2014 - JSS A Model Linking Sources of Stress To Approach and Avoidance Coping Styles of Turkish Basketball Referees

Anshel, M. H., Sutarso, T., Ekmekci, R., & Saraswati, I. W.
Journal of Sports Sciences 2013 1

The final version of this paper was published in: Anshel, M. H., Sutarso, T., Ekmekci, R., &
Saraswati, I. W. (2014). A model linking sources of stress to approach and avoidance coping
styles of Turkish basketball referees. Journal of Sports Sciences 32 (2), 116-128.

A Model Linking Sources of Stress to Approach and Avoidance Coping Styles
Of Turkish Basketball Referees

Mark Howard Anshel
1
, Toto Sutarso
2
, Ridvan Ekmekci
3
, & Intan W. Saraswati
4

Abstract
Purpose of this study was to externally validate and test a conceptual transient model
involving six paths that linked sources of acute stress to avoidance and approach coping styles
among Turkish basketball referees. The sample consisted of 125 Turkish basketball referees
ranging in age from 18 to 36 years (M =25.58. SD =3.69). The path analysis tested the
relationships simultaneously from stressors, in consecutive order, distractions, subpar
performance, and verbal abuse, to coping styles, first both avoidance-cognitive and approach-
cognitive, and then approach-behaviour. Results of path analysis indicated that the model
achieved a good fit and that all paths tested simultaneously were significant. The distractions
stressor was positively related to subpar performance, which, in turn, was positively related to
verbal abuse. Verbal abuse was negatively associated with an avoidance-cognitive coping style,
and positively related to the approach-cognitive coping style. The results also supported a
crossover effect of both avoidance-cognitive and approach-cognitive on approach-behaviour.
One implication of this study is that coping should be studied in naturally occurring stages, a
process-oriented approach. Another implication is that approach and avoidance coping styles,
each sub-divided into cognitive and behavioural categories, provide a meaningful framework
which provides sports officials a coherent structure for learning and improving ways to cope with
acute stress experienced during the contest.

Keywords: stress, sources of stress, coping, coping style, path analysis, sports officials

Anshel, M. H., Sutarso, T., Ekmekci, R., & Saraswati, I. W. Journal of Sports Sciences 2013 2

A Model Linking Sources of Stress to Approach and Avoidance Coping Styles
Of Turkish Basketball Referees
The classical and oft quoted definition of coping is constantly changing cognitive and
behavioural efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as
taxing or exceeding the resources of the person (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141). The
psychology literature is replete with empirical research on understanding (i.e., describing,
explaining, predicting) the coping process, particularly on identifying the mechanisms and
mediating factors that influence coping effectiveness (e.g., Nicholls & Polman, 2007). While the
predominant number of these studies has included individuals from various areas of human
performance, one group that experiences high intensity stress, but has received relatively rare
attention by researchers, is sports arbiters/officials (i.e., referees, umpires, judges).
Stress is inherent in sports officiating due to the perception of athletes, coaches, and
spectators that they (i.e., the official) commit errors and injustice, usually by applying a rule
inaccurately or unfairly, or by making a wrong call (Mark, Bryant, & Lehman,1983). Mark et
al. contend that acute stressors, such as judgment calls and decisions about rule infractions, are
predominant, inevitable, and likely to lead to poor performance by both officials and competitors
if officials fail to cope effectively with stressful events. The result of poor, ineffective coping is
slower information-processing, less accurate decision-making, improper performance mechanics,
burnout, and eventually, quitting (Anshel, 2012). Attempts to understand the coping process of
sports officials is likely to improve officials coping efforts, reduce their stress, improve health
and well-being, foster effective performance, and greatly reduce the rate at which officials drop
out of sport. Examining the relationship between sources of stress and coping styles has been
particularly neglected. Thus, examining the factors that contribute to perceived stress and to
improve our understanding of the coping process among sports officials appears warranted.
Previous studies of sports officials have addressed acute stressors and coping styles in separate

studies, but rarely as a sequential interaction, or relationship, between both constructs in the same study.
The paucity of research that jointly examines the association between sources of stress and the persons
selection of a coping style is surprising, partly because sources and intensity level of acute stress
mediates coping (Nichols & Polman, 2007). The study of both conceptual frameworks in the same study
is called a process-oriented approach (Gaudreau & Miranda, 2010), or the transient nature of coping
(Nicholls & Thelwell, 2010).
The coping process has also been examined by categorizing responses to stress as a function of
coping style, that is, the interaction between the personal factors (e.g., coping style, cognitive appraisal,
perceived stress intensity) and situational characteristics (e.g., type of stressor), a process that describes
transactional theory (Porter & Stone, 1996). With respect to the former, Anshel and Sutarso (2007)
contend that linking categories of sources of stressors with the athletes coping style...has two distinct
advantages in understanding the coping process and creating effective interventions. First, most single
items of behaviour...have a high component of measurement error and a narrow range of generality.
Coping responses are more predictable. The second advantage is improved generalization of results
(which improves predictability of) the athletes responses following a set of stressors with similar
characteristics (p. 19).
The inclusion and relevance of environmental and situational factors that explain the coping
process and the social context in which coping occurs is intrinsic to transactional theory. This theory has
received extensive attention in the non-sport literature (Kosciulek, 2007). Situational factors such as the
type and intensity of a stressor are a critical factor in coping strategies and coping effectiveness.
Wethington and Kessler (1991) divided situational determinants into two types, the situational context
surround the individual who is coping (e.g., the social resources that are available to the individual,
characteristics of the individual), and the type of event that occurs (e.g., sources of stress, acute versus
chronic forms of stress). As Kosciulet has concluded, the type and severity of situational demands are
particularly relevant for evaluating the efficacy of different coping strategies (p. 78). Additional

research is needed to examine the extent to which the coping process can be explained and predicted by
recognizing the role of situational characteristics and coping consistency among sports officials.
Over the years, the coping process has been categorized and examined with respect to various
frameworks (see Nicholls & Thelwell, 2010, for a review). One coping framework that has received
extensive attention in the coping research literature over the years in both general psychology (e.g.,
Krohne, 1993, 1996; Roth & Cohen, 1986) and performance/sport psychology (e.g., Anshel, Williams,
& Williams, 2000; Krohne & Hindel, 1988) is approach and avoidance coping. An approach coping
style in sport, also referred to as vigilant, attention, active, sensitization, engagement, and augmentation
(Krohne, 1993; Roth & Cohen, 1986), generally refers to the individuals behavioural (i.e., taking
action) and cognitive efforts (i.e., thoughts, emotions) in dealing with stressful situations for the intended
purpose of reducing stress intensity and maintaining optimal performance (Krohne, 1996). Examples of
approach-behavioural coping in sports officiating include calling a penalty, defending a call (to a
player, coach, or colleague), overcoming assertive actions by coaches and athletes, and seeking support
from a colleague/partner/supervisor (Kaissidis & Anshel, 1993). Examples of approach-cognitive
activity include remembering a particular rule, self-statements that affirm a specific call or perspective,
or analysing the stressful event. Krohne (1993) contends that vigilant coping, a term used
interchangeably with approach, also consists of anticipation of negative events, information search,
or recalling negative events (p. 34).
The other category of coping is called avoidance, also called nonvigilant, passive,
desensitization, repression, disengagement, and avoidant (Krohne, 1993, 1996; Hoar, Kowalski,
Gaudreau, & Crocker, 2006; Krohne, 1993, 1996). An avoidance coping style reflects a persons efforts
to reduce or eliminate cues perceived as threatening or harmful (Krohne, 1993, 1996).
Similar to approach coping, avoidance has also been sub-categorized as behavioural or cognitive,
such as persons who physically remove themselves from a threatening environment (Krohne et
al., 2000). In the parlance of Krohne (1993), avoidance-cognitive coping reflects turning away

from threatening cues (p. 3). Examples includes discounting (i.e., reducing the importance or
changing the interpretation of a stressful experience), psychological distancing, which consists of
understanding the reasons of a stressful experience, or feeling detached from the source of the
stressor, thereby keeping it in perspective (Bramson, 1981), and using a distraction activity that
prevents rehearsal of the stressor (e.g. attentional diversion; Krohne, 1993).
The proper selection and application of coping styles and strategies within those styles in
sport is often a function of personal and situational/environmental demands. While athletes and
coaches, for example, might use approach coping under certain conditions, and apply avoidance
coping under other conditions, sports officials must maintain situational control and, therefore,
are less likely to maintain an avoidance posture. Sports officials, for instance, typically
experience more verbal abuse than athletes and coaches. This often leads to less avoidance-
cognitive coping, and to more approach-cognitive coping, at least partially due to task demands
and responsibilities of game officials. Unlike the coping styles of skilled competitive athletes and
coaches, Anshel and Weinberg (1995, 1996) found that sports officials do not tend to use an
avoidance-behaviour coping style. This is because the primary role of sports officials is to
control the contest, and to ensure that rules and participant behaviour are enforced to ensure
fairness (Rainey, 1995). Ultimately, the sports official is held accountable for maintaining the
contests integrity. Not surprisingly, approach-behaviour coping, not avoidance-behaviour, is far
more common.
Understanding the coping process in particular areas of performance (e.g., sport, injury
and rehabilitation, the performing arts, various forms of physical activity) is especially important
in situations when the performer is required to rapidly take in, process, and respond efficiently to
an array of internal and external processes (Wrisberg, 2001). Wrisbergs review of related
literature supports the contention that elite performers selected, process, and retrieve information
more effectively and efficiently than their less-skilled counterparts.

Coping effectiveness can be similarly described as a function of skill level across
performance domains (Auerbach, 1992). Auerbach contends that stressors experienced
sequentially across several temporal stages form important determinants of subsequent appraisal
and coping processes. It may be surmised, therefore, that coping is a transitional process rather
than a series of separate, interdependent components. It is the nature of coping that has been
virtually neglected by previous researchers and serves as the focus of the present study.
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
It is widely known in the sport psychology literature that coping is a process consisting of
different models that depict various components and sequential stages (Nicholls & Thelwell, 2010).
Unknown, however, are the relationships between the early, antecedent stages of coping in relation to
subsequent components, specifically, the parallel paths that lead from sources of stressors to the use of
coping styles (J ones & Uphill, 2004). Experiencing stressful events during the sport contest is
continuous. While researchers have targeted the relationships between stressful events and the ways in
which sports competitors (e.g., athletes, coaches, contest officials) cope with these events, relatively
little is known about the temporal patterning of these relationships.
In their review of research on temporal patterning of emotion in sport, Cerin, Szabo, Hunt, and
Williams (2000) have called for more research into the temporal patterning of other emotions, including
stress. One area that has received relatively little attention by researchers is the temporal patterning
between stressful events in sport and the participants coping style, particularly among sports officials.
J ones and Uphill concluded in their review of related literature that assessing the emotion-performance
relationship experienced during sport competition will produce more valid data due to the transient
nature of emotions. One outcome of our improved understanding of this relationship, they claim, is the
development of strategies that promote emotional control.
While sport psychology researchers have examined the temporal patterns of emotions
experienced prior to, during, and immediately after competition, little is known about the transient

nature of the stress and coping relationship among sports officials (i.e., referees, judges, umpires).
Gaudreau and Miranda (2010) distinguish between stability and consistency in the coping process.
Stability in coping refers to the extent to which individuals are coping in a similar manner across time
within the same situation or context (p. 17). How a sports official copes with game-related stress across
a series of games or over the season provides one example of coping stability. Consistency, however,
represents the extent to which individuals use similar coping strategies or styles under different
conditions or within the same type of situation. Gaudreau and Miranda propose that these situations can
be divided in naturally occurring stages with distinct demands likely to generate changes in coping, what
they call a process-oriented approach. One area of study that has addressed mediating factors that
influence the coping process is the interaction between a persons cognitive appraisal and the selection
and effectiveness of coping strategies.
One relatively recent study (Anshel & Sutarso, 2007) examined the relationships between
sources of stress and coping style among 332 competitive athletes as a function of gender. Athletes were
asked to indicate their perceived stress intensity for common sources of acute stress and their subsequent
use of coping skills with the two most intense stressors. Theory-driven categories of acute stress sources
were labelled performance-related and coach-related. Coping styles were labelled approach-behavioral,
approach-cognitive, and avoidance-cognitive. Findings indicated that coping style three-factor model
showed a good fit with the data, that is, the type of acute stressor was associated with the athletes
respective coping style. A similar approach, using the coping transient model as a framework, was
generated and tested in this study of examining the relationships between sources of stress and coping
style among sports officials, a group in which the stress and coping process is consistent and continuous.
Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the coping process using a process-oriented approach to
determine the relationships between sources of acute stress and coping styles among basketball referees.
The Coping Transient Model

Benson and Hagtvet (1996) contend that in the measurement of constructs...a construct
represents an abstract variable derived from theory or observation (and) represents a hypothesis
about the observables thought to represent the construct. Therefore, it is important not only to be
able to define and develop measurements of contrasts, but also to find and demonstrate
functional relations between measures of different constructs (p. 84). They endorse a three-step
approach to construct validation: (1) specify the domain of observables for the construct, (2)
determine to what extent the observables are correlated with each other, and (3) determine
whether or not the measures of a given construct correlate in expected ways with measures of
other constructs. Thus, identifying the relationships between constructs in the coping process
among sports arbiters first requires determining their sources of stress.
Along these lines, Dorsch and Paskevich (2007) concluded from their review of related
literature that two stress-related factors that appeared across all studies were fear of physical
harm (e.g., assault by a player/coach/spectator) and fear of failure/appearing incompetent
(e.g., making a bad call). In a subsequent similar study, Voight (2009) found the top sources of
stress experienced by soccer officials included making a controversial call and conflict
between officiating and work demands. Thus, it appears that the coping process consists of
three primary phases: (1) cognitive engagement that is both active and intense, consisting of
selected thoughts and emotions (e.g., fear and anxiety) that distract the official from the task at
hand (i.e., distractions), (2) undesirable performance quality (i.e., subpar performance), and (3)
highly emotional and negative reactions by those affected by the referees decisions and actions,
including players, coaches, and spectators (i.e., verbal abuse).
As shown in Figure 1, the coping transient model is based on a logical sequence of events
in sports officiating, in general, and with basketball referees, in particular, moving from
experiencing the acute stressor to the use of a coping style. While we acknowledge that cognitive
appraisal is a mediator of coping (Krohne, 1996), the model tests the relationship between the

type of stressful event experienced during the sports contest and the basketball referees coping
style.
There were three stressors, or components, in the model as posited from previous
psychometric validation in the sports coping literature (e.g., Anshel & Sutarso, 2007; Rainey,
1995) and from the extant sport psychology literature (Anshel & Weinberg, 1995, 1996). These
sources of stress reflect a category of acute stressors called performance-related, as confirmed
in Anshel and Sutarsos study of male and female athletes.
The first segment, labelled distractions, consists of items that reduce the referees
effectiveness due to intense engagement with selected thoughts and emotions related to pain, fear
and anxiety that may distract the official from the task at hand. Studies by Rainey (1995), Anshel
and Weinberg (1995), Voight (2009), and Dorsch and Paskevich (2007) on baseball umpires,
basketball referees, soccer referees, and ice hockey referees, respectively, indicated that
distractions about physical harm, fear of failure, interpersonal conflict, and making a mistake
formed prevalent sources of stress. As Wrisberg (2001) reports from his review of related
empirical literature, and Weinberg and Richardson (1990) describe in their applied work,
distractions among sports officials results in the lack of performance consistency, or subpar
performance. While threats and abuse from others has been a ubiquitous theme in previous
studies examining sources of stress among sports officials (e.g., Anshel & Weinberg, 1996;
Kaissidas, Anshel, & Porter, 1997), researchers have not examined the relationships between
disruptive cognitive processes and performance outcome, at least among sports officials. Thus, it
is apparent that subpar performance is a manifestation of cognitive distractions, which formed
the second source of stress in the current study.
Based on the extant sources of stress research in sports officiating literature (reviewed
earlier), and Weinberg and Richardsons (1990) descriptive narrative of the physical and
psychological qualities and demands of highly skilled sports officials, verbal abuse is typically

predicated on and is frequent reaction to, the referees actions which are perceived by critics as
inaccurate or erroneous (Kaissidis-Rodafinos & Anshel, 2000). It is less plausible to speculate,
we contend, that verbal abuse is an antecedent or predictor of poor performance. This conclusion
is supported by theoretical and empirical research on sport spectatorship (Wann, 1997).
In his review of related research, Wann (1997) contends that sport spectator aggression is
a function of several factors, including strong team identity, group affiliation (i.e., the fans need
for belongingness), and spectator self-esteem (i.e., home team success translates into
strengthened feelings of achievement and accomplishment) that may lead to making harsh
judgements of sports officials. This is likely because unfair or poor sports official
performance justifies the spectators highly critical, even aggressive verbal or physical reaction
leading to heightened stress and anxiety impair the officials quality of cognitive functioning,
such as attentional focusing or speed and accuracy of decision-making (Wrisberg, 2001). Thus,
in the present model, referees subpar performance is typically followed by harassment or verbal
abuse.
In summary, the stressors were labelled distractions because they inhibited the referees
ability to efficiently process information and make rapid and accurate decisions, subpar
performance because external and internal distractions are known contributors to inefficient
information processing and reduced physical performance, and (3) verbal abuse by others (e.g.,
players, coaches, spectators). The model then posits three coping styles, described earlier, in
response to the stressors simultaneous paths. These are avoidance and approach coping in both
cognitive and behavioural forms, a framework consistent with Anshel and Sutarsos (2007) study
which validated the relationship between sources of stress and coping styles in sport.
The theoretical justification for the coping process prediction of avoidance cognitive
leading to approach behaviour is that, as Krohne (1993) explains, cognitive coping processes
(i.e., avoidance-cognitive) precede coping behaviour (i.e., approach-behaviour). That is, coping

with acute stress in sports officiating is initiated with the cognitive appraisal of the stressor -
thinking - followed by an action. Krohne (1993) contends that cognitive forms of avoidance and
approach coping precede behavioural forms of approach coping.
Coping styles that are compatible with referees performance include approach-cognitive,
in which the referee actively processes information in order to resolve the stressful situation and
maintains concentration on the task at hand (Krohne, 1993; Krohne et al., 2000), avoidance-
cognitive, in which the referee feels the correct decision was executed, perceives extraneous input
as a distraction, and uses discounting or psychologically distancing as ways to reduce the
stressors intensity, and approach-behaviour, in which the official maintains control of the
situation, such as giving a warning or technical foul or explaining/defending a call.
Examining a logical sequence of events in the coping process is important for researchers,
physical and mental health professionals, medical practitioners, and performers. Identifying
components of the coping process from categories of stressful events to responses to those events
(i.e., coping styles) provides insights in the sequence where the coping process becomes
problematic (e.g., experiencing a stressor is coupled with poor or ineffective coping that results in
unsatisfactory performance). Specific cognitive-behavioural interventions are tailored for
individual needs, a central feature of the matching hypothesis.
The matching hypothesis, as explained by J ones and Hardy (1989), posits that stress and
anxiety clog up information processing channels with irrelevant information, and that an
intervention should match the fundamental causes(s) of the persons cognitive or somatic
symptoms of state anxiety, or any other unfavourable cognition or affect. The implication in the
present study is that to achieve optimal coping effectiveness it is important to match specific
situational characteristics, or types of stressors, with particular coping responses, in our study,
using the approach-avoidance framework. As Anshel and Sutarso (2007) explain in their study of
competitive athletes, 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 specific coping strategies from memory (p.
5).
Thus, the following hypotheses (see Figure 1) were tested in this study based on the transient
model of experiencing, in sequence, selected stressors, followed by selected coping styles: (1) the
stressor, distractions, will be positively related to the stressor subpar performance; (2) subpar
performance will be related to verbal abuse; (3) the referees will use less avoidance-cognitive coping
style, reflected by a negative relationship between verbal abuse and avoidance-cognitive coping; (4) the
referees will use more approach-cognitive coping style upon receiving verbal abuse, reflected by the
positive relationship between these processes; (5) an avoidance-cognitive coping style will be positively
associated with an approach-behaviour coping style; and (6) there will be a positive relationship
between approach-cognitive coping style and approach-behaviour coping style.
Method
Participants and Procedures
Participants in this study, recruited through a basketball referees association in Turkey,
consisted of 125 basketball referees (108 males and 17 females), 64 of whom officiated at the local
level, and 61 officiated at the college level, all considered highly skilled based on their membership in
the referees association. They ranged in age from 18 to 36 yrs (M =25.58 yrs. SD =3.69), and whose
experience ranged from one to 12 years (M =5.14 yrs, SD =2.99). Each participant consented to
voluntarily engage in the study under the condition that they may withdraw at any time without negative
consequences. The university Institutional Review Board approved this study.
Materials
An inventory, called the Basketball Officials Stress Inventory (BOSI), was developed for this
study of Turkish basketball referees and consisted of two parts. The first part listed statements about the
referees sources of stress (RSS) of selected stressful events which were adapted from previous studies

in this area (e.g., Anshel & Weinberg, 1995; Kaissidis & Anshel, 1993; Louvet, Gaudreau, Menaut,
Genty, & Deneuve, 2009; Tsorbatzoudis, Kaissidis, Partemian, & Grouios, 2005). Examples included
verbal abuse from coaches/players/spectators, making a wrong call, being in a wrong position on the
court, experiencing pain or injury, and problems working with my partner. The second part of the
inventory was to identify the referees coping styles (RCS) following three different stressors on
stressful events. Respondents were asked to indicate the level of intensity felt after experiencing each of
the stressful events on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). The BOSI differed
from an earlier validated referee stress and coping inventory, called the Basketball Officials Sources of
Stress Inventory (BOSSI; Kaissidis & Anshel, 1993) primarily in three ways. First, several BOSI items
were adapted from the BOSSI and not taken verbatim in order to be consistent with the Turkish
language. Second, one source of stress, sexual harassment, was added in the present study but not
included in the earlier BOSSI instrument. Third, the current study combined sources of acute stress and
coping strategies in the same inventory to identify their relationships. Coping style, however, was not
included in the BOSSI.
The BOSI consisted of nine items that were theoretically generated from the existing stress
literature to examine coping with acute stress with athletes and modified specifically for basketball
referees and for sports officials by Kaissidis and his colleagues (1997, 1998), and Rainey (1995). This
process reflects an attempt to reconceptualise the sources of stress construct to make it more
compatible with a referees subsequent use of coping style. Items were conceptually categorized as:
(1) distractions, (2) subpar performance, and (3) verbal abuse.
The RCS consisted of ascertaining the referees coping style (RCS), each sub-categorized as
behavioural or cognitive coping responses to stressful events typically experienced during basketball
games. The nine RCS items used in this study were obtained and modified from several previous
studies using this framework in which all items were validated (e.g., Anshel, & Sutarso, 2007; Anshel,
Sutarso, & J ubenville, 2009; Krohne, 1993, 1996; Krohne et al., 2000). The coping style model

consisted of three factors: (1) approach-cognitive (e.g., I listened to the source of stress, I thought
that the situation was just part of the game, I kept my concentration on the game and focused on the
next task at hand), (2) avoidance-cognitive (e.g., I felt upset and wanted to quit, I kept thinking
about the situation, I felt the situation was unfair to me, and developed negative feelings), and (3)
approach-behaviour (e.g., I gave a warning/technical foul, I argued my point, I verbally
defended myself, I verbally responded to the situation. Results and Table 1 include the
psychometric properties of this inventory.
Data Analysis
Two primary statistical techniques were applied in this study to test the transient
(process-oriented) model. First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to confirm the
factor structures and the items derived from the conceptual frameworks for referees sources of
stress (RSS) and the referees coping styles (RCS) as discussed earlier. Cronbachs alpha and
composite reliability for each factor of RSS and RCS were used to report the reliabilities of each
factor. Second, path analysis was used to determine the paths/relationships among factors of the
referees RSS and RCS.
Path analysis assumptions. The assumptions of path analysis were met in the following
ways. First, all relations are linear and additive; the sequence paths are shown in the path
diagram. Specifically, in Figure 1, it indicates that the hypothesized paths model from stressors
to coping styles clearly follow the sequence paths. Second, the residuals are uncorrelated
with the other variables in the model and with each other. As Figure 1 clearly shows, each error
(e1 or e2 or e5) does not have any relation (path) to other error(s). Also, each error does not
correlate with other variables. For example, e1 does not show a path to distractions, verbal abuse,
avoidance-cognitive, approach-cognitive or approach behaviour. Third, the sequence flow is one-
way, as shown in Figure 1. Fourth, the results show a very good fit between the model and the
data with comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) >.90 (.97 and .95,

respectively, in the results); and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) <.05 (i.e.
.04, in the results).
Fifth, the variables are measured on interval scales or better. Each variable in the model
is a factor or subscale. As mentioned later, only subscales or factors derived from items resulted
from the CFA mentioned earlier were included on the path analysis model. Thus, each variable is
a composite score of its items with very good composite reliability. Consequently, each variable
has at least an interval scale properties. Finally, each variable has good reliability Cronbachs
alphas and Composite as shown in Table 1.
On the path analysis, for simplicity and clarity, only major variables or factors are
included on the model (see the hypothesized model). Structural model normally requires a larger
sample size then included in this study (N=125). However, sample size in path analysis depends
on the number of parameters that can be estimated by the saturated model (Anshel & Sutarso,
2010; Byrne, 1993; Kline, 1998; Tang, Luna-Arocas, & Sutarso, 2004). Because the present path
model has six variables, or factors (three factors of RSS i.e., distractions, subpar performance,
and verbal abuse, and three factors of RCS, i.e. avoidance-cognitive, approach-cognitive, and
approach-behaviour), the number of parameters is estimated to be 21. This is based on the
formula, [p (p +1)]/2, where p is the number of variables. A recommendation for the minimum
sample size is to include five data points for every estimated parameter (Kline, 1998; Tang,
Luna-Arocas, Sutarso, & Tang, 2004). Hence the sample size required for this model is 105. This
would make the current sample size (N=125) adequate for conducting the path model.
Chi-Square (
2
) statistic, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI),
and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (Anshel & Sutarso, 2010; Bentler, 1990;
Schumacker & Lomax, 1998; Tang, Sutarso, Davis, Dolinski, Ibrahim, & Wagner, 2008) were
used to assess model fit. Low values and a non-significant Chi-Square would indicate a better fit.
However, this statistic is very sensitive to larger sample sizes. For example, Chi-Square may lead

to rejection of a model with good fit in larger sample sizes (Schumacker & Lomax, 1998).
J oreskog (1969) proposed the Normed Chi-Square, that is, Chi-Square adjusted by the degrees of
freedom (
2
/df ) to assess model fit. The Normed Chi-Square values between 1.0 and 5.0 are
considered to fall within the level of acceptance (Schumacker & Lomax, 1998).
The CFI and TLI are indicative of data that are a good fit to the model if the fit is equal to
or greater than .90 (.90 =the lower bound of a good fit, .95 or higher =an excellent fit). The
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values below .08 are considered as
indication of a good fit (i.e., .08 is the upper limit of a good fit, whereas .05 or less is an
excellent fit; Browne & Cudeck, 1989).
The critical ratio (CR) is used to determine whether the path is significant (Byrne, 1993;
Tang, Sutarso, Akande, Allen, Alzubaidi, Ansari, et al., 2006; Tang, Sutarso, Davis, Dolinski,
Ibrahim, & Wagner, 2008). A path is significant at .05, .01, or .001 when the critical ratio (CR) is
equal to or greater than 1.96, 2.58, or 3.50, respectively.
Results
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Multiple factors model of Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used (i.e., 9-item, 3-
factor of the referees sources of stress and 9-item, 3-factor of the referees coping styles) to
examine the fit between the model and the data (Table 1). The CFA confirmed the factor
structures resulting from the earlier conceptual framework of the referees sources of stress
(RSS) and the referees coping styles (RCS). The CFA achieved all the statistical criteria
discussed earlier (
2
=153.66, df =131, p =.09,
2
/df = 1.17, CFI =.97, TLI =.96, RMSEA =
.04). These results also indicated that both RSS and RCS scales achieved construct validity. All
standardized factor loadings from items included were significant, ranging from .62 to .91, which
passed the criterion of .32 or higher for factor loadings (Tabachnick, & Fidell, 2007). This result
provided support for convergent validity. Composite reliability for each factor was very good; in

fact, composite reliability for each factor or sub-scales was superior then those of the Cronbachs
reliability. The items, factor loadings, statistical measurements, mean, standard deviation, and
reliability coefficients (i.e. Cronbach alpha and composite reliability) of each factor for both
scales are listed in Table 1.
Path Analysis
For simplicity and clarity, only subscales or factors derived from items resulting from the
CFA were included on the path analysis model (Anshel, Sutarso, & J ubenville, 2009; Anshel,
Sutarso, & Sozen, 2012). As shown in Figure 2, results of the path analysis tested two major
issues: (1) The model achieved a good fit, and (2) there were significant paths from referees
source of stressors to their coping styles.
The model achieved a good fit based on all the criteria mentioned in the method section.
The 2 and Normed 2 criteria of the model were very good [2 =10.71; df =9; p =.30 and
Normed 2 (2/df) =1.19]. The other fit indices were also supported the goodness of fit model
with the data (CFI = .97, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .04). Figure 2 includes the 2 and other fit
indices.
The significant paths were achieved on all paths of the model simultaneously (i.e.,
distractions subpar performance verbal abuse both avoidance-cognitive and approach-
cognitive approach-behaviour).
Path analysis tested all the paths simultaneously (see Figure 2). To clarify these results and to
address each of the six hypotheses in this study, the analysis was divided for each path. The first path
showed a significant and positive relationship between distractions and subpar performance with
standardized regression estimate =.33 and CR =3.92 or equivalent to p <.001. This path supported
hypothesis 1 that distractions was positively associated with subpar performance. Subpar performance
served as a mediator of the relationship between the distractions and verbal abuse. The second path,
association between subpar performance and verbal abuse was positive and significant (.23 and CR =

2.63; p <.01). This finding supported hypothesis 2, in that subpar performance was associated with
additional verbal abuse. Thus, the three previous factors each reflected the referees source of stress
(RSS) in this study. The next path will link RSS to RCS.
Verbal abuse was related to two paths, avoidance-cognitive and approach-cognitive. The path
from verbal abuse to avoidance-cognitive was significant (-.18 and CR =1.99; p <.05). This path
indicated a significant and negative association from verbal abuse to avoidance-cognitive. In other
words, in support of hypothesis 3, the more referees received verbal abuse the less likely they were to
apply avoidance-cognitive coping. The referees also applied approach-cognitive coping. The path from
verbal abuse to approach-cognitive coping was positive and significant (.39 and CR =4.66; p<.001).
Thus, in support of hypothesis 4, experiencing more frequent verbal abuse was associated with greater
use of an approach-cognitive coping style.
Paths to an approach-behaviour coping style were generated from both avoidance-
cognitive and approach-cognitive forms of coping. The fifth path, in support of hypothesis 5,
showed a significant and positive relationship between avoidance-cognitive to approach-
behaviour coping styles (.26 and CR =3.10; p <.01); avoidance-cognitive coping was positively
associated with approach-behaviour coping. Finally, the sixth path between approach-cognitive
to approach-behaviour coping styles was positive and significant (.28 and CR =3.32 or p<
.001). The results also supported a crossover effect of both avoidance-cognitive and approach-
cognitive on approach-behaviour.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine a path model from sources of stress to coping styles in
a group that captures the need to maintain high quality performance under stressful conditions,
basketball referees. The three stressors were distractions, leading to subpar performance, which is then
associated with verbal abuse from others (i.e., coaches, players, spectators). The three coping styles that
followed included avoidance-cognitive, approach-cognitive, and approach-behaviour. The path model

achieved a good fit based on all the criteria (
2
, Normed
2
, CFI, TLI, and RMSEA). Reliabilities of both
scales were satisfactory, and the significant correlation between the two scales provided measures of
predictive validity for each scale.
Based on the path model, as predicted, the results showed simultaneously: (1) that the
stressor named distractions was positively associated with the stressor labelled subpar
performance; (2) that subpar performance was related to verbal abuse; (3) that a negative
association was found between the stressor, verbal abuse, and an avoidance-cognitive coping
style, (4) that receiving increased verbal abuse increased the use of an approach-cognitive
coping style, (5) that an avoidance-cognitive coping style was positively associated with an
approach-behaviour coping style, and (6) that relationship between approach-cognitive coping
style and approach-behaviour coping style was positive. Thus, the referees used both avoidance-
cognitive and approach-cognitive coping styles, followed by an approach-behaviour coping style.
Apparently, for this sample of basketball referees, experiencing more verbal abuse leads to less
avoidance-cognitive coping, and to more approach-cognitive coping.
This outcome can be at least partially explained as due to task demands and
responsibilities of referees, in general. Specifically, unlike the coping styles of skilled
competitive athletes, sports officials do not tend to use an avoidance-behaviour coping style
(Anshel & Weinberg, 1995, 1996). This is because the primary role of sports officials is to
control the contest, and to ensure that rules and participant behaviour are enforced to ensure
fairness (Rainey, 1995). Ultimately, the sports official is held accountable for maintaining the
contests integrity. Not surprisingly, approach-behaviour coping, not avoidance-behaviour, is far
more common. Taken together, the conceptual model linking the stressors and coping styles
sequence in Figure 1 was empirically supported. Reliabilities of both scales were satisfactory,
and the significant correlation between the two scales provided measures of predictive validity
for each scale.

Alternative models could have been proposed. Two examples could include (1)
distractions verbal abuse subpar performance, to coping styles, first both avoidance-
cognitive and approach-cognitive, and then approach-behaviour; or (2) verbal abuse
distraction subpar performance, to coping styles, first both avoidance-cognitive and
approach-cognitive, and then approach-behaviour. However, both alternative models did not fit
the empirical tests and, in fact, were inferior than our proposed model (Wolfle, 1999). The first
alternative model has CFI =.58; TLI =.29; and RMSEA =.15. The second alternative model has
CFI =.71; TLI =.52; and RMSEA =.12. Thus, we rejected both alternative unfit models and
support our proposed model in this study.
There are several implications for results of the current study. First, to understand the coping
process requires identifying the beginning component of that process, specifically, sources of acute
stress that are appraised as highly intense highly intense, as was the case with the referees in this study.
Second, the ability to build strong and effective interventions to mitigate the potentially deleterious
effects of acute stress in sport requires studying coping in stages, that is, a process-oriented approach.
This entails dividing situations into naturally occurring stages that generate changes in the use of coping
skills. As shown in the present study, the referee first detects the stressor, in this case, being distracted,
followed by subpar performance and verbal abuse by others, then applying ones coping styles.
Results of this study have implications for improving the coping skills of sports officials
reflecting the approach and avoidance coping framework, each sub-divided into cognitive and
behavioural strategies. For example, the significant relationship between the stressor, verbal abuse, and
the coping style, avoidance-cognitive, suggests that the basketball referees in this study cope typically
and most effectively by either filtering out undesirable input (e.g., spectator booing, coach or player
complaining/reprimanding) or using an avoidance-cognitive coping technique called discounting which
consists of gaining a more objective perspective of the other persons actions, even in the midst of an
unpleasant encounter (Bramson, 1981). As Bramson suggests, only by seeing their patterns of

behaviour and understanding the source of those patterns will you be able to devise an effective strategy
for coping with them (p. 168). The content of verbal information perceived as unpleasant, or stressful,
must not be taken seriously as truth but, rather, coming from a very upset individual. The referee must
take a detached and distanced view of the persons message. There are conditions in sports officiating,
however, that warrant a strong immediate response to a stressful event in either behavioural (e.g.,
assessing a penalty, issuing a warning) or cognitive form (e.g., maintaining self-control by monitoring,
covert rehearsing, anticipating, planning), reflecting approach coping. The skilled basketball referees in
this study appeared to differentiate the proper coping style in response to situational characteristics.
The current results support the contention that coping, general, and in sports officiating,
in particular, is partially a function of the type (and intensity) of stress. This supports the
contextual, or interactional, coping theory. The contextual/interactional model posits that coping
is primarily a function of both personal (e.g., coping style; cognitive appraisal) and situational
characteristics (e.g., source of stress, stress frequency or intensity; Gaudreau & Miranda, 2010;
Noblet & Gifford, 2002). Characteristics of the stressful situation in the context of competitive
sport have been shown to describe and predict the persons coping attempts (Anshel & Kaissidis,
1997; Gan, Anshel, & Kim, 2009; Hoar et al., 2006), a finding consistent with the present results.
Apparently, selected sources of stress are significant mediators of the coping process, a
contention supported by Crocker, Mosewich, Kowalski, and Besenski (2010) and Myers, Feltz,
Guillen, and Dithurbide (2012). These investigators call for more research examining the
influence of mediating (e.g., decision-making skills, self-efficacy, previous experience in sports
officiating) and moderating variables (e.g., gender, culture, skill level) in future sport coping
research. While previous researchers have found significant relationships between sources of
acute stress and coping (e.g., Gan et al., 2009), the results of this study provide evidence that the
sequence with which various stressors are associated with the use of specific coping styles across

situations, and contexts (Gaudreau & Miranda, 2010), may be tested and validated using
appropriate statistical procedures, in our case, CFA and path analysis.
The results of this study also lend credence to validating the coping process by taking a
quantitative approach to content mapping, that is, illustrating the relationships between stressors,
the athletes use of coping strategies, and the effectiveness of those strategies, as suggested by
Nicholls and Ntoumanis (2010). Particularly relevant outcomes of the present study were
accurate statistical predictions of the referees coping style as a function of selected antecedent
stressors. Relationships between coping styles that were performed sequentially were also
significantly correlated. Specifically, paths from avoidance-cognitive and approach-cognitive
coping to approach-behavioural coping were validated. These results support previous attempts
in the sport psychology literature to statistically link sources of acute stress and coping styles
using CFA and path analytical procedures (e.g., Anshel & Sutarso, 2007).
It is apparent that understanding the dynamics of coping with sport-related acute stress
requires associating coping attempts, and the athletes use of selected coping styles in response
to specific types or categories of stressful events experienced in a predictable sequence. These
results, not previously carried out with sports officials (i.e., Turkish basketball referees), lend
credence to the results of Anshel and Sutarsos (2007) findings that examining sources of stress
and coping style in sport as categories reduce measurement error and provide stability. For
example, averaging behaviour over a number of events increased the stability of coefficients,
making coping responses more stable (Krohne et al., 2000). In addition, identifying an athletes
coping response following a single source of acute stress or a category of stressors is more
predictable. This outcome is more likely to result in superior intervention effectiveness (Louvet
et al., 2009). As Anshel and Sutarso concluded, the grouping of stressors into categories...
allows researchers and practitioners to design coping interventions that link the type of (coping
style) that is most compatible with unique situational...characteristics (pp. 19-20).

In addressing the limitations of traditional approaches to testing simple predictive coping
models, the present study identified the coping process as a continuum of cognitive-behavioural
processes. This procedure attempted to overcome the limitation of cross-sectional passive
observation designs, as articulated by Crocker et al. (2010). In addition, the significant
relationships in this study generated by CFA and path analysis procedures validated theoretically
meaningful variables related to experiencing multiple stressors followed by cognitive and
behavioural forms of an approach coping style. The present results implied path relationships, in
which one process predictably leads to another process. The lack of predictable sequential paths
linking from source of stressors to coping styles forms another limitation in the coping
assessment literature, according to Crocker et al.
The present study included selected limitations that have implications for future research
in this area. One limitation was the absence of cognitive appraisal in examining the links
between sources of stress and the referees coping style. While appraisal is a mediator in the
stress-coping relationship, respondents already appraised the events listed in the survey as
stressful prior to their designation of coping style. In addition, the research question in this study
was not to determine a specific appraisal conceptual framework (i.e., controllability,
threat/harm/challenge). An appraisal measure would have become an extraneous variable, that
is, a factor that is not the focus of the study but can influence the findings (Meyers & Hansen,
2012), thereby undermining our attempt to determine the stressor-coping style path. In addition,
appraisals are likely to influence the use of coping strategies, but not the individuals coping
style, the latter of which is stable across situations or is consistent when similar situations are
repeated (Gaudreau & Miranda, 2010). Nevertheless, we acknowledge the importance of
appraisals as a mediator in the coping process and should be included in future related studies
determining the role of appraisal on influencing coping style among sports officials.

Another limitation of the present study was the inclusion of three stressors, labelled
distraction, subpar performance, and verbal abuse, as opposed to a far more extensive list of
possible stressful events experienced by basketball referees, as shown in several previously
reviewed studies (e.g., verbal abuse from coaches, opponents, and spectators; error in mechanics,
making a wrong decision). However, the purpose of this study was not to compare the vast array
of acute stressors experienced by basketball referees as many as 14 (Kaissidis et al., 1997).
Rather, the primary purpose of this study was to describe and validate the temporal context of the
stress and coping cycle, featuring the temporal and dynamic (i.e., ongoing) relationships between
stressful events and coping styles among basketball referees. This was a study that supported the
theory of construct validation (Benson & Hagtvet, 1996). The theory posits three stages of
finding and demonstrating functional relations between measures of different constructs.
The current study followed each of three steps in the theory: (1) specify the domain of
observables for the construct; (2) determine to what extent the observables are correlated with
each other; and (3) determine whether or not the measures of a given construct correlated in
expected ways with measures of other constructs, in this case, the transition of stressful events
with the subsequent use of coping styles. It would seem, therefore, that participants in the current
study were relatively consistent in the stages of experiencing and then responding to stressful
events that are common for basketball referees. As Krohne (1993) contends, coping efforts are
more efficient in response to a stable and consistent structure. Future studies may include
different constructs in attempting to determine the within situation consistency of coping with
stressful events among sports participants, in general, and referees and umpires, in particular.
It is apparent that validating the sequence of cognitive-behavioural events in the coping
process has implications for coping intervention effectiveness and improved coping outcomes
(Nicholls, 2010). Validation of predictive models that incorporate mediating and moderating
variables in the coping process, in particular, linking stress sources, stress intensity level, and

differences in culture, gender, and sport type among sports officials is an area of needed future
research. While the skill level of basketball referees in the current study is relatively strong, it is
possible that sources of stress will differ as a function of skill level, gender, and culture
(Kaissidis, et al. 1997).
Further study of sports officials is needed primarily in four areas: (1) examining
moderator (e.g., gender, skill level, sport type) and mediator variables (e.g., pre-contest affect
and the officials dispositional characteristics such as trait anxiety and pre-contest mood state)
that affect the relationships between the officials coping style; (2) determining their selection of
coping strategies within those coping styles, and the effectiveness of using those coping
strategies on changes in the officials perceived stress intensity and performance - measured both
quantitatively and qualitatively); (3) generating and testing the effectiveness of cognitive-
behavioural interventions that provide officials with instruction on the proper ways to cope with
an array of stressful events that are often experienced before and during the contest, and (4)
determining the effectiveness of those interventions on learning and properly carrying out coping
skills using the approach and avoidance coping framework in cognitive and behavioural forms.

References
Anshel, M. H. (2012). Sport psychology: From theory to practice (5
th
ed.). San Francisco:
Benjamin-Cummings.
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, 263-276.

Anshel, M. H., & Sutarso, T. (2007). Relationships between sources of acute stress and athletes
coping style in competitive sport as a function of gender. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 8, 1-24.
Anshel, M. H., & Sutarso, T. (2010). Conceptualizing maladaptive sport perfectionism as a
function of gender. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 4, 263-281.
Anshel, M. H., Sutarso, T., & J ubenville, J . (2009). Racial and gender differences on sources of
acute stress and coping style among competitive athletes. Journal of Social Psychology,
149, 159177.
Anshel, M. H., Sutarso, T., & Sozen, D. (2012). Relationship between cognitive appraisal and
coping style following acute stress among male and female Turkish athletes.
International Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 290-304.
Anshel, M. H., & Weinberg, R. S. (1995). Sources of acute stress in American and Australian
basketball referees. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7, 11-22.
Anshel, M. H., & Weinberg, R. S. (1996). Coping with acute stress among American and
Australian basketball referees. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 19, 180-203.
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, 751-773.
Auerbach, S. M. (1992). Temporal factors in stress and coping: Intervention implications. In B.
N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory, research, and application. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Benson, J ., & Hagtvet, K. A. (1996). The interplay among design, data analysis, and theory in
the measurement of coping. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping:
Theory, research, applications (pp. 83-106). New York: Wiley.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-
246.

Bramson, R. M. (1981). Coping with difficult people. New York: Doubleday.
Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Simple sample cross validation indices for covariance structures.
Multivariate Behavioural Research, 24, 445-455.
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, 197-212.
Cerin, E., Szabo, A., Hunt, N., & Williams, C. (2000). Temporal patterning of competitive
emotions: A critical review. Journal of Sports Science, 18, 605-626.
Crocker, P. R. E., Mosewich, A. D., Kowalski, K. C., & Besenski, L. J . (2010). Coping:
Research design and analysis issues. In A. R. Nicholls (Ed.), Coping in sport: Theory,
methods, and related constructs (pp. 53-76). New York: Nova Science.
Dorsch, K. D., & Paskevich, D. M. (2007). Stressful experiences among six certification levels
of ice hockey officials. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 8, 585593.
Gan, Q., Anshel, M. H., & Kim, J . (2009). Sources and cognitive appraisals of acute stress as
predictors of coping style among male and female Chinese athletes. International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7, 68-88.
Gaudreau, P., & Miranda, D. (2010). Coping across time, situations, and contexts: A conceptual
and methodological overview of its stability, consistency, and change. In A. R. Nicholls
(Ed.), Coping in sport: Theory, methods, and related constructs (pp. 15-32). New York:
Nova Science.
Hoar, S. D., Kowalski, K. C., Gaudreau, P., & Crocker, P. R. E. (2006). A review of coping in
sport. In S. Hanton & S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport psychology (pp.
47-90). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
J ones, J . G., & Hardy, L. (1989). Stress and cognitive functioning in sport. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 7, 41-63.

J ones, M. V., & Uphill, M. A. (2004). Emotion in sport: Antecedents and performance
consequences. In D. Lavallee, J . Thatcher, & M. V. J ones (Eds.), Coping and emotion in
sport (pp. 9-28). New York: Nova Science.
J oreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis.
Psychometrika, 34, 183-202.
Kaissidis-Rodafinos, A., & Anshel, M.H. (2000). Psychological predictors of coping responses
among Greek basketball referees. Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 329-344.
Kaissidis, A., & Anshel, M. H. (1993). Sources of and responses to acute stress in adult and
adolescent Australian basketball referees. Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in
Sport, 25, 97-103.
Kaissidis, 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, 427-436.
Kaissidas, A., Anshel, M. H., & Sideridis, G. (1998). Sources, intensity, and responses to stress
in Greek and Australian basketball referees. International Journal of Sport Psychology,
29, 303-323.
Kline, P. (1998). The new psychometrics: Science, psychology, and measurement. Florence, KY:
Taylor & Francis.
Kosciulek, J . F. (2007). The social context of coping. In E. Martz & H. Livneh (Eds.), Coping
with chronic illness and disability: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical aspects (pp. 73-
88). New York: Springer.
Krohne, H. W. (1996). Individual differences in coping. In M. Zeidner and N.S. Endler (Eds.),
Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications, (pp. 381- 409). New York: J ohn
Wiley & Sons.
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. 19-50). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.
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,
297-311.
Krohne, H. W., & Hindel, C. (1988). Trait anxiety, state anxiety, and coping behaviour as
predictors of athletic performance. Anxiety Research: An International Journal, 1, 225-234.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Louvet, B., Gaudreau, P., Menaut, A., Genty, J ., and Deneuve, P. (2009). Revisiting the changing
and stable properties of coping utilization using latent class growth analysis: A longitudinal
investigation with soccer referees. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 124-135.
Mark, M. M., Bryant, F. B., & Lehman, D. R. (1983). Perceived injustice and sports violence. In
J . Goldstein (Ed.), Sports violence. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Myers, N. D., Feltz, D. L., Guillen, F., & Dithurbide, L. (2012). Development of and initial
validity evidence for the Referee Self-Efficacy Scale: A Multi-study report. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 34, 737-765.
Myers, A., & Hansen, C. (2012). Experimental psychology (7
th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Nicholls, A. R. (2010). Effective versus ineffective coping in sport. In A. R. Nicholls (Ed.),
Coping in sport: Theory, methods, and related constructs (pp. 263-276). New York:
Nova Science.
Nicholls, A. R., & Ntoumanis, N. (2010). Traditional and new methods of assessing coping in
sport. In A. R. Nicholls (Ed.), Coping in sport: Theory, methods, and related constructs
(pp. 35-52). New York: Nova Science.

Nicholls, A. R., & Polman, R. (2007). Coping in sport: A systematic review. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 25, 11-31.
Nicholls, A. R., & Thelwell, R. C. (2010). Coping conceptualized and unravelled. In A. R.
Nicholls (Ed.), Coping in sport: Theory, methods, and related constructs (pp. 1-14). New
York: Nova Science.
Noblet, A. J ., & Gifford, S. M. (2002). The sources of stress experienced by professional
Australian footballer. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 1-13.
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. 133-150).
New York: J ohn Wiley & Sons.
Rainey, D. (1995). Sources of stress among baseball and softball umpires. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 7, 1-10.
Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J . (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American
Psychologist, 41, 813-619.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1998). A beginners guide to structural equation modelling.
Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (6
th
ed). New York:
HarperCollins.
Tang, T. L. P., Luna-Arocas, R., Sutarso, T., and Tang, D. S. H. (2004). Does the love of money
moderate and mediate the income-pay satisfaction relationship? Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 19, 111-135.
Tang, T. L.P., Luna-Arocas, R., and Sutarso, T. (2004). From income to pay satisfaction: The
love of money and pay equity comparison as mediators and culture (the United States and
Spain) and gender as moderators. Management Research, 3, 726.

Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Akande, A., Allen, M. W., Alzubaidi, A. S., Ansari, M. A., , &
Vlerick, P. (2006). The love of money and pay level satisfaction: Measurement and
functional equivalence in 29 geopolitical entities around the world. Management and
Organization Review, 2, 423-452.
Tang, T. L. P., Sutarso, T., Davis, G. M., Dolinski, D., Ibrahim, A. H. S., & Wagner, S. L. (2008).
To help or not to help? The good Samaritan effect and the love of money on helping
behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 865-887.
Tsorbatzoudis, H., Kaissidis, A., Partemian, S., & Grouios, G. (2005). Sources of stress among
Greek team handball referees: Construction and validation of the Handball Officials
Sources of Stress Survey. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100, 821-830.
Voight, M. (2009). Sources of stress and coping strategies of U.S. soccer officials. Stress and
Health, 25, 91101.
Wann, D. L. (1997). Sport psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice-Hall.
Weinberg, R. S., & Richardson, P. A. (1990). Psychology of officiating. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (1991). Situations and processes of coping. In J . Eckenrode
(Ed.), The social context of coping (pp. 13-30). New York: Plenum Press.
Wrisberg, C. A. (2001). Levels of performance skill: From beginners to experts. In R. N. Singer,
H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. J anelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2
nd
ed., pp. 3-
19). New York: J ohn Wiley & Sons.

Table 1 Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Means, Standard Deviations, and
Reliabilities (Cronbachs and Composite Reliability)
______________________________________________________________________________
Item Factor Loading
______________________________________________________________________________
Sources of Acute Stress
Factor 1: Distractions (M =3.42; SD =.77; Reliability: Cronbach =.73, Composite =.77)
Experienced pain or injury. .78
Injury to another person (e.g. player, coach, partner, spectator) .63
Problem working with my partner. .77

Factor 2: Subpar Performance (M =3.67; SD =.83; Reliability: Cronbach =.73, Composite =.80)
I made a wrong call. .78
Being in a wrong location, position in court. .83
Made a mistake in mechanics or gave a wrong signal. .66

Factor 3: Verbal Abuse (M =3.30; SD =.74; Reliability: Cronbach =.76, Composite =.77)
Verbal Abuse from coaches. .62
Verbal Abuse from players. .90
Verbal Abuse from spectators. .64

Coping Styles
Factor 1: Approach-Cognitive (M =3.83; SD =.64; Reliability: Cronbach =.71, Composite =.76)
I listened to the source of stress. .75
I thought that the situation was just part of the game. .69
I kept my concentration on the game and focused on the next task at hand. .72

Factor 2: Avoidance-Cognitive (M =3.70; SD =.51; Reliability: Cronbach =.76, Composite =.84)
I felt upset and wanted to quit. .74
I kept thinking about the situation. .65
I felt the situation was unfair to me and developed negative feelings. .98

Factor 3: Approach-Behaviour (M =3.31; SD =.61; Reliability: Cronbach =.75, Composite =.83)
I gave a warning or technical foul. .67
I verbally defended myself. .91
I verbally responded to the situation. .76
_______________________________________________________________________
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was achieved (
2
=153.66, df =131, p =.09,
2
/df = 1.17,
CFI =.97, TLI =.96, RMSEA =.04).


Figure 1. Hypothesized paths model from stressors to coping styles

Figure 2. Standardized results of hypothesized paths model from stressors to coping

2014 - JSS A Model Linking Sources of Stress To Approach and Avoidance Coping Styles of Turkish Basketball Referees

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2014 - JSS A Model Linking Sources of Stress To Approach and Avoidance Coping Styles of Turkish Basketball Referees

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Anshel, M. H., Sutarso, T., Ekmekci, R., & Saraswati, I. W.

Journal of Sports Sciences 2013 1

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen