) and perceived intensity of the stressful event (Madden, Summers, & Brown, 1990). Characteristics of stressful situations have been shown to describe and predict a persons use of coping strategies (Anshel & Kaissidis, 1997; Carver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989; Kaissidis-Rodanos et al., 1997; McCrae, 1984). The degree to which athletes use a particular CS following different sources of acute stress (SAS) has been examined in the coping theory literature. According to the trait theory of coping, individuals respond consistently to various types of stressful events over time in accordance with their CS (Averill & Rosenn, 1972; Leventhal, Suls, & Leventhal, 1993; Moos & Swindle, 1990; Roth & Cohen, 1986). The assumption underlying this framework is that responses to stressful events are highly correlated with the persons CS, at least following similar types of stressors. Contextual coping theory, on the other hand, posits that the combination of personal dispositions and situational factors are required to reliably predict the persons CS (Folkman, 1992; McCrae, 1992; Terry, 1991). In the non-sport literature, researchers have examined the link between stressful events and a persons coping responses to those events as a function of personal and situational factors. For

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124 3

example, CS is increasingly apparent following stressful events that are appraised as highly intense or under high threat conditions (McCrae, 1992; Phipps & Zinn, 1986; Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003). In another example of personal factors that inuence coping, Carver et al. (1989), Folkman and Lazarus (1985), and Scheier, Weintraub, and Carver (1986) each found that situations perceived as highly controllable elicited approach-coping strategies (e.g., confrontation, problem-solving, positive reappraisal, accepting responsibility). When the situation was perceived as not controllable, however, more distancing and escape-avoidance patterns were applied. Thus, the context within which acute stress is experienced at least partly explains or predicts an individuals coping response to specic stressful events, particularly if the event is perceived as highly intense. Less well known, however, is the extent to which CS is a function of the type of stressful event experienced in competitive sport. Because the number of different stressful situations in sport is virtually limitless, according to McCrae (1992), it would be advantageous to make meaningful generalizations about the inuence of the stressor on the choice of coping mechanisms if stressors can be organized in terms of common features or dimensions (p. 66). There is an apparent absence of previous research in the sport psychology literature in which McCraes suggestion has been followed. One construct in the study of CS in both sport psychology and general psychology literatures has been approach (also referred to as vigilant, attention, active, sensitization, engagement, active coping) and avoidance (also labelled non-vigilant, passive, desensitization/repression, disengagement, avoidant; Anshel, 1996; Anshel, Williams, & Hodge, 1997; Kaissidis-Rodanos et al., 1997; Krohne, 1993, 1996; McCrae, 1992; Roth & Cohen, 1986). Approach CS generally refers to behavioral (i.e., taking action) and cognitive (i.e., mental strategies and self-talk) attempts to resolve stress directed towards the threat or its cognitive and emotional inner interpretations (Krohne, 1996; Skinner et al., 2003). Thus, an athlete who engages with the referee after receiving a penalty, either positively (e.g., asking information about the reason for the penalty) or negatively (e.g., arguing the call), is using approach coping. Avoidance coping, on the other hand, refers to activity directed away from the threat-related cues (Krohne, 1993, 1996), and may also be sub-categorized as behavioral or cognitive. For example, an athletes use of avoidance coping upon receiving a penalty from the referee would be to psychologically discount the call by labelling it unimportant, or the referees mistake, then to quickly attend to forthcoming task demands. The plethora of terms to describe the same CS construct of approach- and avoidancecoping reects a limitation in conceptualizing CS and testing the effectiveness of intervention strategies in sport. The sport psychology (e.g., Anshel, 1996, 2001; Anshel & Anderson, 2002; Anshel & Wells, 2000; Gaudreau, Blondin, & Lapierre, 2002; Kaissidis-Rodanos et al., 1997; Krohne & Hindel, 1988; Poczwardowski & Conroy, 2002) and general psychology coping literature (e.g., Krohne, 1993, 1996; Mullen & Suls, 1982; Roth & Cohen, 1986; Skinner et al., 2003; Suls & Fletcher, 1985; Tobin, Holroyd, Reynolds, & Wigal, 1989) are replete with studies using the approach and avoidance CS framework. In an early sport study, Krohne and Hindel (1988) investigated athletes coping activities during competition. They found that elite table tennis players who employed cognitive avoidant strategies to cope with critical situations occurring in the course of the match won more games in the important tiebreak situation and were less anxious than players who did not use such strategies. Successful table tennis players were characterized by few interfering anxiety reactions (worry cognitions), little vigilant coping, and an extended use of

ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124

cognitively avoidant self-regulatory techniques (p. 225). The researchers explained the table tennis players could not afford to indulge in self-centered interfering cognitions during the game for fear of being distracted from subsequent passages of play. More recently, Anshel and Anderson (2002), in support of Krohne and Hindel, found that approach coping was signicantly related to negative affect. In addition, signicant correlations between the performers use of approach- and avoidance-coping strategies and their CS, also categorized as approach and avoidance. While the approach- and avoidance-coping framework has received increasingly extensive attention by researchers, the use of behavioral and cognitive sub-dimensions of these CS has been virtually ignored. According to previous qualitative (Anshel, 2001) and psychometric research (Krohne et al., 2000), and reviews of related literature (Anshel, Jamieson, & Raviv, 2001; Anshel, Kim, et al., 2001; Krohne, 1993), CS may be examined as approach-behavioral (AppBeh), approach-cognitive (AppCog), avoidance-behavioral (AvBeh), and avoidance-cognitive (AvCog). AppBeh coping consists of the conscious use of an overt action in response to stressful appraisal of a stimulus or event in which the person attends to or confronts the stressor (Anshel, 2001; Krohne, 1993). Examples include soliciting information, arguing, or any observable response in attempting to reduce the stressors intensity. AppCog coping, on the other hand, consists of a conscious thought or emotion in which the individual is oriented toward the threat-related aspects of a situation (Krohne, 1993, p. 3). Examples include planning, monitoring, anger, strategizing, imaging, and thoughts that promote cognitive arousal. AvBeh coping consists of the conscious decision to physically remove oneself from a threatening environment. Examples would be walking away from the stress source, or avoiding a threatening or unpleasant situation, also referred to as social engineering. AvCog coping reects turning away from threatening cues (Krohne, 1993, p. 3). Examples include ltering out information, selective attention (also called disengagement or repression), and distraction. While it is intuitively appealing to examine approach and avoidance CS, each consisting of cognitive and behavioral sub-dimensions, in competitive sport, there is relatively less support to include an AvBeh CS. Conceptually, not examining an AvBeh CS is understandable among highly skilled competitive athletes. In an early conceptual article explaining the approachavoidancecoping framework, Roth and Cohen (1986) have described the potential costs and benets of using approach and avoidance coping. They suggest that implementing an avoidance strategy may be more appropriate when the situation is less controllable (e.g., receiving a penalty from the referee), the source of stress is unclear, the persons condence is low to moderate, and outcome measures are immediate (e.g., losing the ball while the game is in progress). Approach coping, however, is preferred when the athlete seeks situation-relevant input, when action is required, when the cause of stress is known, and when the athlete has relatively high condence and possesses good communication skills. Appbeh coping, then, would be deemed inefcient in a highly skilled competitive sport environment. In addition, from a research perspective, Krohne et al. (2000) were unable to identify an AvBeh CS dimension in their psychometric study validating the (non-sport) Mainz Coping Inventory. Along these lines, Anshel and Anderson (2002) found that an approach CS was a signicant predictor of performance quality, as opposed to avoidance coping, at least for the rst set of trials, a time when acute stress receives the most attention. Thus, failing to attend to the causes of stressful events, and instead, remaining vigilant in preventing future stressors is anathema to many

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124 5

highly skilled athletes who prefer to remain in control of the situation and to deal directly with the stressor (Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996). Therefore, the AvBeh dimension was not included when generating a framework for CS in the present study. Absent from most sport coping research is the extent to which an athletes CS is consistent following different types, or categories, of acute stress. For instance, Kaissidis-Rodanos et al. (1997) and Anshel and Wells (2000) found that the approach and avoidance CS of basketball referees and basketball players, respectively, could be signicantly predicted only as a function of the type of stressor experienced. However, while the stressors differed with respect to changeability (i.e., a bad call versus pain or injury), these studies were limited to relatively few SAS, and the stressors were specic, resulting in limited generalizability of the athletes CS to different classications of stressful events commonly experienced during the contest. Determining the relationships between categories of stressors and the athletes CS that follow these stressors has apparently not been previously studied. Further research is needed to determine the extent to which the athletes CS can be predicted from categories of, rather than single, acute stressors. Learning to respond effectively to a class of stressors, as opposed to learning unique coping skills following single stressful events, would reduce the information load required for storing and retrieving the proper use of specic coping strategies from memory (Krohne, 1993). To Krohne (1993) and Jackson, MacKenzie, and Hobfoll (2000), the coping process and reduced information load are based on principles of self-regulation. The goal of learning to cope with categories of stressors is to reduce information overload and enhance self-regulation processes. Jackson et al. (2000) contend that CS is a self-regulatory process that is linked to the social context in which stress is experienced, what they call self-insocial-setting regulation (p. 294). Coping effectiveness is a combination of a persons CS and the social context within which stress is experienced. Ostensibly, a strong relationship between the individuals CS and the stressful events social context leads to greater self-mastery of coping efforts. This process is more likely to evolve when CS reect categories of stressful events. Along these lines, Krohne (1993) contends that coping is more efcient when there is a structure in place, consisting of stability and regularity. To Krohne, stability of change implies that a process is replicable. However, this is only possible when the crucial effect mechanisms which this process is based on have been previously identied (p. 20). For example, Gaudreau, Lapierre, and Blondin (2001) found that athletes used similar coping strategies at three different phases of a competitive sports event, one manifestation of CS. Each type of stressor, however, may warrant a different CS. The advantages of identifying athletes CS in response to categories, rather than distinct, SAS enhance self-regulation strategies and reduce information load and greater automaticity in the coping process. In addition, previous coping in sport studies have focused on determining athletes usual coping responses following an acute stressor, the extent to which their CS remains consistent following different categories of stressors has been ignored. Finally, one variable that mediates the use of coping strategies in competitive sport, but has received only scant attention by researchers, is gender differences. For example, Anshel and Kaissidis (1997) found that male and female highly skilled athletes both used more approachoriented coping strategies as compared to their lower-skilled counterparts. However, for the lessskilled male and female athletes, females applied avoidance coping more often than males. Gender differences have also been found for 11- and 12-year-old male and female eld hockey players

ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124

(Anshel & Delany, 2001). For instance, girls used more condence building self-talk considerably more than boys, while boys used resignation (e.g., I reminded myself that things could be much worse) more often than girls. Lane, Jones, and Stevens (2002), however, found no gender differences on coping with failure and changes in self-efcacy among male and female tennis players as a function of self-esteem. In addition, maladaptive coping (e.g., self-blame, behavioral disengagement) was associated with low self-esteem for both genders. While examining gender difference among athletes is relatively rare, determining the links between types of stressful events and subsequent use of the athletes CS as a function of gender is apparently unknown. Thus, the purposes of this study were to determine athletes SAS experienced during the competitive event that male and female athletes perceived as highly intense, their respective CS, the relationship between the acute stressors and their CS (approach and avoidance coping in cognitive and behavioral forms), and the generalizability of stress sources and CS as a function of gender. The primary research question being addressed was to determine the extent to which competitive athletes cope similarly, that is, manifest evidence of CS, for different categories of acute stress experienced during sport competition, and to examine if gender served as a mediating role in this process. The implications of linking the source(s) of acute stress with the athletes CS would result in more effective stress management interventions that target individual differences in the coping process. It was hypothesized that highly intense SAS would be signicantly related to the athletes respective CS, depicted as approach and avoidance, and that these relationships would be a function of gender.

Method Participants Participants in this study consisted of 176 males and 156 females (N 332), ranging in age from 18 to 23 yr (M 21:6 yr, SD 4.86), who were undergraduate majors in health and physical education in a university located in the southeast U.S. One important criterion for participating in the study was that each individual had competed on his or her high school sports team, as opposed to engaging in recreational sport. While this criterion did not control exclusively for skill level (i.e., starting players were not differentiated from non-starters), it could be assumed that membership on a school team in the U.S. represents a relatively moderate to high skill level, and that these athletes experience relatively similar highly intense SAS. Thus, while respondents were currently enrolled in college, the results of this study may be generalized to participation in high (secondary) school sport. Sample size for the statistical procedures used in this study is commensurate with, and even larger, than previous similar research (e.g., Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Srivastava, Locke, & Bartol, 2001). Materials An inventory was developed for this study that consisted of two parts. The rst part listed 16 SAS that were adapted from previous studies in this area (e.g., Fisher & Zwart, 1982; Madden et al., 1990). The purpose of part 1 was to identify the athletes sources of stress perceived as

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124 7

highly intense for subsequently determining the degree to which they used similar CS following two different acute stressors. There were two criteria for including a stressor in this list: each item was commonly experienced in sport settings, and the item had to reect a sudden (acute) stressful event, as opposed to chronic (long-term) sources of stress. Respondents were asked to indicate the level of intensity (i.e., unpleasantness) you felt after experiencing each of the following stressful events on a Likert-type scale: 1 (not at all), 2 (slightly), 3 (somewhat high), 4 (very high), and 5 (extremely high). In accordance with the recommendations of researchers following high stress intensity (as opposed to slightly or moderate intensity level) (Aldwin, 1994; McCrae, 1992), the primary selection criterion for these stressors was based on the players perceptions of experiencing somewhat high, very high, or extremely high stress intensity. CS is more apparent when the sources of stress to which individuals respond are perceived as highly intense (McCrae, 1992). Individuals may vary in the degree of consistency they display in coping with the demands of the situation (Compas, Forsythe, & Wagner, 1988). The 16 listed SAS items that were commonly experienced by competitive athletes were obtained from the extant coping in sport research literature (e.g., Anshel & Delany, 2001; Anshel & Wells, 2000; Madden et al., 1990; Noblet & Gifford, 2002; Rawstorne, Anshel, & Caputi, 2000) and from interviews with 25 male and female college athletes to determine the types of stressful events they typically experience. The three most intense sources of stress, rated 3 (somewhat high), 4 (very high), or 5 (extremely high) formed the frame of reference by which athletes indicated their coping responses in part 2. These sources were categorized as performance- and coach-related based on 100% consensus from two researchers familiar with this literature, forming the SASs conceptual framework, listed in Tables 1 and 2. The performance-related factor consisted of the items, received unfair call from the umpire/referee, injured and played in pain, received a negative comment, and a cheating opponent was not caught. The coach-related factor consisted of the items arguing with my coach, coach was upset with me, and treated unfairly by my coach. It is important to remember that one primary objective of this study was to determine evidence of links between categories of acute stress and their concomitant CS. Part 2 consisted of ascertaining the athletes CS, listing approach and avoidance categories in response to each of the two stressful events. Specically, respondents were asked to indicate the usual way in which they responded to each SAS. There have been several studies examining the approach and avoidance coping framework (e.g., Anshel, 1996; Anshel et al., 1997; KaissidisRodanos et al., 1997; Krohne, 1996), however, to date, an inventory identifying approach and avoidance coping in sport that has received psychometric scrutiny has not been published. Thus, the CS items used in this study were obtained from several previous studies using this framework (e.g., Anshel & Anderson, 2002; Anshel et al., 1997; Krohne, 1993; Rawstorne et al., 2000). A total of 20 coping items were included for each of two sources of stress. The CSs consisted of three dimensions, AppBeh, AppCog, and AvCog, based on the descriptive characteristics of the items. An AvBeh CS was not included in this study because it did not reect the athletes typical responses to acute stress in competitive sport during the contest (e.g., exercising, avoiding an opponent), as described in Anshels (2001) qualitative study. The AppBeh factor consisted of four items: I discussed the problem with others, I asked other people to give me their opinion, I complained to a friend or another objective party, and I discussed the problem with another person. Second, the AppCog factor consisted of the next three items:

ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124

Table 1 Results of conrmatory factor analysis and multigroup invariance across gender for source of acute stress Item Factor loading CFA Acute stress category Factor 1: Performance-related Received an unfair call from the referee I was injured and played in pain Received a negative comment from others My opponent cheated but was not caught Factor 2: Coach-related Arguing with my coach Coach was upset with me Treated unfairly by my coach Male Female

.55 .66 .62 .63 .68 .65 .82

.53 .66 .62 .67 .68 .59 .80

.59 .66 .62 .60 .67 .70 .85

Conrmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was achieved (w2 28:56, df 13, p :01, w2 =df 2:20, TLI .99, CFI .99, RMSEA .07). Multigroup Conrmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) for males and females. Phase 1. Congural invariance (factor structures across gender) was achieved: the male (w2 17:17, df 13, p :19, TLI .98, CFI .99, RMSEA .04), female (w2 34:02, df 13, p :00, TLI .97, CFI .99, RMSEA .07). Phase 2. Metric invariance (factor loadings) was achieved (Dw2 2:46, df 5, p4:78; DCFI .00) between unconstrained (w2 61:20, df 26, p :00, TLI .99, CFI .99, RMSEA .06) and constrained MGCFA (w2 63:66, df 31, p :00, TLI .99, CFI .99, RMSEA .06). Phase 3. Theoretical structures invariance (factor covariances) was achieved (Dw2 :68, df 2, po:71, and DCFI .00, with constrained all factor covariances to be group invariance MGCFA (w2 64:34, df 33, p :00, TLI .99, CFI .99, RMSEA .06). Cronbachs alphas: Acute stress category .81; performance-related .76, coach-related .71.

I tried to obtain more information, I tried to use logic or reason to overcome the problem, and I thought about what to do next. Third, the AvCog factor consisted of the last three items: I prayed to help me deal with the problem or situation, I believed the situation was in Gods hands, and I thought to myself that things could be worse. The dimensions of the three CSs and their respective items are linked to each dimension as determined by a conceptual framework. Procedures Undergraduate students (N 15) with previous experience as recreational athletes possessing the same characteristics as the athletes in the actual study (e.g., age, education level, cultural background) participated in a pilot test. The purpose of the pilot test was to assess the inventorys content validity, including the extent to which instructions were clear and the applicability of coping items in competitive sport. No modications were made to the instructions and to the content of any item based on their input. All sample data in the study (N 332) were obtained voluntarily from current or former athletes who were currently competing on their university sports team, or were attending course in the universitys physical education department. The athletes were administered the inventory

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124 Table 2 Results of conrmatory factor analysis and multigroup invariance across gender for copying style Item Factor loading CFA Coping style Factor 1: Approach-behavior I discussed the problem with others I asked other people to give me their opinion I complained to a friend or another objective party I discussed the problem with another person Factor 2: Approach-cognitive I tried to obtain more information I tried to use logic or reason to overcome the problem I thought about what to do next Factor 3: Avoidance-cognitive I prayed to help me deal with the problem or situation I believed the situation was in Gods hands I thought to myself that things could be worse Male Female 9

.65 .77 .70 .88 .65 .63 .70 .82 .74 .48

.62 .69 .66 .86 .63 .62 .72 .83 .67 .52

.68 .85 .71 .89 .66 .66 .69 .79 .83 .44

Conrmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was achieved (w2 96:89, df 32, p :00, w2 =df 3:03, TLI .99, CFI .99, RMSEA .07). Multigroup Conrmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) for males and females. Phase 1. Congural invariance (factor structures across cultures) was achieved: males (w2 90:24, df 32, p :00, TLI .97, CFI .98, RMSEA .07); females (w2 48:82, df 32, p :03, TLI .99, CFI .99, RMSEA .06). Phase 2. Metric invariance (factor loadings) was achieved (Dw2 6:73, df 7, po:46, and DCFI .00, between unconstrained (w2 139:05, df 64, p :00, TLI .98, CFI .99, RMSEA .06) and constrained MGCFA (w2 145:78, df 71, p :00, TLI .98, CFI .99, RMSEA .06). Phase 3. Theoretical structures invariance (factor covariances) was achieved (Dw2 2:6, df 3, po:46, and DCFI .00, with constrained all factor covariances to be group invariance MGCFA (w2 148:38, df 74, p :00, TLI .98, CFI .99, RMSEA .06). Cronbachs alphas: Coping Style .82; approach-behavioral .82, approach-cognitive .70, and avoidancecognitive .71.

either before a practice session or at the start of a class lecture with permission of the coach or course instructor, respectively. Duration of time to complete the inventory ranged from 14 to 18 min. Measures Until now, there has been no single and widely accepted measure of athletes SAS and their respective CS. Different researchers have developed independent lists of traits to measure athletes SAS and their companion CS. Moreover, both scales tend to be long and, therefore, timeconsuming to complete (e.g., Anshel, 1996; Anshel et al., 1997; Fisher & Zwart, 1982; KaissidisRodanos et al., 1997; Krohne, 1996; Madden et al., 1990). This can be problematic from an applied research perspective, especially if these two measurements are widely used in a variety of

ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124

samples. Shorter, less time-intensive scales that are both reliable and valid are generally preferred (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004). Nine of the 16 items from the SAS instrument and 10 of the 20 CS items were dropped due to low stress intensity level. A minimum criterion was established because stress intensity levels appraised as low have not been shown to identify a persons CS (Porter & Stone, 1996). Determining CS is increasingly reliable when the stressor is perceived as highly intense, as opposed to low or moderate stress intensity (Beehr & McGrath, 1996), and (2) stressors perceived at relatively low intensity often do not require a coping strategy (Beehr & McGrath, 1996; Porter & Stone, 1996). Intra-reliability (Cronbach alphas) for the SAS and CS items, respectively, was .81 and .82. Data analysis It is important to examine congural (factor structures) and metric (factor loadings) invariance for all measures across different samples or contexts to make accurate and valid comparisons, and to achieve generalizability of a measurement (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). Three statistical techniques were used to achieve both congural invariance and metric invariance. First, conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to conrm the factor structures derived from the conceptual frameworks for sources of stress and CS (discussed earlier). Second, multigroup conrmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) was used to test the generalizability of the two (SAS and CS) scales across gender. Finally, structural equation models were used to determine the relationships between latent variables (factors) of the athletes source of acute stress and the latent variables of CS. Chi-square (w2) statistic, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), TuckerLewis Index (TLI), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (Bentler, 1990; Schumacker & Lomax, 1998) were used to assess model t. Low values and insignicant w2 would indicate a better t. However, this statistic is very sensitive for larger sample sizes. w2 may lead to rejection of a model with good t in larger sample sizes (Schumacker & Lomax, 1998). Joreskog (1969) proposed the Normed w2, that is, w2 adjusted by the degrees of freedom (w2/df) to assess model t. The Normed w2 values between 1.0 and 5.0 are considered to fall within the level of acceptance (Schumacker & Lomax, 1998). The CFI and TLI are evaluated as indicating good model t to the data if they equal or greater than .90 (.90 the lower bound of a good t, .95 or higher excellent t). The Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values below .08 are considered as indication of good t (i.e., .08 is the upper limit of a good t, whereas .05 or less is an excellent t; Browne & Cudeck, 1989). Multigroup conrmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) for gender MGCFAs tested the generalizability of athletes source of acute stress scale and their CS scale. First, a baseline model resulting from the conceptual framework, and conrmed by the CFA for the total sample for each scale, was established. Second, to obtain congural invariance for gender, the baseline model for each scale was tested separately for males and females. Third, the baseline model was tested simultaneously across gender. In this stage, three nested models were tested as part of each MGCFA. Model 1 was the baseline model without constrained to be equal across gender. Model 2 was the baseline model with factor loadings were constrained to be equal across gender. Model 3 maintained equality constraint on the factor loadings, and constrained all

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124 11

factor covariances to be gender invariant. An insignicant change in w2 among the three models would provide support for generalizability across groups (Byrne, 1993). In summary, the MGCFAs were used to test the equivalency of the number of underlying factors and their items constructed for each factor (congural invariance), item measurements or factor loadings (metric invariance), and theoretical structures, that is, factor covariances (Byrne, 1993; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). The statistics used to test invariance in MGCFA were w2 change (Dw2), and t indexes change (DCFI or DTLI). The differences between models do not exist if Dw2 was not signicant or if the t index change is very small (i.e., DCFI or if the DTLI .01 or less: differences between models do not exist).

Results Source of acute stress Sources acute of stress (SAS) were generated and categorized based on a plethora of previousrelated studies in which CS followed acute stressors in sport experienced during the contest (e.g., Anshel, Jamieson, et al., 2001; Anshel, Kim, et al., 2001; Anshel et al., 2000; Rawstorne et al., 2000) Based on a 100% consensus of two sport psychology researchers who were familiar with this literature, as indicated earlier, the stressors were categorized as performance-related (M 3:15, SD .85) and coach-related (M 3:15, SD .86). CFA conrmed the factor structures resulting from the earlier conceptual framework of the SAS. The CFA achieved all the statistical criteria discussed earlier (w2 28:56, df 13, po:01, w2 =df 2:20, TLI .99, CFI .99, RMSEA .07). Factor loadings ranged from .55 to .82. The items, factor loadings and the statistical measurements for SAS scale are listed in Table 1. Generalizability of SAS scale for gender The MGCFA was computed to test the generalizability across gender concerning the athletes SAS scale. These include: (1) the number of underlying factors and their respective items constructed for each factor (congural invariance), (2) item measurements, or factor loadings (metric invariance), and (3) theoretical structures, that is, factor covariances. The student athletes SAS scale achieved congural invariance. For Phase 1: Male, w2 17:17, df 13, po:19, w2 =df 1:32, TLI .98, CFI .99, RMSEA .04; Female, w2 34:02, df 13, po:00, w2 =df 2:62, TLI .97, CFI .99, RMSEA .07. For Phase 2: Metric (factor loadings measurement) invariance using MGCFA based on both the likelihood ratio (LR) test or the w2 change (non-signicant Dw2) and t indexes change (very small DCFI, DTLI, or DRMSEA) was achieved (Dw2 2:46, df 5, p4:78; DCFI .00) between unconstrained (w2 61:20, df 26, po:00, TLI .99, CFI .99, RMSEA .06) and constrained MGCFA (w2 63:66, df 31, po:00, TLI .99, CFI .99, RMSEA .06). Phase 3: Theoretical structures invariance, that is, factor covariances test was also achieved (Dw2 :68, df 2, po:71, and DCFI .00, with constrained all factor covariances to be group invariance MGCFA (w2 64:34, df 33, po:00, TLI .99, CFI .99, RMSEA .06). All items from the MGCFA statistics and factor loadings for males and females are listed in Table 1.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124

Coping style The coping style three-factor model showed a good t with the data. The items, factor loadings, and the statistical measurements for coping style scale are listed in Table 2. The CFA was achieved with all statistics criteria discussed in the method section (w2 96:89, df 32, po:00, w2 =df 3:03, TLI .99, CFI .99, RMSEA .07). The factor loadings ranged from .48 to .88 (see Table 2 under CFA factor loadings). Means and standard deviations for CS were Appbeh (M 2:88, SD .92), Appcog (M 2:90, SD .89), and AvCog (M 2:96, SD 1.09). Generalizability of CS scale for gender For the athletes CS scale: Phase 1. Congural invariance, males, w2 90:24, df 32, po:00, 2 w =df 2:82, TLI .97, CFI .98, RMSEA .07; females (w2 48:82, df 32, po:03, w2 =df 1:51, TLI .99, CFI .99, RMSEA .06). Phase 2: Metric (factor loadings measurement) invariance using MGCFA based on both the Likelihood Ratio (LR) test or the w2 change (non-signicant Dw2 ) and t indexes change (very small DCFI, DTLI, or DRMSEA) was achieved (Dw2 6:73, df 7, p4:46; DCFI .00) between unconstrained (w2 139:05, df 64, po:00, TLI .98, CFI .99, RMSEA .06) and constrained MGCFA (w2 145:78, df 71, po:00, TLI .98, CFI .99, RMSEA .06). Phase 3: Theoretical structures invariance, that is, factor covariances test was also achieved (Dw2 2:6, df 3, po:46, and DCFI .00, with constrained all factor covariances to be group invariance MGCFA (Dw2 148:38, df 74, po:00, TLI .98, CFI .99, RMSEA .06). All the items, results of MGCFAs statistics and factor loadings for males and females can be seen in Table 2. Relationships model among source of acute stressors and CS Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the correlations between the SAS and CS factors. SEM combined the CFA models of the two (SAS and CS) scales into one model, combining the relationships between factors from the two scales. The rst phase consisted of examining the relationships between acute stressors and CS by combining the CFA models from the two scales (see Fig. 1) for the whole sample. The second phase consisted of examining the correlations between the SAS and CS scales. This model was developed based on second degree factor analysis of each scale, correlating general acute stress with general CS for the whole sample (see Fig. 2). The nal phase consisted of determining the relationships between acute stressors and CS for gender, applying the male and female samples simultaneously (see Figs. 3 and 4). Step one: full sample analyses The results of SEM (see Fig. 1) revealed three major ndings: (1) that the model achieved a good t; (2) that the factor loadings from the factors on each scale of the constructed items were signicant, and (3) that there were correlations between the SAS and CS factors. The w2 of the model was 210.45 (df 109) and was acceptable (Normed w2 w2 =df 1:93). The other t indices were also supporting the goodness of t model with the data (CFI .97, TLI .99, RMSEA .05). Fig. 1 includes the w2 and other t indices.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124
e1 e2 e3 e4 Chi-Square = 210.448 df = 109 p = 0.000 NFI = 0.984 CFI = 0.992 RFI = 0.977 TLI = 0.989 RMSEA = 0.053
0.57

13

C1
0.65

CI2 C3 C4

0.77 0.71 0.88

AppBeh

e5 e6 e7

C5
0.63

0.65 0.41

C6
0.71

AppCog

C7
0.49 0.41

e8 e9 e10

C8
0.74

0.82

C9
0.48

AvCog

0.24

0.41

C10
0.10 0.55

e21 e22

S1

0.19

S2

0.65 0.63

Perform

0.18

e23 e24

S3 S4

0.63

0.81

e25 e26 e27

S5
0.65

0.68

S6
0.82

Coach

S7

Fig. 1. Model of the relationship between acute stressors and coping styles for the full sample.

Signicant factor loadings from each factor. As shown in Fig. 1, the SAS consisted of two factors, performance-related (Perform) and coach-related (Coach). The factor loadings from Perform to its constructed items were .55, .65, .63, and 63, respectively; the factor loadings from Coach to its constructed items were .68, .65, and .82, respectively. The CS scale consisted of three

ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124
e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9 e10 e21 e22 e23 e24
e25 e26 e27

I1
0.65

e14

I2 I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 I10 I1

0.77 0.70 0.88 0.85

AppBeh

Chi-Square = 226.413 df = 113 p = 0.000 NFI = 0.983 CFI = 0.991 RFI = 0.977 TLI = 0.988 RMSEA = 0.055

e15
0.66 0.62 0.70 0.69

AppCog

Coping Style

0.84 0.74 0.47

e17

0.52

AvCog
0.48

0.55

e28

I2

0.66 0.64

Perform

I3 0.62 I4 I5 I6 I7 e29
0.67 0.65 0.83

0.90

Acute Stress
0.89

Coach

Fig. 2. Model of the relationship between acute stress and coping style for the full sample.

factors: AppBeh, AppCog, and AvCog. The factor loadings from AppBeh to its constructed items were .65, .77, .71, and .88, respectively. All factor loadings were signicant (po:001). The four items consisting of the performance-related factor and the three items that consisted of the coachrelated factor are listed in Table 1. The items included in factors AppBeh, AppCog, and AvCog are listed in Table 2. Correlations among factors in the SAS and CS. All the correlations were displayed by the symbol (2) represent the magnitude of the correlation (see Fig. 1). The correlation between the rst source of stress (performance-related) and the second source of stress (coach-related) was signicant and positive, r :81, po:001. Thus, relationship between sources of stress categorized as performance- and coach-related for stress intensity was signicant. Very high correlation between factors could be a problem since it reects redundancy between dimensions. The correlation between the two sources of stress, however, did not exceed the recommended

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124
Chi-Square = 352.757 df = 218

15

e1 e2 e3 e4

C1
0.63

p = 0.000 NFI = 0.973 CFI = 0.990 RFI = 0.963 TLI = 0.985 RMSEA = 0.043

CI2 C3

0.70 0.67 0.84

AppBeh

C4
0.61

e5 e6 e7

C5
0.63 0.62

C6
0.72

AppCog

0.32

C7
0.44 0.35

e8 e9 e10

C8
0.67

0.82

C9
0.53

AvCog

0.23

0.43

C10 S1
0.54 0.02 0.18

e21 e22 e23 e24

S2 S3

0.66 0.62 0.67

Perform

0.19

S4
0.75

e25 e26 e27

S5
0.60

0.67

S6
0.79

Coach

S7

Fig. 3. Model of the relationship between acute stressors and coping styles for males.

.85 cut-off point for latent factor correlations (Kline, 1998). For CS, AppBeh coping correlated signicantly with AppCog, and AvCog, rs :57 and .41 (pso:001), respectively. AppCog correlated signicantly with AvCog, r :49 (po:001).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
16 M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124
Chi-Square = 352.757 df = 218 p = 0.000 NFI = 0.973 CFI = 0.990 RFI = 0.963 TLI = 0.985 RMSEA = 0.043

e1 e2 e3 e4

C1
0.68

CI2 C3

0.84 0.71 0.90

AppBeh

C4
0.55

e5

C5
0.67

0.65 0.44

e6

C6
0.69

AppCog

e7

C7
0.58 0.48

e8 e9 e10

C8
0.83

0.79

C9
0.44

AvCog

0.22

0.35

C10
0.16 0.19 0.56 0.68 0.64

e21 e22 e23 e24

S1 S2 S3
0.59

Perform

0.10

S4
0.86

e25 e26 e27

S5
0.70

0.67

S6
0.84

Coach

S7

Fig. 4. Model of the relationship between acute stressors and coping styles for females.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124 17

Among the three CSs, AppBeh had the highest correlation with the coach-related stressor, followed by AppCog, and AvCog, rs :41 (po:001), .19 (po:01), and .18 (po:02), respectively. These results indicate that an athlete who experienced intense coach-related acute stress was more likely to use AppBeh CS (e.g., I discussed the problemy, I complainedy, I askedy) followed by the other CS. The correlations between performance-related stressors and CS (AppBeh, AppCog, and AvCog) were .41 (po:001), .24 (po:003), and .10 (po:19), respectively. The results indicate that athletes who experienced performance-related stressors were more likely to use an AppBeh CS, followed by an AppCog CS. AvCog coping, however (e.g., I prayedy, I thought abouty), was not likely to be used. Step two: relationships between acute stress and CS This model was developed based on a second-degree factor analysis of each scale and to correlate general acute stress with general CS. A second-order factor analysis indicates the factor loadings from each factor to its constructed items, and the factor loadings from each measurement (i.e., SAS or CS) to its factors. The double arrow symbol in Fig. 2 indicates that the correlation between the two scales was established. The data indicated a good t (w2 226.41, df 113, w2/df 2.00, CFI .99, TLI .99, RMSEA .06). Factor loadings from the rst-order (degree) factor analysis from coach-related factor to three items in the SAS were .67, .65, and .83, respectively. Factor loadings from the AppBeh factor items on the CS were .65, .77, .70, and .88, respectively. Factor loadings from the second-order factor analysis (see Fig. 2) from the SAS for performance- and coach-related factors were .90, and .89, respectively. Finally, the factor loadings from the CS for AppBeh, AppCog, and AvCog were .85, .69, and .52, respectively. All the factor loadings were signicant (po:0001). Finally, the correlation between the two scales (acute stress 2 CS) was r :48 (po:0001) indicating that general CS was signicantly related to general SAS. All statistics and t indices are located in Fig. 2. Step three: relationships between acute stressors and CS for gender The model from Step One to determine the correlations between factors from the SAS and CS scales are illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4 for male and female samples, respectively. The model showed a good t (w2 352.76, df 218, w2/df 1.62, CFI .99, TLI .99, RMSEA .04). Male sample. The factor loadings from the performance-related factor items were .54, .66, .62, and 67, respectively; factor loadings from the coach-related factor items were .67, .60, and .79, respectively. The CS consisted of three factors, AppBeh, AppCog, and AvCog. Factor loadings from the AppBeh items were .63, .70, .67, and .84, respectively. Factor loadings from the AppCog items were .63, .62, and 72, respectively. Finally, factor loadings from the AvCog items were .82, .67, and 53, respectively. Each of these factor loadings were signicant (pso:001). The correlation between the rst source of stress (performance-related) and the second source of stress (coach-related) for the male sample was signicant (r :75, po:001). For CS, the AppBeh CS correlated signicantly with AppCog, and AvCog (rs :61 and .32, respectively, pso001). AppCog correlated signicantly with AvCog, r :44 (po:001). AppBeh was the only CS to correlate signicantly with the coach-related stressor (r :43, po:001). The other two CS, AppCog, and AvCog, failed to correlate signicantly with coach-related stressor,

ARTICLE IN PRESS
18 M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124

rs :18 (p :09), and .19 (p :07), respectively. This indicates that a male athlete experiencing a coach-related stressor was more likely to use an AppBeh CS than AppCog and AvCog CSs. The correlations between performance-related sources of stress and the three CSs from this stressor (i.e., AppBeh, App-, and AvCog) were .35 (po:001), .23 (po:05), and .02 (p :85), respectively. These results indicate that male athletes experiencing a performance-related stressor were more likely to use an AppBeh CS, followed by an AppCog CS. An AvCog CS was not likely to be applied. Female sample. For sources of stress, the factor loadings from the performance-related factor items were .56, .68, .64, and 59, respectively, and from coach-related factor items were .67, .70, and .84, respectively. For CS, factor loadings from the AppBeh factor items were .68, .84, .71, and .90, respectively. Factor loadings from the AppCog items were .65, .67, and .69, respectively. And, factor loadings from the AvCog items were .79, .83, and .44, respectively (see Fig. 4). Each of these factor loadings was signicant (po:001). The correlation between the rst source of stress (performance-related) and the second source of stress (coach-related) was signicant, r :86, po:001. This indicated that the intensity of these stressors was signicantly related for the female sample. The AppBeh CS correlated signicantly with AppCog and with AvCog, rs :55 and .44, respectively (pso001). The AppCog CS correlated signicantly with AvCog, r :58 (po:001). AppBeh was the only CS to correlate signicantly with the coach-related stressor (r :35, po:001). The other two CSs, AppCog and AvCog, failed to correlate signicantly with coachrelated stressor, rs :19 (p :08) and .10 (p :33), respectively. This indicates that female athletes experiencing coach-related stressors were more likely to use an AppBeh CS (e.g., I discussed the problem with others, I asked other people to give me their opinion). The correlations between performance-related sources of stress and the AppBeh, AppCog, and AvCog CSs were .48 (po:001), .22 (p :06), and .16 (p :15), respectively. These results indicate that female athletes experiencing a performance-related stressor were more likely to apply AppBeh coping (e.g., I complained to a friend or another objective party, I discussed the problem with others), however, not the other CS. In summary, the structural equation model techniques showed that athletes who experience acute stress used their respective CS consistently. More specically, athletes who experienced performance- or coach-related acute stressors were more likely to use an AppBeh CS; the correlations were the highest between both sources of stress and AppBeh coping. By contrast, the least likely CS used among the athletes was AvCog. Discussion The purposes of this study were to determine athletes SAS experienced during the competitive event that male and female athletes perceived as highly intense, their respective CS, the relationship between the acute stressors and their CS (approach and avoidance coping in cognitive and behavioral forms), and the generalizability of the stressors and CS as a function of gender. Specically, we wanted to ascertain the extent to which athletes CS was consistent between categories of stressors. It was hypothesized in this study that highly intense SAS would be signicantly related to the athletes respective CS, depicted as approach and avoidance, and that

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124 19

these relationships would be a function of gender. The results of the study provided partial support for these predictions. Our categories of acute stressors as performance-related (e.g., received an unfair call from the umpire/referee, was injured and played in pain, negative comment from others) and coachrelated (e.g., arguing with my coach, coach was upset with me, and treated unfairly by my coach), and the subsequent coping styles of approach (in both cognitive and behavioral forms) and avoidance (only as a cognitive component) appeared supported. We followed Krohnes (1993) recommendation that formed the basis for conducting CFA on conceptually formed items. Krohne contends factor analysis must be carried out on the basis of theoretical assumptions and that the results of such a classication must be again related to those same theoretical assumptions (p. 31). The CS three-factor model showed a good t with the data. In particular, the type of acute stressor was associated with the athletes respective CS. Both performance- and coach-related acute stressors were linked to an AppBeh CS. By contrast, the least likely CS used by athletes following both types of stressors was AvCog. AppBeh was the strongest CS to correlate signicantly with the coach-related stressor. With respect to gender differences, among female athletes, performance-related stressors were associated with using an AppBeh CS (e.g., I complained to a friend or another objective party, I discussed the problem with others), however, not the other CS. Male athletes experiencing performance-related stressors, on the other hand, were more likely to use an AppBeh CS, followed by AppCog CS, but not likely an AvCog CS. Reliabilities of both scales were satisfactory. In addition, results of the CFAs, as well as the signicant correlation between the SAS and CS, observed in Fig. 2, provided measures of construct validity for each scale. Items and concomitant categories of stressors (i.e., performancerelated and coach-related) and CS (AP-B, AP-C, AV-C) conceptually generated in this study, were supported. These results lend at least partial support to trait theory of coping, in which athletes respond consistently to similar types of stressful events in accordance with their CS, as suggested in the sport psychology (e.g., Anshel, 1996) and general psychology (e.g., Averill & Rosenn, 1972; Leventhal et al., 1993; Roth & Cohen, 1986) literature. The assumption underlying this framework is that responses to stressful events are highly correlated with the persons CS, at least following similar types of stressors. Future studies in this area are needed to determine whether situational characteristics within sports contests inuence the athletes coping responses, an additional test of trait and contextual coping theory. Linking categories of sources of stressors with the athletes CS, heretofore not addressed in published sport psychology research, has two distinct advantages in understanding the coping process and creating effective interventions. First, most single items of behavior (e.g., sources of stress) have a high component of measurement error and a narrow range of generality (Epstein, 1980). When measures of behavior are averaged over a number of events, stability coefcients increase. Coping responses are more predictable. The second advantage to grouping stress sources is improved generalization of results. Instead of determining the athletes coping tendencies following a single source of stress, researchers and sport psychology consultants are better able to predict the athletes responses following a set of stressors with similar characteristics, thereby suggesting adaptive coping strategiesand overcoming maladaptive coping tendenciesthat have widespread value. The grouping of stressors into categories (i.e., performance- and coach-related) allows researchers and practitioners to design coping interventions that link the type of CS that is most

ARTICLE IN PRESS
20 M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124

compatible with unique situational (i.e., stressor) characteristics. Teaching athletes to respond to categories of stressors with similar characteristics will reduce their information load throughout the coping process (e.g., perceiving, appraising, and coping with each stressor). Each of these processes requires a brief period of time, thereby reducing the athletes attentional focus on the task at hand (Krohne, 1993). Athletes then quickly select coping strategies that are consistent with their style, or typical manner, of coping. Improved coping effectiveness is more likely as a result (Zeidner & Saklofske, 1996). Beck (1993) refers to this process as the rst principle in the cognitive model of stress reactions (p. 333). To Beck, the stressed individual develops a cognitive set, that is, the construction of a situation, that allows the individual to make a series of appraisals of the external situation, the risks, costs and benets of reacting in a certain manner, and nally, the decision to respond accordingly. The stressful situation is conceptualized as how does it affect me? (p. 334). Each situation warrants distinct characteristics, and unique appraisals and coping responses. However, grouping stressors according to common characteristics (e.g., performance- or coach-related) has three advantages to athletes in the coping process. First, grouping stressors allows for greater coping automaticity in the athletes ability to read the situation and react quickly to it. Coping skills are then enacted more quickly and efciently. Second, categorizing stressors strengthens the link between the type of stressor experienced and the athletes CS. This was conrmed in the present study by the signicant, positive relationships between stressors and CS. Third, predicting the athletes CS (and subsequent use of coping strategies) in response to selected stressors is strengthened, promoting more effective coping interventions. Results of the present study also lent support to the approachavoidance coping framework used in numerous previous studies (see Anshel, Jamieson, et al., 2001; Anshel, Kim, et al., 2001, and Krohne, 1996 for reviews). In the present study, this framework was embellished by the addition of behavioral and cognitive sub-dimensions within the CS of approach and avoidance coping in cognitive form only. These included AppBeh (e.g., I discussed the problem with others, I asked other people to give me their opinion, I complained to a friend or another objective party, and I discussed the problem with another person), AppCog (e.g., I tried to obtain more information, I tried to use logic or reason to overcome the problem, I thought about what to do next), AvCog (e.g., I prayed to help me deal with the problem or situation, I believed the situation was in Gods hands, and I thought to myself that things could be worse). Lack of consistency in the use of similar coping strategies in different situational contexts has been shown in previous studies. For example, Bouffard and Crocker (1992) found that individuals with physical disabilities did not consistently use the same coping strategies across different settings. Testing the goodness-of-t between the coping tendencies of adolescentaged athletes across eight stressful events, Anshel (1996) found that CS were a function of type of stressor. The ndings of other previous studies of basketball referees (Kaissidis-Rodanos et al., 1997) and basketball players (Anshel & Wells, 2000) indicated that personal dispositions and situational appraisals jointly determine approach and avoidance coping responses. Taken together, the current results suggest that CS in sport contexts, particularly using the approach and avoidance framework, may be helpful in response to selected categories of stressful events.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124 21

This study included selected limitations that provide guidelines for conducting future research in this area. For example, the sample of college students who had participated on their respective high school sports team may not equate with a more homogeneous group, for instance, athletes who are currently engaged in competitive sport or older, better skilled competitors. Participating in competitive sport relatively more recently will help ensure more accurate recall, and higher skilled athletes may exhibit different coping skills than their younger, lower skilled counterparts (Anshel, 1996; Anshel, Jamieson, et al., 2001; Anshel, Kim, et al., 2001). In addition, smaller than desirable sample sizes are often an inherent limitation in factor analytic research (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). However, the current sample size was acceptable, and previous published studies (e.g., Srivastava et al., 2001) have included sample sizes even smaller than the current study. Finally, the results conrmed evidence of the approach and avoidance CS framework. Another concern in this study was the relatively high correlations between CS, for example, AvCog and AppCog. These relationships conrm that, at least within the context of competitive sport, coping is primarily a cognitive rather than a behavioral strategy consisting of either approach and avoidance styles, or categories. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that: (1) approach and avoidance coping each carries its own set of advantages and disadvantages given the context within which each are adopted (Roth & Cohen, 1986), and (2) each of these coping styles have received extensive attention in antecedent sport psychology research. Finally, there are apparent advantages of grouping sources of stress into categories, as shown in this study, for teaching coping skills to competitive athletes. Rather than instruct athletes to use coping strategies for specic stressful events, athletes should be able to create a schema (cf. Schmidt, 1975) that provides a framework from which to determine the best coping strategy. A schema is a set of rules that serves to provide the basis for a decision. To Schmidt, developing a schema consists of extracting information from the environment based on related experiences and combining information obtained to generate a motor program. In response to stressful events, then, results of the current study suggest that athletes may generate generalized rules of engagement in response to categories of stressful events and then adopt the approachavoidance coping framework. The schema reduces the information load that accompanies the best type of coping strategy following a particular type of stressful event. Further research is needed to test the concept of generating a coping schema following different types, or categories, of acute stress as grouped in the present study. From an applied perspective, future research in this area with athletes should continue to include the approach and avoidance coping framework in predicting the use of adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies, and then to offer interventions that help ensure appropriate coping responses (Zeidner & Saklofske, 1996). Since coping is associated with psychological and physiological well-being and adaptation, improved understanding of the coping process will provide improved interventions and heighten participation satisfaction in sport (Hardy et al., 1996; Holahan & Moos, 1987).

References
Aldwin, C. M. (1994). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective. New York: Guilford. Anshel, M. H. (1996). Coping styles among adolescent competitive athletes. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 311324.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
22 M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124

Anshel, M. H. (2001). Qualitative validation of a model for coping with acute stress in sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 223246. Anshel, M. H., & Anderson, D. (2002). Coping with acute stress in sport: Linking athletes coping style, coping strategies, affect, and motor performance. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 15, 193209. Anshel, M. H., & Delany, J. (2001). Sources of acute stress, cognitive appraisals, and coping strategies of male and female child athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 329353. Anshel, M. H., Jamieson, J., & Raviv, S. (2001). Cognitive appraisals and coping strategies following acute stress among skilled competitive male and female athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 7594. Anshel, M. H., & Kaissidis, A. N. (1997). Coping style and situational appraisals as predictors of coping strategies following stressful events in sport as a function of gender and skill level. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 263276. Anshel, M. H., Kim, K. W., Kim, B. H., Chang, K. J., & Eom, H. J. (2001). A model for coping with stressful events in sport: Theory, application, and future directions. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 32, 4375. Anshel, M. H., & Wells, B. (2000). Sources of acute stress and coping styles in competitive sport. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 13, 126. Anshel, M. H., Williams, L. R. T., & Hodge, K. (1997). Cross-cultural and gender differences on coping style in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 141156. Anshel, M. H., Williams, L. R. T., & Williams, S. (2000). Examining evidence of coping style following acute stress in competitive sport. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 751773. Averill, J. R., & Rosenn, M. (1972). Vigilant and nonvigilant coping strategies and psychophysiological stress reactions during the anticipation of electric shock. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 128141. Beck, A. T. (1993). Cognitive approaches to stress. In P. M. Lehrer, & R. L. Woolfolk (Eds.), Principles and practice of stress management (2nd ed, pp. 333372). New York: Guilford. Beehr, T. A., & McGrath, J. E. (1996). The methodology of research on coping: Conceptual, strategies, and operational-level issues. In M. Zeidner, & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 6582). New York: Wiley. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative t indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238246. Bouffard, M., & Crocker, P. R. E. (1992). Coping by individuals with physical disabilities with perceived challenge in physical activity: Are people consistent? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63, 410417. Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Simple sample cross validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445455. Byrne, B. M. (1993). The Maschlach burnout inventory: Testing for factorial validity and invariance across elementary, intermediate, and secondary teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 197212. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267283. Compas, B. E., Forsythe, C. J., & Wagner, B. M. (1988). Consistency and variability in causal attributions and coping with stress. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 12, 305320. Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied setting: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 293310. Epstein, S. (1980). The stability of behavior. II. Implications for psychological research. American Psychologist, 35, 790806. Fisher, A. C., & Zwart, E. F. (1982). Psychological analysis of athletes anxiety responses. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 139158. Folkman, S. (1992). Making the case for coping. In B. N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory, research, and application (pp. 3146). Westport, CT: Praeger. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process. Journal of Personality and Social Behavior, 48, 150170. Gaudreau, P., Blondin, J. P., & Lapierre, A. M. (2002). Athletes coping during a competition: Relationship of coping strategies with positive affect, negative affect, and performance-goal discrepancy. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3, 125150.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124 23

Gaudreau, P., Lapierre, A. M., & Blondin, J. P. (2001). Coping at three phases of a competition: Comparison between pre-competitive, competitive, and post-competitive utilization of the same strategy. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 32, 369385. Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport: Theory and practice of elite performers. New York: Wiley. Holahan, C. J., & Moos, R. H. (1987). Personal and contextual determinants of coping strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 946955. Jackson, T., MacKenzie, J., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2000). Communal aspects of self-regulation. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 275300). San Diego: Academic Press. Joreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to conrmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34, 183202. Kaissidis-Rodanos, A., Anshel, M. H., & Porter, A. (1997). Personal and situational factors that predict coping strategies for acute stress among basketball referees. Journal of Sports Sciences, 15, 427436. Kline, P. (1998). The new psychometrics: Science, psychology, and measurement. Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis. Krohne, M. W. (1993). Vigilance and cognitive avoidance as concepts in coping research. In M. W. Krohne (Ed.), Attention and avoidance: Strategies in coping with aversiveness (pp. 1950). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber. Krohne, H. W. (1996). Individual differences in coping. In M. Zeidner, & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 381409). New York: Wiley. Krohne, H. W., Egloff, B., Varner, L. J., Burns, L. R., Weidner, G., & Ellis, H. C. (2000). The assessment of dispositional vigilance and cognitive avoidance: Factorial structure, psychometric properties, and validity of the Mainz Coping Inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 297311. Krohne, H. W., & Hindel, C. (1988). Trait anxiety, state anxiety, and coping behavior as predictors of athletic performance. Anxiety Research, 1, 225234. Lane, A. W., Jones, L., & Stevens, M. J. (2002). Coping with failure: The effecs of self-esteem and coping on changes in self-efcacy. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25, 331345. Leventhal, E. A., Suls, J., & Leventhal, H. (1993). Hierarchical analysis of coping: Evidence from life-span studies. In M. W. Krohne (Ed.), Attention and avoidance: Strategies in coping with aversiveness (pp. 71118). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber. Lonsdale, C., & Howe, B. L. (2004). Stress and challenge appraisals of acute taxing events in rugby. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 723. Madden, C. C., Kirkby, R. J., & McDonald, D. (1989). Coping styles of competitive middle distance runners. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 287296. Madden, C. C., Summers, J. J., & Brown, D. F. (1990). The inuence of perceived stress on coping with competitive basketball. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, 2135. McCrae, R. R. (1984). Situational determinants of coping responses: Loss, threat, and challenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 919928. McCrae, R. R. (1992). Situational determinants of coping. In B. N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory, research, and application. Westport, CT: Praeger. Miller, S. M. (1992). Individual differences in the coping process: What to know and when to know it. In B. N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory, research, and application. Westport, CT: Praeger. Moos, R. H., & Swindle, R. W., Jr. (1990). Person-environment transactions and the stressor-appraisal-coping process. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 3032. Mullen, B., & Suls, J. (1982). The effectiveness of attention and rejection as coping styles: A meta-analysis of temporal differences. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 26, 4349. Noblet, A. J., & Gifford, S. M. (2002). The sources of stress experienced by professional Australian footballers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 113. Phipps, S., & Zinn, A. B. (1986). Psychological responses to amniocentesis: II. Effects of coping style. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 25, 143148. Poczwardowski, A., & Conroy, D. E. (2002). Coping responses to failure and success among elite athletes and performing artists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 313329.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
24 M.H. Anshel, T. Sutarso / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 124

Porter, L. S., & Stone, A. A. (1996). An approach to assessing daily coping. In M. Zeidner, & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 133150). New York: Wiley. Rawstorne, P., Anshel, M. H., & Caputi, P. (2000). Toward evidence of individual differences in coping with acute stress in sport. Australian Journal of Psychology, 13, 18. Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41, 813819. Scheier, M. F., Weintraub, J. K., & Carver, C. S. (1986). Coping with stress: Divergent strategies of optimists and pessimists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 12571264. Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 82, 225260. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1998). A beginners guide to structural equation modelling. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 216269. Srivastava, A., Locke, E. A., & Bartol, K. M. (2001). Money and subjective well being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 959971. Suls, J., & Fletcher, B. (1985). The relative efcacy of avoidant and nonavoidant coping strategies: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 4, 249288. Terry, D. J. (1991). Coping resources and situational appraisals as predictors of coping behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 10311047. Tobin, D. L., Holroyd, K. A., Reynolds, R. V., & Wigal, J. K. (1989). The hierarchical factor structure of the coping strategies inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 343361. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 469. Zeidner, M., & Saklofske, D. (1996). Adaptive and maladaptive coping. In M. Zeidner, & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 505531). New York: Wiley.