Arousal & It's Effects On Sports Performance

Arousal

    Numerous theories of arousal have been projected to attempt to show the link between arousal and performance. According to Spielberger (2004) preparing for competition and the actual taking part causes a chain reaction in the central nervous system (CNS) and the autonomic nervous system (ANS) that creates arousal. The main three theories linked are; the drive theory, inverted u theory and the catastrophe theory.

   

Drive Theory

  

   The drive theory is based around increased levels of arousal creating more of a motivation to perform having a positive effect on performance. This theory can also depend on the task, one that is well practiced in front of an audience would often performed efficiently although see (Catastrophe theory) which disputes this. Whereas a new or complex task could cause added pressure and failure. (Goldschmied et al. 2014)

Figure 1. Arousal and performance increase

    Within the world of sport there are some great examples that relate to this theory. In 1995 South Africa held the rugby world cup in their own nation, an exciting time for all South African rugby fans and stars. Joel Theodore Stransky went on to score all the points including a famous late drop kick in a 15-12 victory over New Zealand, perfect example of someone who performed significantly due to an increase of arousal. Showing high motivation to perform in front of his home nation on the world stage.

   But surely if just getting excited meant you could be a world champion then wouldn’t everyone do it? An investigation performed by Goldschmied, et al (2014) took the highest home run hitters who were near record breaking milestones and compared how long it took them to score their last five runs before reaching the milestone. The players required significantly more bats before the milestone compared to the five after despite being well practiced and exceeding at the skill. They believe this was due to increase arousal, causing the excitement to actually add more pressure or anxiety. Showing that it could indeed have the opposite effect. As Kerr (1987) stated the drive theory doesn’t take into consideration anxiety when there is an increase in arousal, making it hard to find a strong relationship between arousal and performance.

Inverted U theory

    The Inverted U theory states that arousal enhances performance, only to a certain point (optimum arousal.) Unlike the drive theory where continuance of arousal is deemed good, after the optimum arousal stage is met, further increase causes performance to decline. (Krane, V, 1992)

    

Figure 2. Inverted U theory, showing optimal arousal and decline if arousal continues.

   Take Zinedine Zidane for example, captain of the French national team in the 2006 World Cup final. Playing with excitement, taking a risky penalty and leading for his home nation, he looked like a true champion. Until the 110^th minute where he head butts opposition defender Marco Materazzi. We already saw Zidane had increased levels of arousal with the way he chipped the penalty, the inverted U theory shows that he did this because his levels of arousal carried on to increase past the optimal level declining performance and hindering judgement and costing his team the world cup final.

The inverted U theory has been criticised by researchers who have stated the hypothesis doesn’t fully explain the relationship between arousal and performance. (Jones & Hardy, 1989)

  Landers (1980) also stated;

‘Inverted-U hypothesis does not explain the relationship between arousal and performance.’

    Stephen Curry evidences Landers statement as he was MVP for NBA team Golden State Warriors in 2015, renowned for his showboating and ‘Impossible shots.’ Curry performed superbly in each one of the playoff games helping his team to the final. Where Curry outplayed Four Time MVP Lebron James, arousal must have been high, he had already won MVP and was in the play off final but it didn’t decline his performance in anyway. If anything this would demonstrate the drive theory. Supporting Landers, Jones and Hardy’s statement about the theory.

Catastrophe Theory

    The catastrophe theory still takes into consideration the arousal level but also (somatic anxiety) this model looks more in depth at combining the physical symptoms (excitement, butterflies) and the cognitive anxiety (mental symptoms) and its link to performance. This theory takes into consideration arousal, anxiety and performance unlike the inverted U theory. Although are similar in the way if anxiety and arousal is below or above optimal level it affects performance. (Hardy & Fazey, 1987.) Hardy & Fazey (1987) also stated that somatic anxiety is not detrimental to performance. However if cognitive anxiety or both are at high levels then this is when a catastrophe (choke) occurs. Famously Steve Boswell ruined his career in what was called the ‘worst over ever’ where he bowled 5 wides in six bowls and continued to bowl even more wides. Boswell is a great example of someone who choked, when a senior figure told him the night before not to mess up in the C&G trophy final. Also a good example of state anxiety within a sports performer.

    Wales had not played in a few months before their opener of the world cup against Canada. Players mentioned their nervousness before the game, especially on the team bus even so Wales went on to win the game comfortably. So why on this occasion did the team not choke despite the whole team subdued to anxiety?  A test conducted by Hardy & Parfitt (1991) showed that a ladies basketball team scored significantly higher when performing with high cognitive anxiety, rather than higher somatic anxiety disagreeing with Hardy & Fazey’s (1987) theory. Perhaps this was the Reason Wales didn’t choke, as they mentioned feeling nervous on the team bus, but arousal levels may have lowered during the team talk and out on the pitch.