This article was downloaded by: [European College of Sport Science] On: 22 April 2011 Access details: Access

Details: [subscription number 909201977] Publisher Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Sport Science

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t714592354

Coping self-efficacy, pre-competitive anxiety, and subjective performance among athletes

Adam R. Nichollsa; Remco Polmanb; Andrew R. Levyc a Department of Psychology, University of Hull, Hull b Centre for Applied Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Central Lancashire, Preston c Department of Sport Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Online publication date: 08 February 2010

To cite this Article Nicholls, Adam R. , Polman, Remco and Levy, Andrew R.(2010) 'Coping self-efficacy, pre-competitive

anxiety, and subjective performance among athletes', European Journal of Sport Science, 10: 2, 97 102 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/17461390903271592 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461390903271592

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

European Journal of Sport Science, March 2010; 10(2): 97102

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Coping self-efficacy, pre-competitive anxiety, and subjective performance among athletes

ADAM R. NICHOLLS1, REMCO POLMAN2, & ANDREW R. LEVY3

Department of Psychology, University of Hull, Hull, 2Centre for Applied Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, and 3Department of Sport Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
1

Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011

Abstract The aim of this study was to explore the relationships between (a) coping self-efficacy and subjective performance, (b) coping self-efficacy and pre-competitive anxiety, and (c) pre-competitive anxiety and subjective performance. Participants were 307 athletes (252 males, 55 females) aged 1634 years (mean age 21.3 years, s 02.8) who competed at national/international (n 018), county (n 054), club/university (n 0139), and beginner (n 096) level. All participants completed a measure of coping self-efficacy and anxiety before a competitive event and a subjective performance measure after competing. Our findings revealed that there was a significant and positive relationship between coping self-efficacy and subjective performance. Negative relationships between coping self-efficacy and both somatic and cognitive anxiety were also observed. However, somatic and cognitive anxiety did not predict subjective performance. The present findings support previous results regarding the influence of self-efficacy and provide applied practitioners with recommendations that may enhance athletic performance, via improving the coping self-efficacy beliefs of their clients.

Keywords: Coping self-efcacy, anxiety, performance

Introduction Self-efficacy refers to the belief an individual has in his or her ability to execute a task and thus obtain the desired outcome (Bandura, 1997) and is considered to be an important attribute within sport. In their review, Moritz and colleagues (Moritz, Feltz, Fahrbach, & Mack, 2000) found a positive and moderate relationship between sport-specific skillbased self-efficacy and performance in a variety of sports (r 00.38). It has been suggested that individuals have a number of efficacy-related beliefs, but that these beliefs can vary greatly in each person (Feltz, Short, & Sullivan, 2008; Forsyth & Carey, 1998). It is therefore essential that researchers explore different components of self-efficacy. One such distinct efficacy belief relates to an athletes ability to cope, which is referred to as coping selfefficacy. Coping self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Chesney, Neilands, Chambers, Taylor, & Folkman, 2006) refers to a persons belief in his or her ability to deploy strategies that will assist in coping with

diverse threats or stressors and would therefore play an important role in reactions to stress (Perraud, Fogg, Kopytko, & Gross, 2006). Bandura (1997) suggested that coping self-efficacy beliefs determine, to a large extent, the subjective threat of environmental events, which is the core relational theme of anxiety (Lazarus & Averill, 1972). Park and Folkman (1997) suggested that variables such as self-efficacy clearly exert strong influences on situational appraisals and the way in which an individual responds to these appraisals such as anxiety. Anxiety consists of cognitive (e.g. cognitive anxiety) and behavioural (e.g. somatic anxiety) components that form a multi-dimensional construct (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1990). Cognitive anxiety refers to negative expectations and the concerns a person may have, whereas somatic anxiety refers to the persons physiological arousal (Martens et al., 1990). The relationship between anxiety and athletic performance is somewhat equivocal. Many theories

Correspondence: A. R. Nicholls, Department of Psychology, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull HU6 7RX, UK. E-mail: a.nicholls@hull.ac.uk ISSN 1746-1391 print/ISSN 1536-7290 online # 2010 European College of Sport Science DOI: 10.1080/17461390903271592

98

A. R. Nicholls et al. Methods Participants Participants were 307 athletes (252 males, 55 females) aged 1634 years (mean age 21.3 years, s02.8) with an average competitive sport experience of 9.1 years (s05.2). The sample consisted of team (n 0198) and individual (n 0109) sports performers competing at national/international (n 018), county (n 054), club/university (n 0139), and beginner (n 096) level. The sample consisted of 297 Caucasian and 10 Black/Asian participants. Participants completed an informed consent form before the study began. The study was approved by a universitys research ethics committee. Questionnaires The Coping Self-Efficacy scale (CSES; Chesney et al., 2006), which was developed together with Dr Albert Bandura of Stanford University, was used to assess coping self-efficacy. The CSES is a 26-item measure, with three higher-order dimensions: use problem-focused coping, stop unpleasant emotions and thoughts, and get support from family and friends. The scale uses an 11-point scale, rating the extent to which the participants feel that they can perform a behaviour important to effective coping. As such, the CSES assessed the athletes confidence with regards to carrying out coping strategies. Therefore, a higher CSES score would suggest that a person is more confident in his or her ability to cope (Chesney et al., 2006). The participants responded to the stem when things arent going well for you, or when youre having problems, how confident or certain are you that you can do the following? Examples of use problem-focused coping self-efficacy included questions relating to the athletes ability to sort out what can be changed and what cannot be changed, find solutions to your most difficult problems, and talk positively to yourself. Examples of stop unpleasant emotions and thoughts included make unpleasant thoughts go away, take your mind off unpleasant thoughts, and stop yourself being upset by unpleasant thoughts. Finally, get support from family and friends comprised questions relating to the athletes perceptions of being able to get emotional support from friends or family, get a friend to help you with the things you need, and do something positive for yourself when you are feeling discouraged. The scale is anchored at 0 0cannot do at all, 5 0moderately can do, and 10 0certain can do. The scale has adequate reliability, with a Cronbach alpha of 0.95 (Chesney et al., 2006). In the present study, the scale had a Cronbach alpha of 0.88.

and models have tried to clarify the relationship between anxiety and sport performance. It has been suggested that cognitive anxiety might influence all forms of athletic performance in a negative linear fashion, whereas somatic anxiety tends to disrupt fine motor skill in a quadratic way (Lavallee, Kremer, Moran, & Williams, 2004). More recently, it has been suggested that the interpretation of anxiety symptoms is also of importance in the experience of anxiety. That is, the way an athlete perceives his or her arousal may result in the situation being judged as either (a) positive and challenging or (b) negative and overwhelming (Mellalieu, Hanton, & Fletcher, 2006). The assertion that the interpretation of anxiety symptoms can be either facilitative or debilitative has received some support in the sport literature (Jones & Swain, 1992). However, two recent meta-analyses argued that the relationships between anxiety and sporting performance is relatively weak, but in the negative direction (e.g. Craft, Magyar, Becker, & Feltz, 2003; Woodman & Hardy, 2003). In summary, searches on SPORTdiscus, PsychLIT, and PsychINFO in June 2009 did not yield any studies that have examined the relationship between coping self-efficacy and state anxiety among athletes. There is, however, some evidence that other forms of self-efficacy are inversely related to anxiety (e.g. Cartoni, Minganti, & Zelli, 2005; Haney & Long, 1995). In response to Banduras (1997) recommendation that sport psychology scholars focus on arousal and coping self-efficacy, in this study we explored the relationships between (a) coping self-efficacy and subjective performance, (b) coping self-efficacy and pre-competitive anxiety, and (c) pre-competitive anxiety and subjective performance. Although the literature suggests that there is a relationship between task self-efficacy regarding sport-specific activities and performance (e.g. Moritz et al., 2000), the relationship between coping self-efficacy and athletic performance has not been explored and is worthy of exploration given that coping self-efficacy is quite different to athletes efficacy to perform a specific task and the suggestion that self-efficacy beliefs differ across different skills (Feltz et al., 2008; Forsyth & Carey, 1998). We hypothesized that there would be a positive relationship between coping self-efficacy and subjective sport performance. We also hypothesized that there would be a negative relationship between coping self-efficacy and anxiety. That is, athletes with greater coping self-efficacy would experience less pre-competitive anxiety. Finally, we predicted that there would be a negative relationship between anxiety and subjective athletic performance.

Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011

Coping self-efficacy The participants completed the revised Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2R; Cox, Martens, & Russell, 2003). The CSAI-2R is a multidimensional domain-specific instrument to assess state anxiety in competitive sport contexts. It consists of 17 questions rated on a 4-point Likert scale (not at all to very much). The response set how are you feeling right now? was used. The CSAI-2R contains three constructs, somatic anxiety (n 07 questions), cognitive anxiety (n 05 questions), and self-confidence (n 05 questions). Scores for each subscale were obtained by adding up all items for each scale and dividing this by the number of items and multiplying by 10. Scores ranged between 10 and 40. Good psychometric properties (reliability and fit indicators) were reported for the CSAI-2R in the confirmatory factor analysis study by Cox et al. (2003). The Cronbach alphas for the present study were 0.80 for somatic anxiety, 0.73 for cognitive anxiety, and 0.84 for self-confidence. Finally, participants subjectively rated their performance satisfaction following the competition they just competed in on a scale from 10totally dissatisfied to 10 0totally satisfied, as recommended by Biddle and colleagues (Biddle, Hanrahan, & Sellars, 2001). Procedure Athletes and coaches of sports teams within the United Kingdom received letters detailing the nature of the study and participant requirements. If the coaches granted permission for the data collection, an information letter and consent form was distributed. Research assistants, who had received training in quantitative techniques, administered the questionnaires in the same order. Participants completed the CSES (Chesney et al., 2006) and the CSAI-2R (Cox et al., 2003) within 3 h of a competitive event starting. The CSES was completed in relation to the participants ability to cope generally and not specifically to the competition they were due to compete in. Conversely, the CSAI-2R was completed in relation to how the participants were feeling at the time of completing the scale. The subjective performance scale (Biddle et al., 2001) was completed within 30 min of the competitive event finishing. Data analyses Data were initially screened for outliers and normality. Cronbach alphas and descriptive statistics were calculated on all study variables. Then, correlations between the variables were calculated. Differences in both self-efficacy beliefs (Lirgg, 1991) and state anxiety (Woodman & Hardy, 2003) have been found

99

Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011

between the sexes and differences in anxiety between athletes competing in either individual or team sports (Martens et al., 1990) or athletes competing at different standards of competition (Campbell & Jones, 1995). We therefore conducted separate multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) to determine whether gender, sport type (individual vs. team), or level of achievement influenced ratings of coping self-efficacy, anxiety (cognitive, somatic, and self-confidence), or subjective performance. Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted in the instance of a significant MANOVA main effect. Tukey post-hoc comparisons were conducted in the instance of significant effects for level of achievement. To idetermine whether coping self-efficacy predicted subjective performance or anxiety, we conducted hierarchical regression analysis. The dependent variables were subjective performance, somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, or self-confidence. At Step 1 we entered gender, sport type, and highest level of achievement. At Step 2 coping self-efficacy was entered. Hierarchical regression analysis was also conducted to ascertain whether anxiety predicted subjective performance. At Step 1 we controlled for the possible effects of gender, sport type, and level of achievement. At Step 2 somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and self-confidence were entered. Since the main aim of the present study was to determine whether coping self-efficacy or anxiety predicted subjective performance, we were interested in the additional variance (DR2) coping selfefficacy or anxiety added above and beyond the possible variance explained by gender, sport type, and level of achievement. Results Table I provides the coping self-efficacy, CSAI-2R, and subjective performance satisfaction means and standard deviations for the whole sample, male athletes, female athletes, team sport athletes, individual athletes, and athletes of different levels of achievement separately. Table II provides an overview of the Pearson productmoment correlations. The MANOVA for gender was significant (Wilks l00.81; PB0.001; h2 00.19). The follow-up ANOVAs revealed significant differences for somatic anxiety (F1,305 027.25; P B0.001; h2 00.08), selfconfidence (F1,305 041.65; P B0.001; h2 00.12), and performance scores (F1,305 07.14; P 00.01; h2 00.02), but not for coping self-efficacy (P 0 0.15) or cognitive anxiety (P 00.12). The females scored lower in self-confidence but higher on somatic anxiety and performance than the males. The MANOVA for sport type was also significant (Wilks l00.93; P 00.001; h2 00.07).

100

A. R. Nicholls et al. The follow-up ANOVAs revealed significant differences for somatic anxiety (F1,305 07.92; P 00.01; h2 00.03) and self-confidence (F1,305 017.69; P B 0.001; h2 00.06), but not for coping self-efficacy (P 00.11), cognitive anxiety (P 00.28), or subjective performance (P 00.12). The individual athletes reported lower self-confidence but higher somatic anxiety. Finally, the MANOVA for achievement was also significant (Wilks l00.83; P B0.001; h2 00.06). Follow-up ANOVAs revealed significant differences for somatic anxiety (F1,305 03.39; P 00.02; h2 0 0.03), cognitive anxiety (F1,305 05.05; P00.002; h2 00.05), coping self-efficacy (F1,305 08.39; P B0.001; h2 00.08), and performance scores (F1,305 02.72; P 00.05; h2 00.03), but not for selfconfidence (P 00.06). Post-hoc comparisons showed that the international/national athletes scored significantly higher for coping self-efficacy and cognitive anxiety than all other groups. Also, the international/national athletes scored higher than the beginner athletes on subjective performance and higher on somatic anxiety than the county athletes (all PB0.05). Because differences were found for gender, sport type, and level of achievement, all three variable were entered first in the regression models. The regression analysis for coping self-efficacy and subjective performance, after controlling for gender, sport type, and lkevel of achievement, was significant with coping self-efficacy explaining 4% of the variance (DR2 00.04; b 00.21, P B0.001). Coping self-efficacy was negatively associated with somatic anxiety (DR2 00.03; b 0(0.16, P 00.003) and cognitive anxiety (DR2 00.03; b 0(0.18, P 0 0.002), but positively associated with self-confidence (DR2 00.17; b 00.43, P B0.001). Finally, the regression analysis for subjective performance and anxiety was also significant (DR2 00.03; P 00.02), but only self-confidence (b 00.16) contributed significantly to the model. Discussion The aim of this study was to explore the relationships between (a) coping self-efficacy and subjective performance, (b) coping self-efficacy and pre-competitive anxiety, and (c) pre-competitive anxiety and subjective performance. The results of the study indicate that there was a significant and positive relationship between coping self-efficacy and subjective performance. Negative relationships between coping self-efficacy and both somatic anxiety and cognitive anxiety were observewd. However, there was no significant relationship between subjective performance and either cognitive or somatic anxiety. As such, two of the three hypotheses were supported.
(19.2) (4.3) (5.0) (7.1) (1.7) Coping self-efficacy Somatic anxiety Cognitive anxiety Self-confidence Subjective performance satisfaction 167 18.0 22.3 27.5 6.3 (24.3) (5.8) (6.5) (6.8) (1.8) 168 17.2 22.0 28.6 6.2 (23.8) (5.0)** (6.4) (6.5)** (1.8)** 161 21.5 23.5 22.5 6.9 (25.8) (7.6) (6.6) (6.2) (1.8) 168 17.3 22.0 28.7 6.4 (24.2) (5.3)** (6.5) (6.2)** (2.6) 163 19.2 22.8 25.4 6.1 (24.1) (6.4) (6.5) (7.4) (2.1) 193 20.9 27.1 29.9 7.2 (26.5)** (7.2)* (7.2)** (9.5) (2.0)** 168 16.6 21.2 28.8 6.4 (24.4) (4.8) (6.8) (6.6) (1.8) 165 18.5 22.7 26.5 6.3 (25.2) (6.6) (6.9) (6.2) (1.8) 164 17.4 21.3 27.9 6.0

Achievement Level

Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011

Table I. Coping self-efcacy, anxiety, and subjective performance satisfaction (means and standard deviations)

Sport type

Gender

Overall (N0307)

Males (n 0252)

Females (n055)

Team (n0198)

Individual (n0109)

National/ international (n 018)

County (n 054)

University/club (n 0139)

Beginners (n096)

*PB0.05; ** PB0.01.

Coping self-efficacy

101

Table II. Pearson productmoment correlations between coping self-efcacy, CSAI-2-R subscales, and subjective performance satisfaction Global coping self-efficacy Global coping self-efficacy Somatic anxiety (SA) Cognitive anxiety (CA) Self-confidence (SC) Subjective performance satisfaction *PB0.05; **PB0.01. Somatic anxiety Cognitive anxiety Self-confidence

(0.17** (0.15** 0.45** 0.22**

0.49** (0.38** (0.03

(0.20** (0.08

0.13*

Even though self-efficacy scholars such as Feltz et al. (2008) and Forsyth and Carey (1998) have suggested that individuals have a number of selfefficacy beliefs that can vary greatly, the positive relationship between coping self-efficacy and subjective performance is in line with Moritz and colleagues (2000) findings. Moritz and colleagues reported a positive and moderate relationship between sport-specific skill-based self-efficacy and performance. The present findings add to the literature, because they suggest that in addition to specific skill-based self-efficacy among athletes, a persons belief relating to how effectively they will be able to deploy strategies that will assist in coping with threats or stressors (i.e. coping self-efficacy) is also associated with performance. The positive association between coping selfefficacy and athletic performance may have important applied connotations, as enhancing an athletes coping self-efficacy may have a positive impact on performance, but research is required to test this assertion. Feltz et al. (2008) provided some excellent ideas on how to increase an athletes coping selfefficacy, including modelling and demonstrating coping strategies. For instance, athletes could observe performances of athletes who exhibit confident behaviours during times of stress. Another technique to enhance coping self-efficacy, suggested by Feltz et al., is to encourage athletes low in coping selfefficacy to talk to other athletes who have improved their coping self-efficacy and the specific strategies they adopted to enhance it. Furthermore, the finding that coping self-efficacy was negatively associated with somatic state anxiety and cognitive state anxiety supports previous research from the sport psychology literature, which has explored the relationship between anxiety and self-efficacy. Cartoni et al. (2005) and Haney and Long (1995) both found a negative relationship between self-efficacy and anxiety. Bandura (1988) previously suggested that there is a negative relationship between perceived threat (e.g. anxiety) and coping self-efficacy, because if people do not feel they can cope with potential threats they will experience disruptive arousal (i.e. anxiety). As such, enhancing an athletes coping self-efficacy

beliefs through teaching them a variety of coping strategies has the potential to reduce pre-competitive state anxiety. Although the threat of playing sport competitively will remain, athletes that are taught coping self-efficacy strategies will feel that they are more equipped to deal with such threats and may experience less anxiety, due to the assumed relationship between coping self-efficacy and anxiety (e.g. Bandura, 1988). However, research is required to test the effects of coping self-efficacy interventions in relation to pre-competitive state anxiety. The third hypothesis, that there would be a negative relationship between state anxiety and performance satisfaction, was not supported. This finding partially supports Woodman and Hardys (2003) meta-analysis, which suggested that there is no relationship between somatic anxiety and performance. However, the lack of association between cognitive anxiety and performance in the present study was unexpected. It should be noted that we used a subjective performance rating and future studies could include both subjective and objective ratings of performance. This, however, was not possible in the present study because the sample consisted of athletes from a diverse range of sports and it would have been impossible to have a consistent measure of performance across the sample. Overall, the relationships observed in this study between coping self-efficacy and subjective performance and between coping self-efficacy and anxiety are in line with previous research that has explored sport-specific skill-based self-efficacy in relation to performance (e.g. Moritz et al., 2000) and anxiety (e.g. Haney & Long, 1995). Even though coping self-efficacy is considered to be a separate construct from self-efficacy (Chesney et al., 2006), based on the current findings it could be argued that both coping self-efficacy and self-efficacy share some of the same predictive capabilities in relation to state anxiety and athletic performance. One limitation of the present research is that we cannot infer causality from our findings between the observed variables. Experimental research designs are required to identify whether coping self-efficacy influences performance or anxiety, or whether it is

Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011

102

A. R. Nicholls et al.
Craft, L. L., Magyar, M., Becker, B. J., & Feltz, D. L. (2003). The relationship between the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory2 and sport performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 4465. Feltz, D. L., Short, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (2008). Self-efcacy in sport: Research and strategies for working with athletes, teams, and coaches. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Forsyth, A. D., & Carey, M. P. (1998). Measuring self-efcacy in the context of HIV risk reduction: Research challenges and recommendations. Health Psychology, 17, 559568. Haney, C. J., & Long, B. C. (1995). Coping effectiveness: A path analysis of self-efcacy, control, coping and performance in sport competitions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 17261746. Jones, G., & Swain, A. B. J. (1992). Intensity and direction dimensions of competitive anxiety and relationships with competitiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 467472. Lavallee, D., Kremer, J., Moran, A. P., & Williams, M. (2004). Sport psychology: Contemporary themes. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Lazarus, R. S., & Averill, J. R. (1972). Emotion and cognition: With special reference to anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior (2nd edn., pp. 242283). New York: Academic Press. Lirgg, C. D. (1991). Gender differences in self-condence in physical activity: A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8, 294310. Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R. S., Bump, L. A., & Smith, D. E. (1990). Development and validation of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). In R. Martens, R. S. Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive anxiety in sport (pp. 193208). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Mellalieu, S. D., Hanton, S., & Fletcher, D. (2006). A competitive anxiety review: Recent directions in sport psychology research. In S. Hanton, & S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport psychology (pp. 145). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, K. R., & Mack, D. E. (2000). The relation of self-efcacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 280294. Park, C. L., & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of General Psychology, 1, 115144. Perraud, S., Fogg, L., Kopytko, E., & Gross, D. (2006). Predictive validity of the Depression Coping Self-efcacy Scale (DCSES). Research in Nursing and Health, 29, 147160. Woodman, T., & Hardy, L. (2003). The relative impact of cognitive anxiety and self-condence upon sport performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 443457.

Downloaded By: [European College of Sport Science] At: 18:11 22 April 2011

anxiety and performance that determines an athletes coping self-efficacy. Furthermore, although there were a number of positive and negative correlations in the present study, the amount of shared variance between some of the constructs was only low to moderate. In summary, this study found a significant and positive relationship between coping self-efficacy and subjective performance. Additionally, negative relationships between coping self-efficacy and both somatic and cognitive state anxiety were observed. These findings suggest that coping self-efficacy shares some of the predictive capabilities of selfefficacy. Furthermore, applied practitioners might be able to enhance the performance of their clients and reduce anxiety by improving the coping selfefficacy beliefs of their clients, but research is required to test this assertion.

References
Bandura, A. (1988). Self-efcacy conceptualization of anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1, 7798. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efcacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Biddle, S. J. H., Hanrahan, S. J., & Sellars, C. N. (2001). Attributions: Past, present, and future. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 444471). Chichester: Wiley. Campbell, E., & Jones, G. (1995). Pre-competition anxiety and self-condence in elite and non-elite wheelchair sport participants. Journal of Sports Sciences, 13, 416417. Cartoni, A. C., Minganti, C., & Zelli, A. (2005). Gender, age, and professional-level differences in the psychological correlates of fear of injury in Italian gymnasts. Journal of Sport Behavior, 28, 317. Chesney, M. A., Neilands, T. B., Chambers, D. B., Taylor, J. M., & Folkman, S. (2006). A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efcacy scale. British Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 421437. Cox, R. H., Martens, M. P., & Russell, W. D. (2003). Measuring anxiety in athletics: The revised Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 519533.