Stressors, coping, and coping effectiveness among players from the England under-18 rugby union team.

Nicholls, Adam R. ; Polman, Remco C.J.

International adolescent sport has the potential to be an extremely stressful experience and these athletes have reported a variety of stressors including concerns about errors, outcome, opponents, and the weather (Nicholls, 2005a; Nicholls, Holt, & Polman, 2005; Nicholls, Holt, Polman, & James, 2005). The failure to cope with stress can result in a variety of negative consequences such as decreased performance (Lazarus, 2000), injury (Smith, Ptacek, & Smell, 1992), decreased satisfaction (Scanian & Lewthwaite, 1984), and sport withdrawal (Kolt, Kirby, & Lindner, 1995). It is widely accepted among sport psychology researchers that athletes must learn to cope with stressors to reduce these undesirable consequences. Of particular relevance to the current sample, who were aiming for professional contracts, is the notion that adolescent athletes must learn to cope with the stressors they experience to pursue a career in professional sport (Holt and Dunn, 2004a).

Coping has been defined as "constantly changing cognitive and behavioral 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). Lazarus (1999) categorized coping strategies into two broad 'higher-order' functions; problem- and emotion-focused coping. Problem-focused coping describes strategies directed at managing the environment (e.g., problem solving, goal setting, and increasing efforts). Emotion-focused coping involves managing emotional responses to stress (e.g., relaxation, acceptance, and wishful thinking).

A third coping function, avoidance describes both behavioral (e.g., removing self from the situation) and psychological (e.g., cognitive distancing) attempts to disengage from a stressful situation (Anshel, 1996; Krohne, 1993). Categorizing coping into these three dimensional classifications of coping functions for youth sport athletes has been supported by Kowalski and Crocker (2001).

Relatively little is known about the nature of coping during adolescence (Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Harding Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001) and only a few studies have examined the coping attempts of adolescent athletes (Kowalski & Crocker, 2001). The majority of sport coping research has focused on adult athletes (Nicholls & Polman, 2007). This is somewhat surprising as adolescence is thought to be a particularly important period implicated in the acquisition of a coping repertoire (Seiffe-Krenke, 1995). Adolescence is also considered the time when athletes can become experts in their chosen sport, and when sport can start to dominate their lives (Bloom, 1985; Cote & Hay, 2002).

The studies that have examined the coping responses of adolescent athletes have provided some insight into the coping experiences of this population. However, these studies are limited in their generalizability because they have been exclusively conducted on athletes performing in individual sporting activities. Crocker and Isaak (1997), with a sample of adolescent swimmers, found that coping in practice was consistent, but in competition the coping responses varied. Gaudreau, Lapierre, and Blondin (2001) examined pro-competitive, during competition, and post-competitive coping responses among adolescent golfers. Their findings suggested that the golfers' coping responses changed across all three phases of competition. In a follow up study, Gaudreau, Blondin, and Lapierre (2002) found that golfers who did not achieve their performance goal for the round decreased task-orientated coping (e.g., strategies that are used to change or master aspects of a situation), emotion, and avoidance coping from pro- to post-competition. These three studies found active coping, increased effort, and positive reappraisal to be the most commonly used coping strategies.

More recently, Nicholls, Holt, and Polman (2005) examined stressors, effective, and ineffective coping experiences among a sample of international Irish adolescent golfers. Results revealed that the main stressors were outcome, mistakes, score, evaluation, and opponents. Strategies associated with effective coping experiences were rationalizing, re-appraising, blocking, positive self-talk, following a routine, breathing exercises, physical relaxation, and seeking on-course social support. Alternatively, different types of coping responses such as trying too hard, speeding up, routine changes, and a lack of coping were associated with ineffective coping experiences. A limitation of the Nicholls, Holt, and Polman (2005) paper, and other studies on stress and coping in sport, was that the data were collected retrospectively (Crocker, Kowalski, & Graham, 1998; Nicholls & Polman, 2007). With the passage of time people make errors in recalling stress and coping experiences (e.g., Smith, Leffingwell, & Ptacek, 1999).

To address these limitations Nicholls, Holt, Polman, and James (2005) examined the stressors and coping strategies utilized by a sample of Welsh international adolescent golfers during a 31-day diary study. The four most-frequently reported stressors in this study were making a physical error, making a mental error, observing an opponent play well, and difficult weather conditions. Strategies that were classified as serving a problem-focused coping function were cited more frequently than those serving emotion-focused or avoidance coping functions. The highest frequency of coping strategies coincided with the days when the most stressors were reported. A limitation of the Nicholls, Holt, Polman, and James paper is that it failed to address coping effectiveness. Folkman and Moskowitz (2004) suggested that the underlying motivation for studying coping is belief that some forms of coping will be more effective than others, and that this information would help guide coping interventions to teach people to cope with stress more efficiently.

A weakness of the coping research to date is that little is known about the notion of coping effectiveness in a sport setting (Crocker et al., 1998; Nicholls, Holt, & Polman, 2005; Nicholls & Polman, 2007; Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1998). Somerfield and McCrae (2000) suggested that this is one of the most difficult issues facing coping researchers. This is because of the complexity of the measurement issues associated with coping effectiveness, such as the distinction between short- and long-term coping effectiveness (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). Although coping effectiveness is a challenge to measure, advances in our understanding of coping effectiveness have the potential to make significant differences in applied settings.

Although no coping studies solely on adolescents participating in team sports are currently available, there is a small body of research which has assessed team sport adult athletes. Holt and Hogg (2002) examined the stress and coping experiences among a sample of international female soccer players participating at the 1999 world cup. Stress sources were classified as coaches, demands of international soccer, competitive stressors, and distractions. To cope with these stressors the participants reported strategies within problem-focused, emotion-focused, appraisal-reappraisal (e.g., restructuring perceptions of stress), and avoidance coping dimensions. Holt and Dunn (2004b) examined stress and coping longitudinally among four high-level female soccer players. The players experienced a variety of stressors including concerns about team performance, selection, team-mates, and fitness. The coping strategies used by the participants included avoidance, additional training, thought control strategies, and seeking social support. Additionally, Park (2000) examined the coping responses among 180 Korean athletes participating in 41 different sports. Park concluded that team sport athletes require a greater variety coping strategies than either individual or dual-port athletes, perhaps due to the different stressors they experience. At the present time little is known about the stress and coping responses used by male team sport athletes or indeed adolescent team sport athletes.

The aim of this paper was to address the existing gaps in the sport psychology literature, and build upon the Nicholls, Holt, Polman, and James (2005) paper. The first purpose of this study was to examine the stressors experienced by international adolescent rugby union players during the 31-day study. The second purpose was to examine the coping strategies used by the participants to manage these stressors. The third purpose of this paper was to examine the perceived coping effectiveness of the coping strategies deployed by the rugby union players.

Method

Participants

Participants were 11 international rugby union players (Mage = 17.9 years, SD = 0.3) who were affiliated with the England Rugby Football Union talent identification program and were members of the England under-18 team. The competitive playing experience of the sample ranged between 7 to 12 years (M playing experience = 9.7 years, SD = 2.1). All participants attended high school. Participants were recruited by letter and written informed consent was provided by all participants and a parent (where the participant was under 18 years old).

The 31-day Competitive Period

Data were collected between February 2005 to March 2005. During the 31-day study period the players attended two, two day training camps with the England under-18 squad. The participants played in three competitive games for the England under-18 side against Loughborough University students, Sale Academy, and an international match versus Scotland. The participants did not play any club games during the 31 days of the study. During days 1-5 there was no competitive match, but a two day training camp for all of the players in preparation for the first match. The first match of the study took place during days 6-10 and was against Loughborough University students. During days 11-15 and 16-20 there were no competitive matches, but a training camp during days 16-20. During days 21-25 there was a match against Sale Academy, with the final match taking place during days 26-31 against the Scotland under-18 team. It should be noted that scouts from professional rugby union clubs attended the training camps and matches. This month was critical to the rugby careers of the participants and represented a period of transition where they would either join a club as a professional player or attend university. As such, the participants were trying to impress the scouts and secure professional contracts during the month of the study. In addition to the players' international commitments, all of the players were affiliated to professional clubs and so took part in two training sessions per week with their club during the 31-day diary study.

Data Collection

Daily diary. The daily diary used followed the format of Nicholls, Holt, Polman, and James (2005), except a Likert-type scale was added to measure coping effectiveness (Kim & Duda, 2003). The diary comprised of three discrete sections: (a) stressor checklist and open-nded stress boxes, (b) open-ended coping responses section, and (c) perceived coping effectiveness Likert-type scale. The stressor checklist was adapted from the checklist used by Anshel (1996), who reported a goodness-of-fit index of .87, with alphas for each stressor ranging from .81 to .92. The checklist included the following categories: making a physical or mental error; being criticized by coach; observing an opponent cheat; sustaining an injury; receiving a wrong call from an official; observing an opponent perform well; difficult weather conditions; and being distracted by the crowd or someone watching. In addition to the nine checklist stressor categories there were two additional blank boxes where the players could report any stressors they experienced that were not on the list. The open-ended coping response section required the participants to write what they did to manage each of the stressors they had marked on the checklist, or in the open-ended stressor boxes. The third section of the diary sheet required the participants to rate how effective each of their coping responses were in managing the reported stressors on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with I being not effective and 5 being very effective coping (Kim & Duda).

All participants received a package of 31 diary sheets (dated February 11th 2005 through March 13th 2005), instructions, and one example of a completed diary sheet. They were asked to complete the appropriately dated diary sheet on the evening of each day they played rugby (either competitively or in practice). They were not required to complete the diary on days when they did not play (i.e., rest days or travel days). All participants were telephoned by the first author two days before the study commenced, on the evening of the first day of the study, and every five days hence to answer any questions. Originally, 30 rugby players consented to participate in the study and were sent diary packages, but fully completed diaries where data reported for every day of rugby played in either competition or practice were returned by I 1 participants.

Data Analysis

Stressors. Data from the checklists were tallied to identify the five most-frequently reported stressors. Data were analyzed longitudinally to illustrate longitudinal patterns within in the data, and thus provide a more accurate insight into the stress process (e.g., Nicholls, Holt, Polman, & James, 2005; Udry, 1997), by creating five time periods of five days, and a period with six days (days 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-31). The five most-frequently reported stressors in each time period were then tallied and divided by 11 to produce mean scores and standard deviations were calculated.

Coping. The open-ended coping responses data were transcribed verbatim and subjected to an inductive (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994) and deductive (Patton, 2002) content analysis procedure. The first phase of the data analysis was inductive. Similar coping strategies were grouped together as first-order themes and assigned a descriptive label. A rule of inclusion was written for each theme. Similar first-order themes were grouped under more abstract labels as second-order themes (e.g., 'increased effort' was assigned to the second-order theme of 'Behavior Technique Coping' whereas 'visualization' was assigned to the second-order theme of 'Relaxation').

The second phase of the data analysis involved a deductive content analysis procedure which served to verify the authenticity and appropriateness of the second-order themes (Patton, 2003). This involved a discussion between the first and second author. Following the modification of the coding scheme there was 99.3% agreement. Second-order themes were then classified according to the coping function that they were apparently intended to serve using the dimensions of problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidance coping that have been recommended in the literature (Kowalski & Crocker, 2001). To produce mean scores for each time period the number of coping first-order themes in the three coping functions were tallied across the sample during each time period and then divided by the number of participants in the study (11) and standard deviations were calculated.

To produce longitudinal mean coping function scores reported by each participant for the six time periods, the number of coping first-order themes in the three coping functions were tallied across the sample during each time period and then divided by the number of participants in the study (11). Standard deviations were calculated across the participants for each specific time period.

Coping effectiveness. The final analytic technique was designed to provide an indication of the effectiveness of coping strategies deployed to manage the most frequently-cited stressors. The number of times each coping theme was used to manage making a physical error, coach/parent criticism, making a mental error, sustaining an injury, and observing an opponent play well were tallied for the sample over 31-days. The coping effectiveness of the strategy in relation to each specific stressor was tallied and then divided by the frequency of coping themes reported for managing the particular stressor. This process generated a mean coping effectiveness score for each coping strategy in relation to the stressor it was used to manage. For instance, increasing concentration to manage physical error stressors was reported on 17 occasions and had a mean coping effectiveness of 3.8. To establish coping effectiveness longitudinally, the perceived coping effectiveness rating of each coping strategy used by all of the participants were tallied and divided by the number of deployed coping strategies during each period. This process generated a mean effectiveness of all the coping strategies across all of the participants in each of the six time periods.

Results

Participants reported that they played rugby on 171 of the 341 total available days. On average, each participant played rugby on 15.4 days (SD = 4.4). From the 171 daily diaries received, participants reported 328 stressors and 410 coping responses.

Stressors. The five most reported stressors were physical error (92), criticism from coach or parent (47), mental error (39), sustaining an injury (32), and observing an opponent perform well (31). The five most cited stressors comprised of 73% of all the reported stressors (Table 1). Figure 1 indicates that the mean number of stressors remained consistent, apart from days 1115 and 16-20 where the participants reported fewer stressors.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Coping. The most reported first order theme was blocking (63), increased effort (52), increased concentration (38), and took advice (22). Of the three coping dimensions, problem-focused coping strategies were used 270 times, this accounted for 66% of all reported coping strategies. Figure 2 shows that problem-focused coping strategies were used the most in each time period. Emotion-focused coping strategies were used 72 times, 17.5% of total reported coping strategies. Finally avoidance coping strategies were used 68 times, yielding 16.5% of total reported coping strategies (Table 2).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Coping effectiveness. Figure 2 shows that mean coping effectiveness started at 3.66 during days 1-5, and steadily decreased during days 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, and 21-25. Mean coping effectiveness rapidly increased during days 26-31 to its highest value of 3.91. Overall, the participants had a perceived mean effectiveness rating of 3.29. When looking at the mean-effectiveness of the coping strategies reported, the coping effectiveness scores ranged from 1-5 (see Table 3). The most frequently-cited coping strategies were not rated as being the most effective responses. For example, to cope with making a physical error the most frequently-reported coping strategy was blocking (20), which was rated with a mean perceived effectiveness of 3.8. However, the most effective coping strategy for managing a physical error was going through a routine (cited 4 times, M effectiveness = 4.8) followed by practicing (cited 11 times, M effectiveness = 4.6).

Discussion

This paper examined stressors, coping strategies, and the perceived coping effectiveness of these coping strategies among a sample of international adolescent rugby union players. Similar to previous research, the findings revealed that a small number of stressors recur over time. The five most reported stressors (e.g., making a physical error, criticism from coach/parent, making a mental error, injury, and observing an opponent play well) accounted for 73% of all stressors. This longitudinal finding is similar to Nicholls, Holt, Polman, and James (2005) who found that the four most reported stressors for golfers comprised of 75% of the whole sample. These results suggest that on the whole, the players' coping attempts were directed towards managing a limited number of stressor.

Making a physical error stressor was cited the most during each period of the study. The other stressors fluctuated during the month of the study, but receiving criticism from a coach or parent was the second most reported stressor during five of the six time periods. Coaches' communication was a source of stress among the soccer players in the Holt and Hogg (2002) paper. The number of players citing this stressor was not reported. Coach related stressors did not feature prominently in the study by Nicholls, Holt, Polman, and James (2005), or other research (e.g., Gould, Eklund, & Jackson, 1993). Perhaps this stressor may be experienced more by athletes participating in team sports due to the different roles of coaches in team and individual sports. Another stressor that featured prominently in this study, but not the Nicholls, Holt, Polman, and James study was injury. This is because rugby is a much more physically demanding sport than golf, where players are at constant risk from a variety of injuries (e.g., Garraway, Lee, Hutton, Russell, & McLeod, 2000). From an applied perspective, sport psychology consultants should take into account the nature of sport in which their client competes. Applied consultants should also consider the dynamic relationship between the coaches/ parents and the athlete, especially when working with adolescent athletes to prevent this stressor from inhibiting performance.

It is also interesting to note that the participants reported more stressors during the periods of days when matches were played. The number of stressors declined during days 11-15 and 16-20 which is when the players did not have a match to play. Although there were no matches between days 1-5, the level of stressors reported were still high. This may have been due to the fact that the squad was coming together in preparation for a crucial part of the players' rugby career which could determine team selection for the England under-18 team and subsequently whether they would be offered a professional club contract.

The rugby players reported a vast number of coping strategies during the month of the study (see Table 2). Blocking was the most frequently reported coping strategy used by the sample, and included attempts by the participants to shut out thoughts, or mentally withdraw from stress they were experiencing. This timing is congruent with other adolescent sport coping research with golfers (e.g., Nicholls 2005a; Nicholls, Holt, & Polman, 2005; Nicholls, Holt, Polman, & James, 2005). Although this type of coping strategy may be effective in the short term, researchers have issued caution in athletes using blocking for long-term stressors (Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1998; Pensgaard & Duda, 2003) as it can have many undesirable effects, which could include emotional, behavioral, and social problems (Ayers, Sandler, West, & Roosa, 1996; Compas, Malcarne, & Fondacaro, 1998; Compas et al., 2001).

Coping strategies that were classified within the problem-focused dimension were the most frequently cited compared to strategies within either the emotion-focused or avoidance classifications in congruence with previous research (e.g., Crocker & Isaak, 1997; Gaudreau et al., 2001; 2002; Nicholls, Holt, Polman, & James, 2005). More problem-focused coping strategies were reported when the rugby players reported more physical error stressors.

The mean coping effectiveness of the strategies deployed by the participants fluctuated during the study. Coping effectiveness appeared to decline from days 1-5 to days 21-25. It may have been due to the number of coping strategies deployed by the participants. The general decrease in coping effectiveness coincided with the deployment of fewer coping strategies. During days 26-31 there was an increase in both coping effectiveness and the mean number of deployed coping strategies. This may indicate that coping effectiveness could be related to the number of coping strategies deployed, although further research is required to support this hypothesis. There were also considerable fluctuations in the mean effectiveness of individual coping strategies. This finding supports the notion that coping effectiveness is related to the choice of the coping strategy (Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; Crocker et al., 1998), suggesting that adolescent rugby players should be encouraged to engage in adaptive coping strategies and refrain from using the maladaptive coping strategies identified in this study.

A weakness of this study is that perceptions of control of the stressors were not examined. Although evidence was found to support the notion that coping effectiveness is related to choice (c.f., Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995) other models of coping effectiveness, such as the goodness-of-fit approach and the automacity theory could not be examined within this study. This should be addressed in the future, and will provide researchers with a more comprehensive understanding of coping effectiveness in a sport setting (Nicholls & Polman, 2007).

Every effort was made to instruct the participants to rate the effectiveness of each coping strategy by including three Likert-type coping effectiveness scales in the diary. However, the participants tended to rate the overall coping effectiveness of the coping strategies they used, and used only one of Likert-type scales. This is why it was not possible to provide a mean coping effectiveness scale for problem-, emotion-focused, and avoidance coping.

A general limitation of daily approaches to collect stress and coping data is that participants only report concrete and discrete events and fail to report ongoing and complex problems (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004) which could have included concerns about future careers. A further issue with collecting data longitudinally is the drop out rate among participants. Shaughnessy and Zechmeister (1994) reported that this one of the obstacles of collecting longitudinal research. Originally 30 participants agreed to take part in the study but complete diaries were only returned by 11 participants. Although the authors were in contact with the rugby players, future research should develop and implement additional techniques to try and increase the number of returned diary studies. One way to do this could be to have face to face meetings with players, or have electronic daily diaries which are electronically mailed back to the researcher on a daily basis immediately after completion.

From an applied perspective this paper has provided a unique insight into the demands placed on international adolescent rugby union players. Although this group experience a wide range of stressors there are five stressors which international adolescent rugby union players experience much more regularly such as making a physical error, receiving criticism from their coach/parents, making a mental error, injury, and observing an opponent play well. As such, applied practitioners should spend more time teaching adolescent rugby players to manage these stressors.

This paper has found evidence to suggest which coping strategies are likely to be the most effective strategies in managing these salient stressors. For instance when rugby union players experience the stress of making a physical error they should go through their routine, practice, and re-focus on the task at hand. After experiencing the stress of making a mental error, rugby union players should think through their movement and visualize the intended action without an error. After receiving criticism from their coach, rugby union players should listen and learn from their mistakes, and increase their concentration. With regards to opponent playing well stressors, rugby union players should increase their concentration. These findings provide a basis for the creation of coping interventions to enable international adolescent rugby union players to cope more effectively with stressors, but coping intervention studies are required (c.f., Nicholls, 2005b) to empirically examine any recommendations.

References

Anshel, M. H. (1996). Coping styles among adolescent competitive athletes. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 311-323.

Ayers, T. S., Sandler, I. N., West, S. G., & Roosa, M. W. (1996). A dispositional and situational assessment of children's coping: Testing alternative models of coping. Journal of Personality 64, 923-958.

Bloom, B.S. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine.

Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890-902.

Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Harding Thomsen, A., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87-127.

Compas, B. E., Malcarne, V. L., & Fondacaro, K. M. (1988). Coping with stressful events in older children and young adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 405-411.

Cote, J., & Hay, J. (2002). Children's involvement in sport: A developmental perspective. In J. M. Silva and D. E. Stevens (Eds.) Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 484-502). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Crocker, P. R. E., & Isaak, K. (1997). Coping during competitions and training sessions: Are youth swimmers consistent? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 355-369.

Crocker, P. R. E., Kowalski, K. C., & Graham, T. R. (1998). Measurement of coping strategies in sport. In J. L. Duda (Ed.) Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement edited by (pp. 149-161). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745-774. Garraway, W. M. Lee, A. J., Hutton, S. J., Russell, E. B.A. W., & McLeod, D. A. D. (2000). Impact of professionalism on injuries in rugby. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 34, 348-351.

Gaudreau, P., Blondin, J. P., & Lapierre, A. M. (2002). Athletes' coping during a competition: Relationship of coping strategies with positive affect, negative affect, and performance-goal discrepancy. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3, 125-150.

Gaudreau, P., Lapierre, A. M., & Blondin, J. P. (2001). Coping at three phases of competition: Comparison between pre-competitive, competitive, and post-competitive utilization of the same strategy. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 32, 369-385.

Gould, D., Eklund, R. C., & Jackson, S. A. (1993). Coping strategies used by US Olympic wrestlers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 83-93.

Holt, N. L., & Dunn, J.G. H. (2004a). Grounded theory of the psychosocial competencies and environmental conditions associated with soccer success. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 199-219.

Holt, N. L., & Dunn, J. G. H. (2004b). Longitudinal idiographic analyses of appraisal and coping responses in sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5, 213-222.

Holt, N. L., & Hogg, J. M. (2002). Perceptions of stress and coping during preparations for the 1999 women's soccer world cup finals. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 251-271.

Kim, M. S., and Duda, J. L. (2003). The coping process: Cognitive appraisals of stress, coping strategies, and coping effectiveness. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 406-425.

Kolt, G. S., Kirkby, R. J., & Lindner, H. (1995). Coping processes in competitive gymnasts: Gender differences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 1139-1145.

Kowalski, K. C., & Crocker, P. R. E. (2001). The development and validation of the Coping Function Questionnaire for adolescents in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 23, 136-155.

Krohne, H. W. (1993). Vigilance and cognitive avoidance as concepts in coping research. In Attention and avoidance: Strategies in coping with aversiveness. Edited by H. W. Krohne (pp. 19-50). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe and Huber.

Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York: Springer.

Lazarus, R. S. (2000). How emotions influence performance in competitive sports. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 229-252.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.

Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.

Nicholls, A. R. (2005a). Longitudinal analyses of stress, coping, and coping effectiveness among Scottish international adolescent golfers during a 28-day diary study. Journal of Sport Sciences, 23, 1265-1266.

Nicholls, A. R. (2005b). Can athletes be taught to cope more effectively? A longitudinal analysis of a coping case study with an international adolescent golfer. Journal of Sport Sciences, 23, 1263-1264.

Nicholls, A. R., Holt, N. L., & Polman, R. C. J. (2005). A Phenomenological Analysis of Coping Effectiveness in Golf. The Sport Psychologist, 19, 111-130.

Nicholls, A. R., Holt, N. L., Polman, R. C. J., & James, D. W. G (2005). Stress and coping among international adolescent golfers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 333-340.

Nicholls, A. R., & Polman, R. C. J. (2007). Coping in sport: A systematic review. Journal of Sport Sciences, 25, 11-31.

Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S. J. H. (1998). The relationship of coping and its perceived effectiveness to positive and negative affect in sport. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 773-778.

Park, J-K. (2000). Coping strategies used by Korean national athletes. The Sport-Psychologist, 14, 63-80.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pensgaard, A. M., & Duda, J. L. (2003). Sydney 2000: The interplay between emotions, coping, and the performance of Olympic-level athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 253-267.

Scanlan T. K., & Lewthwaite, R. (1984). Social psychological aspects of competition for male youth sport participants: Predictors of competitive stress. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 208-226.

Seiffe-Krenke, I. (1995). Stress, coping, and relationships in adolescence. Mahwah, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shauglmessy, J. J., & Zechmeister, E. B. (1994). Research methods in psychology (3rd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Smith, R. E., Leffingwell, T. R., & Ptacek, J. T. (1999). Can people remember how they coped? Factors associated with discordance between same-day and retrospective reports. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 1050-1061.

Smith, R. E., Ptacek, J. T., & Smoll, F. L. (1992). Sensation seeking, stress, and adolescent injuries: A test of stress-buffering, risk-taking, and coping skills hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1016-1024.

Udry, E. (1997). Coping and social support among injured athletes following surgery. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19, 71-90.

Adam R. Nicholls

Leeds Metropolitan University

Remco C. J. Polman

The University of Hull

Address Correspondence To: Adam R Nicholls, Carnegie Research Institute, Fairfax Hall, Headingley Campus, Leeds, LS6 3QS, UK. E-mail [email protected]

Table 1
Total Stressor Frequencies for 31-Day Period

 Stressor Frequency

Making a physical error 92
Suffering criticism from a coach/parent 47
Making a mental error 39
Sustaining an injury 32
Observing an opponent perform better than themselves 31
Playing badly due to poor weather/course conditions 22
Being distracted by spectators 17
Receiving a wrong call from an official 12
Observing an opponent cheat 7
Not being selected 7
Tiredness 4
Nerves at the start of the match 2
Given responsibility within team 2
Lack of time during the match 2
Didn't want to let team-mates down 2
Having to take control 1
Improve skill level 1
Singing national anthem 1
Being played out of position 1
Kicking practice 1
Impress in first game 1
Observing video of themselves 1
Gym session 1
Low motivation 1
Had wrong kit 1

Table 2. Classification and Frequencies of Coping Responses Over 31
Days

Coping Function Second order First order theme
 theme

Problem-focused Technique Changed technique (17)
 orientated Practiced (12)
 coping

 Cognitive Thought movement through (5)
 technique
 coping

 Behavioral Increased effort (52)
 coping Reduced injury symptoms (15)
 Adapted game (7)
 Tried to outplay opponent (6)
 Went through routine (5)
 Tried to prove self (5)
 Improved performance (3)
 Played for team (1)
 Slapped thighs (1)
 Carried on same way (1)
 Took control (1)
 Made quicker decisions (1)
 Planning Changed tactics (2)
 Rescheduled (1)

 Communication Praised opponent (8)
 Argued (3)
 Confronted opponent (2)
 Defended self from criticism (1)
 Offered vocal support (1)

 Concentration Increased concentration (38)
 Refocused on task (19)
 Increased self-focus (13)
 Focused on opponent (4)

 Goal setting Reminded self of goals (1)

 Cognitive Self-talk(15)
 coping Dealt with stressor (9)
 Stayed positive (4)
 Put things into perspective (4)
 Motivated self (3)
 Got annoyed (2)
 Paid too much attention (2)
 Learned from mistakes (2)
 Imagined people watching (1)
 Counted in head (1)
 Stuck to plan (1)

Emotion-focused Relaxation Visualization (19)
 Physical relaxation (6)
 Breathing exercises (2)

 Acceptance Positive appraisal (4)
 Accepted others (3)
 Accepted situation (2)
 Reassured self (1)

 Social Took advice (22)
 Informed significant other (5)
 Listened (4)
 Sought advice (1)
 Did not take advice (1)

 Blame Blamed the weather
 Got angry (1)

Avoidance Cognitive Blocking (63)
 avoidance Dwelled on stressor (3)
 Did not let it worry me (2)
 Laughed (1)
 Left it (1)

Table 3. Coping Strategies, Frequencies, and Mean Effectiveness in
Managing the Three Most frequently Cited Stressors

 Mean
Stressor Coping strategy Frequency effectiveness

Physical Blocking 20 3.8
error Increased concentration 17 3.3
 Re-focused on task 16 3.8
 Visualization 12 3.4
 Technical adjustments 12 3.9
 Practised 11 4.6
 Increased effort 10 3.6
 Self-talk 7 3.3
 Went through routine 4 4.8
 Physical relaxation 3 4
 Took advice 2 4.5
 Thought movement through 1 4
 Vocal support 1 4.5
 Laughed 1 4
 Dwelled on stressor 1 4
 Slapped thighs 1 2
 Left it 1 1
 Blamed weather 1 4
 Dealt with it 1 3
 Stayed positive 1 4

Coach/
Parent Took advice 14 4
criticism Increased effort 7 3.1
 Blocking 6 2.7
 Proved self 4 3.8
 Listened 3 4.7
 Increased concentration 2 4.0
 Argued 2 4.5
 Perspective 2 3
 Visualization 2 3
 Motivated self 2 2.5
 Informed significant 1 5
 others
 Reassured self 1 4
 Carried on same way 1 4
 Technical adjustments 1 4
 Self-talk 1 4
 Refocused on task 1 4
 Increased self-focus 1 4
 Didn't take advice 1 1

Mental Increased effort 8 3.8
error Took advice 6 3.5
 Blocking 6 2
 Increased concentration 5 3.4
 Thought through movement 4 4.5
 Visualization 4 4.3
 Self-talk 3 3.7
 Learned from mistake 1 5
 Breathing exercise 1 4
 Reassured self 1 4
 Focused on task 1 4
 Dealt with it 1 4
 Informed significant 1 4
 others
 Technical adjustments 1 4
 Physical relaxation 1 4
 Counted in head 1 4
 Stayed positive 1 3
 Dwelled on stressor 1 2