1:20,... . .1! . I: . I..." . vars... aymnfi ..m.w..anm. MW? . 1.!!- FWerun I I Mrslvt 0 7|! ... :1 a f!!! e . or» r-- .ricuul. Eli-{flu Ffvbrlo uttv‘a.v... spifbf. v IKVI .I..I..I:..¢\ *tlufilflpv. ‘ ‘rlo.€’lvl.l.' '1‘ :. 1...}: . Q I3 .CJI....SDQ....f‘a 2:73.: ,... ...‘Lvo...fi;k)).lluvv Il!unoil- .c f i..£ll.l)’|:$n'0l tiftIVl a... u 3...; .".‘k3 . o no); {01111191 «7... x5..\. )v: 1.2.. G-A c. zrrgt II t. .5'Vu.dr . i W." giiifi. . 3 : 1 Hunt 0 A1. Itiqiavl‘kc I; 1‘ :f I .\...a . .1 1 . . . .2 00 . .3. .l. . if. .I 4 I :31: [fig-3+“..(e ’9.‘ . ISEI . ...n:’ll\..!.r.09.u1. 51.01.? a?! '11... '0‘... n? '15:. .05 steal}... . ‘ . or. 3 . ,. . 4 . Iii" ‘32:; f. ( ll' I‘I‘l A? .K . flihx‘. 9.. .t. .. 15:“ {ball {.0 l. ‘95 .3 ll t;li: .n...v\ . _. L‘s?!“ . . V " ; s' ":9 3 ’v. ' u “9 rd??? ,. £53 WMuBLmHN.‘ u! I . brill}: . IE I l‘V :9: t wvwwmmfimflg v . . .A A ,, §§%_. an». -n>~|.l’.§c .. . . ‘ . ‘ . A . . . . ...r\..!.. i. 1" I .7 55/3 '75") NIVERSITY LIBRARIES II'IIII'IIIIIII III I III III IIIIII 3 1293 00604 832 This is to certify that the thesis entitled COMPARISONS OF CONFIDENCE AND ANXIETY BETWEEN HIGH ABILITY AND LOW ABILITY HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL OFFICIALS presented by Todd Davison Schultz has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MA degree in Health Education, Counseling Psychology and Human Performance Major professor Date 3'5, 76) 0.7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE III RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before due due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 1“ -'T‘ ‘ "(I ‘2‘ ’ 9 5 IV.) MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution ‘ COMPARISONS OF CONFIDENCE AND ANXIETY BETWEEN HIGH ABILITY AND LOW ABILITY HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL OFFICIALS BY Todd Davleon Schultz A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS School oi Health Education, Counseling Psychology and Human Performance 1 988 ( r/ K _-" I '- .I ’, v . . ~ ~ n. .‘ \_ 1 ABSTRACT COMPARISONS OF CONFIDENCE AND ANXIETY BETWEEN HIGH ABILITY AND LOW ABILITY HIGH SCHOOL BASKETBALL OFFICIALS By Todd Davison Schultz The purpose of this study was to determine if high (HBO) and low ability (LRO) officials differed in the their perceived trait and state sport- confidence and trait and state anxiety. Measuring instruments included the Trait Sport-Confidence Inventory .(TSCI), State Sport-Confidence inventory (SSCI), Sport Competition Anxiety Test (SCAT), and the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). Subjects were 27 officials who officiated 78 boys' and girls' high school basketball games. Subjects ratings of their own officiating ability and the ability of their peers served to place each subject into a high or low ability group. Four hypotheses pr0posed that high ability officials would be more trait and state sport-confident and be less trait and state anxious than low ability subjects. Significant differences between groups emerged on trait, pre- and post-game sport-confidence. These findings resulted from HROs expressing more confidence than LROs. However, both groups were very confident and expressed confidence levels equivalent to those found in elite athletes. There were no differences in either trait anxiety or pre-game anxiety. Post-game anxiety was significant on the CSAl-2 subscales of cognitive anxiety and self-confidence. HROs were less anxious than LROs. Both groups expressed low levels of trait and state anxiety when compared to the normative sample. Player gender and school size appeared to influence state sport-confidence but not state anxiety. To Pat Scott and Caitlin ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It would be inappropriate to present this thesis without recognizing some of those who have assisted me in this project. First, I would like to express my graditude to my advisor, committee chairperson, and friend, Dr. Martha E. Ewing. Her advice and support as well as her interest in officiating were constant sources of motivation and served to keep me on course during the difficult times. I would also like to thank committee member Dr. Deborah L. Feltz whose suggestions and technical expertise contributed to the quality of this project. And a special thanks goes to my final committee member, Marcy Weston. Despite her incredibly hectic schedule, she always found time to discuss the progress of this thesis and offer suggestions regarding its' content. Her continued willingness to learn more about officiating should be an inspiration to all officials. This thesis would have not have been possible without the help of the Colorado Springs Basketball Officials' Association. I want to thank those members who graciously volunteered to participate and complete the many questionnaires. I apologize to them for disrupting their pre-game routine and hope that this interference did not adversely influence their performance. Specific thanks go to Floyd Petty and Dick Sater without whose help in determining which members met the necessary requirements, locating a meeting place, and gathering completed questionnaires, I would have been unable to undertake this study. On a more personal level I want to ackowledge the contributions of my children, Scott and Caitlin, and my wife. Pat. I thank Scott for understanding that my work on this project often required him to play quietly alone and to display patience and understanding well beyond his years. I thank Caitlin for her tolerance and for learning to entertain herself while I completed just one more sentence. Finally, and most importantly, I want to thank my wife Pat. Her willingness to leave family and friends and relocate so I could go back to school took tremendous courage. Her continued belief in me and the reasons behind my continued education were a constant source of strength. Without her support and encouragement, much of what I have accomplished would still be a dream. TABLE OF CONTENTS vi CHAPTER PAGE LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. ix 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 Nature of the Problem ............................................................................ 1 Statement of the Problem .................................................................... 4 Delimitations ............................................................................................. 6 Definitions .................................................................................................. 6 Limitations ................................................................................................. 7 Assumptions ............................................................................................... 8 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................................................................... 9 Theories of Arousal and Performance ..................................................... 10 Drive Theory ....................................................................................... 1O Inverted - U Hypothesis ................................................................ 12 Trait and State Anxiety ......................................................................... 13 Sport Competition Anxiety Test ........................................................ 16 Multidimensional Anxiety ..................................................................... 18 Team Sports vs. Individual Sports .................................................... 19 Anxiety Summary ..................................................................................... 19 Confidence in Sport .......................................................................................... 21 Bandura's Theory of Self-Efficacy ..................................................... 21 Emotional Arousal and Self-Efficacy ............................................... 26 Perceived Competence ............................................................................. 26 Sport-Confidence ...................................................................................... 27 Confidence Summary ................................................................................ 28 3. MEil-IODOLOGY .............................................. 30 Subjects ........................................................................................................ 30 Classification of Schools ...................................................................... 31 Group Rankings ........................................................................................... 32 Measures of Sport-Confidence ............................................................ 32 Trait Sport-Confidence Inventory (TSCI) ................................ 33 State Sport-Confidence Inventory (SSCI) ............................... 34 Measures of Anxiety ................................................................................. 35 Sport Competition Anxiety Test (SCAT) .................................. 36 Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAl-2) ............... 37 Procedures ............................................................................................. 39 Data Gathering ............................................................................. 39 Treatment of the Data .............................................................. 4O 4. RESULTS ........................................... ==..42 Official's Rankings ............................................................................. 42 Demographics ........................................................................................ 45 Official's Age ............................................................................... 45 Official‘s Education ................................................................... 45 Official's Occupation ................................................................ 46 Official's Sports Participation .............................................. 46 Player Gender ............................................................................... 48 School Classifications ............................................................. 48 Officiating Experience ............................................................. 49 Rankings and Demographic Summary ........................................... 50 Sport-Confidence ................................................................................ 51 Trait and Baseline Sport-Confidence .................................. 52 State Sport-Confidence ............................................................ 53 State Sport-Confidence by Player Gender-Boys' Games ........................................ 54 State Sport-Confidence by Player Gender-Girls' Games ........................................ 54 State Sport-Confidence by School Classifications .................................................. 56 Post Hoc Comparisons by School Classifications .................................................. 56 Summary of Sport-Confidence ............................................... 58 Anxiety ............................................................................................................. 59 Trait and Baseline Anxiety ............................................................. 60 State Anxiety ........................................................................................ 62 State Anxiety by Player Gender Boys' Games .................................................................................... 63 State Anxiety by Player Gender Girls' Games ................................................................................... 64 State Anxiety by School Classification ........................................................... 64 Post Hoc Comparisons by School Classification ........................................................... 65 Anxiety Summary ................................................................................ 67 vii 5. DISCUSSION. CONCLUSIONS. RECOMMENDATIONS and IMPUCATIONS .............................................. 70 Discussion .............................................................................................. 70 Trait and Baseline Sport-Confidence .................................. 71 State Sport-Confidence ........................................................... 72 Trait and State Anxiety ........................................................... 76 Player Gender and School Classification .......................... 79 Rankings .......................................................................................... 80 TSCI and SSCI ............................................................................... 82 Officiating Experience ............................................................. 84 Coaches, Players, Spectators and Daily Stress ................................................................... 85 Data Collection ............................................................................ 86 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 87 Recommendations for Future Study ............................................. 88 Implications .......................................................................................... 90 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 92 APPENDICIES .......................................................................................................... 101 A. Letter to Subjects .............................................................................. 101 B. Trait Sport-Confidence Inventory ............................................... 103 C. State Sport-Confidence Inventory .............................................. 105 D. Sport Competition Anxiety Test .................................................. 107 E Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 .................................... 109 F. Instruction Sheet ................................................................................ 111 G Demographic Questionnaire ............................................................ 112 H Post-Game Summary ......................................................................... 113 I. lnforrned Consent Form .................................................................... 114 J. Data Dictionary/ Raw Data ............................................................ 115 viii LIST OF TABLES TABLE ‘ PAGE 1. Normative Data for TSCI .................................................................................. 34 2. Normative Data for SSCI .................................................................................. 35 3. Normative Data for SCAT ................................................................................. 37 4. Normative Data for CSAl-2 ........................................................................ 38 5. Official's Group and Self-Rankings ............................................................. 44 6. Official's Highest Level of Completed Education .................................................................................... 46 7. Official's Sports Participation ..................................................................... 47 8. Boys' and Girls' Games Officiated by High and Low Ranked Officials ...................................................................... 48 9. Classification of High Schools Participating in Games Officiated by High and Low Ranked Officials .................................................................. 49 10. Officiating Experience t Tests, Means and Standard Deviations ..................................................... 50 11. Trait and Baseline Sport-Confidence tTests, Means and Standard Deviations ..................................................... 53 12. State Sport-Confidence t Tests, Means and Standard Deviations ..................................................... 54 13. State Sport-Confidence tTests, Means and Standard Deviations for Boys' Games ..................................................................................................... 55 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. State Sport-Confidence tTests, Means and Standard Deviations for Girls' Games ................................................................................................... 55 State Sport-Confidence tTests, Means and Standard Deviations by School Size ....................................................................................................... 57 Trait and Baseline Anxiety tTests, Means and Standard Deviations .................................................... 61 State Anxiety tTests, Means and Standard Deviations .................................................... 62 State Anxiety tTests, Means and Standard Deviations for Boys' Games .................................................................................................... 63 State Anxiety tTests, Means and Standard Deviations for Girls' Games ................................................................................................... 64 State Anxiety t Tests, Means and Standard Deviations by School Size ....................................................................................................... 66 High Ability Officials - Boys' and Girls' Games Officiated in Each Class ................................................................................... 81 Low Ability Officials - Boys' and Girls' Games Officiated in Each Class ................................................................................... 81 Subjects Ranked Number One by High and Low Ability Officials ...................................................................... 83 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION W With every passing year there seems to be a greater emphasis placed on athletics and the outcome of athletic competitions. In previous years, individuals primarily participated in sport for the enjoyment of physical activity and competition. Today, in a society where many old values are rapidly being replaced, sport often times is played for recognition and the extrinsic rewards that come with winning (Eitzen, 1979a). Professional sports teams spend millions of dollars to employ the finest athletes and coaches in an effort to show a profit and have top rated winning teams. Colleges hope that a winning tradition will enhance student enrollment and alumni contributions (Coakley, 1982b). High schools use sport to generate spirit, unity and promote parental, alumni and community support for all school programs (Coakley, 1982a). Huge trophies. media attention. all-star game appearances and trips to regional and state-wide competitions await victorious youngsters in many recreational sports. These rewards and incentives have taken on great value, but have also added tremendous pressure to the participants in regards to winning and losing. This pressure has led many of those involved to search for anything that will give them the slightest advantage. Coaches and administrators 1 encourage spectator involvement in an attempt to unnerve the opposition. Baseball fields are "doctored" to minimize opponents strengths. Football players are taught how to get away with illegal tactics to avoid being assessed a penalty. Basketball players are coached on how to fake a foul and how to bump a player when they are shooting so the official will not notice (Eitzen, 1979b). This attempt to gain an advantage has evolved to include attempts at manipulating the referees. As games become increasingly important. coaches, players and spectators can be seen directing their attention toward the game officials. Many spectators feel that once they have paid their money they are free to say and do whatever they desire. Coaches have been known to use the presence of these highly partisan spectators and their own verbal outbursts in hopes of gaining an advantage while opposing coaches counterattack to gain leverage for their teams. They believe that ultimately conference and/or national championships can be won or lost on one critical decision by the referee. But regardless of these pressures the official is supposed to remain calm, confident, in control and consistent throughout. These expectations would seem inappropriate and unrealistic considering the circumstances. With all the attention given to officials and all the effort put forth to influence them, it is ironic that the worst thing that can happen to referees is to allow this harassment to affect them. And for them to do what everyone wants them to do, which is to give one team an advantage. Not being influenced by such behavior can be an extremely difficult task. Coaches are quick to condemn officials when they feel they have choked under pressure. They routinely inform officials that they "will never work here again" or "you are the worst I've ever seen." This type of mental abuse can eventually take it's toll causing some officials to dr0p out, indicating they "don't need the hassle anymore." It is not suprising that personal confrontations with coaches, players, and spectators can result in officiating being a very stressful activity (Conti & McClintock, 1983; Taylor & Daniel, 1987). Thus, it is understand- able why one call, or lack of a call, may be the one that triggers thoughts of self-doubt and ideas of retirement. Yet some officials persist. They seem to be able to ignore the assault and are only momentarily affected or not affected at all. They attend only to officiating and are not intimidated by outside influences or distracted by their own emotional arousal. What is it about these people that makes them go on? Do they enjoy punishment or are they blessed with an abundance of self-confidence? Are they relaxed and in control of their emotions or are they experiencing increases in anxiety? And do officials experience an escalation in anxiety prior to games knowing what is in store for them? It would seem that with all the pressures, expectations, and environmental constraints, officials should be finely tuned robots. Yet referees are not manufactured. They do not all possess the same abilities and they are not all in the upper echelon. Even the most casual observers of athletic events are quick to point out that some officials are better than others. It is these observations that support a question fundamental to officiating: What qualities do top rated officials possess that average referees do not? With research into sports officiating in its infancy, numerous avenues for study are available. This study will focus on two variables critical to officiating: anxiety and self-confidence, and, any differences in these variables between high and low ability officials. It is unfortunate. but as more importance is placed on the outcome of athletic competitions the officials play a more integral role. Players are bigger and stronger than ever, the pace of the game is faster and verbal harrassment has reached unparalled depths. It is important that we begin to determine what separates the strong officials from the weak. As the game continues to change, it is critical that officials keep pace by constantly striving to improve. StatemenLetheEmlzlem With athletic officials playing an increasingly important role and their competence being continuously questioned, research into officiating is long overdue. It is the purpose of this study to begin an investigation into some of the characteristics which may distinguish high ability officials from low ability officials. Significant differences between the two groups on the variables, anxiety and self-confidence, may begin to explain why some officials are considered better than others and may provide officials with a catalyst to learn which psychological skills may be beneficial in helping to cope with the stress of officiating. . Research on anxiety and confidence in sport has found that experience and success are important factors in controlling anxiety and increasing confidence. Highlen and Bennett (1979) discovered successful athletes experienced lower levels of anxiety than unsuccessful athletes. Fenz and Epstein (1967) found experience to be a key factor in controlling anxiety and improving performance. Vealey (1986) and Bandura (1977) both suggest that the amount of confidence individuals possess about their ability to be successful will ultimately influence their performance. If officials are similiar to athletes, then those who believe in their ability and have gained the most from their experiences may be more likely to move up the officiating ranks and be perceived by their peers as quality officials. These beliefs and the knowledge gained through experience will help officials cope with their anxieties and enhance their chances for success. This study proposes the following hypotheses: 1) High ability officials will report greater levels of trait sport-confidence than low ability officials. 2) High ability officials will experience greater levels of state sport-confidence both before and after games than low ability officials. ‘ 3) High ability officials will report less trait anxiety than low ability officials. 4) High ability officials will report less state anxiety both before and after games than low ability officials. Delimitation: This study is generalizable only to high school basketball officials. Officials in other sports may or may not experience many of the same symptoms. It is possible that while other sport official's reactions may be highly correlated due to similiar stimuli, it is equally possible that corresponding results may be purely coincidental. Definitions WW Officials who were rated by their peers in the top 33% of the sample of officials who volunteered from the Colorado Springs Basketball Officials Association (CSBOA) to participate in the study. LmabiiitutticialleBQi; Officials who were rated by their peers in the bottom 33% of the sample of officials who volunteered from the CSBOA to participate in the study. W The belief or degree of certainty individuals usually possess about their ability to be successful in sport. W The belief or degree of certainty individuals possess at one particular moment about their ability to be successful in sport. W Mental component of anxiety caused by negative expectations about success or negative self-evaluation and characterized by worry, negative self-talk and unpleasant imagery. Somatigjnxjem; Physiological or affective component of anxiety that is directly related to autonomic arousal and reflected in such responses as rapid heart rate, shortness of breath, clammy hands, butterflies in the stomach and tense muscles. Limitations Although efforts were made to control for experience, there were still large discrepancies among subjects. Many top rated officials also referee college basketball, as well as other sports, and this supplemental experience may serve as an uncontrollable confounding variable. In addition, the testing environment was different for each pair of subjects during each data gathering session. Some subjects were privy to large comfortable rooms where they could complete the questionnaires in private while others were in very small, cramped quarters with no privacy. With conditions such as these there was no way to monitor and control testing room conversation or the honesty of responses. All of the data in this study were gathered from games officiated in the month of February. At this point of the season the fate of many teams had already been decided. Some games served as championship tilts while others involved last place teams. Levels of anxiety and confidence may have been affected given the two teams involved and the consequences of the game's outcome. Assumptions While this study is directed toward high school basketball officials, the results may not even be generalizable to this population. This unusual twist occurs because the various measurement inventories have been developed for, and used primarily with, athletes and may not be appropriate for officials. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Numeous research studies have been conducted to determine what effect psychological characteristics have on athletic performance. Among the published research are countless thoughts, ideas, conclusions and suggestions about the impact that anxiety, perceived ability and feelings of self-confidence have on athletic achievement. Research studies have examined everyone from the uncoached novice to some of the world's most elite competitors. By contrast, only a handful of studies have investigated sports officials. These infrequent studies have found officiating to be a very stressful activity (Conti & McClintock, 1983; Taylor & Daniel, 1987), although most officials expressed confidence in their ability to handle any situation (Alker, Straub & Leary, 1973). With so little research conducted on officials it is possible that all, some, or none of the conclusions proposed in the sport psychology literature are applicable. The possibility exists that a referee has a completely different set of perceptions than a baseball batter, free throw shooter or subject on a stabilometer. Because of these many uncertainties, it was necessary to conduct a fairly general examination of the literature, as it relates to anxiety and confidence, to determine which research would be appropriate for sports officials. 10 MW W - One of the first theories proposed to explain anxiety and it's subsequent relationship with performance, was proposed by Hull (1943) and later modified by Spence (1956). This theory, known as Drive Theory, suggests that a person's performance (P) is a multiplicafive function of drive (D) and habit strength (H). Thus, P = D X H Hull defined drive as the stimulator equivalent to an individual's level of physiological arousal and that habit strength was the dominance of a correct or incorrect response. Specifically, drive theory proposes that as an individual's level of arousal increases, it will increase the dominant response. If the dominant response is correct then increases in arousal will enhance performance in a linear fashion (generally when performing simple or well-learned tasks). However, when the dominant response is incorrect then any increase in arousal will hinder performance (very complex skills or early learning). While researchers examined the possible effects of drive on performance, other research led to a slight modification of the theory. The alteration began when Taylor (1951, 1953) developed one of the first self-report questionnaires capable of measuring chronic anxiety, the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (T MAS). The TMAS proved an effective measuring 11 tool and provided researchers with the ability to effectively measure anxiety and divide high and low anxious subjects into seperate groups to make comparisons. While research generally supported drive theory another study offered an additional twist. Duffy (1957) suggested that an individual's level of arousal was set upon a continuum and that the amount of arousal a person experiences varies from a low point during deep sleep to a high point during extreme effort or excitement. Differences in arousal (activation) in the same individual are accompanied by differences in the quality of performance. Malmo (1959) furthered this idea by suggesting that activation is a physiological response to a situation and that the greater the stimuli the higher the activation. The TMAS and Duffy's (1957) continuum proposal were the major factors that brought an additional modification in the drive theory. Spence and Spence (1966) suggested that subjects who fell at opposite ends of the high and low anxiety continuum, as proposed by the TMAS, would differ in anxiety responses depending on the level of stress. Specifically, that high anxious subjects would react more to psychological stress than low anxious subjects. As more and more studies were initiated, research into drive theory intensified. Results began to contradict the drive theory concept (Hunt & 12 Hillary, 1973; Martens, 1971 ; Weiner, 1966; Weiner & Schneider, 1971) and an alternative theory was being explored. Wheels - While drive theory proposed a linear relationship between physiological arousal and performance, the much older inverted-U hypothesis suggested a curvilinear relationship. The team of Yerkes and Dodson, in their study using laboratory mice, found that an intermediate range of intensity of stimulation (shock) proved to be the most favorable to the acquisition of a habit (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). In other words, the inverted-U hypothesis, or Yerkes-Dodson Law, predicted that performance effectiveness will increase as the level of arousal increases, up to some optimal point, whereupon a further increase in arousal will produce a decline in performance. Research into the inverted-U hypothesis served to stimulate increasing popularity and acceptance of the hypothesis. Martens and Landers (1970) provided confirmatory evidence when they found that boys who experienced only average levels of stress performed better on a motor tracking task than boys experiencing high or low amounts of stress. Additional confirmation came from a comparative field study conducted by Fenz and Epstein (1967). In their study of parachutists, they used continuous physiological recordings of skin conductance, heart rate and respiration from experienced and novice parachutists just prior to, and following, a jump. The novice jumpers 13 showed a rise in physiological activity right up to the final altitude while experienced jumpers had an initial rise followed by a decline. In a later replication of this study, each parachutist's jump was rated by a jumpmaster. Results indicated that too much arousal affected performance negatively (Fenz & Jones, 1972). Additional studies continued to lend their support for the inverted-U hypothesis. Klavora's (1978) examination of high school basketball players showed that moderate amounts of pro-competitive state anxiety had a positive effect on performance while low and high levels produced a negative effect. The same type of result was found by Hall and Purvis (1980) when they studied bowling performance and Sonstroem and Bernardo (1982) in their study using female college basketball players. W Anxiety research entered a new dimension when Spielberger (1966) refined the theories of anxiety. He proposed that anxiety was composed of two subcomponents, trait and state, and that it was necessary to distinguish both conceptually and operationally between anxiety as a temporary state and a somewhat stable personality trait. Spielberger (1972) defined trait anxiety as "the disposition to perceive a wide range of stimulus situations as dangerous and threatening, and is the tendency to respond to such threats with state anxiety reactions" (p. 39), and state anxiety as "a transitory emotional state or condition of the human 14 organism that varies in intensity and fluctuates over time" (p. 39). Spielberger (1972) believes that trait anxiety referred to relatively stable individual differences in anxiety proneness. Individuals who are subjected to high levels of trait anxiety will tend to have higher levels of state anxiety and perceive more situations as threatening. State anxiety is characterized by the activation of the autonomic nervous system with feelings of tension and apprehension at a given moment resulting from past experiences or the perception of the situation as threatening. Equipped with the idea that anxiety was composed of more than one element, researchers began a closer examination of the trait and state anxiety components. It was proposed that the various circumstances which an individual encounters can influence that person's behavior, that is, an individual‘s behavior is determined by an interaction of personal traits and different situations. To understand the effect anxiety has on performance it is necessary to consider both the trait anxiety of the athlete, the constraints of the situation (Endler & Hunt, 1966), and the notion that individuals respond differently to different situations (Endler 8r Okada, 1975). Spielberger (1971) elaborated on Endler and Hunt's (1966) proposal by suggesting that one of the major antagonists in increased anxiety is the perception of a situation as threatening. The perception of threat is 15 determined by numerous intrapersonal factors including ability, task difficulity, past experiences in similiar situations, personality dispositions, and how the athlete perceives the opponent (Mudra, 1980; Spielberger, 1971). The level of state anxiety derived from the threat perception will be proportional to the amount of threat that the situation possesses, and that the duration of the state anxiety reaction will be terminated when the situation is no longer perceived as threatening (Spielberger, 1971). In attempting to study this notion, Spielberger and his associates developed the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)(Spielberger, Gorsuch & Luschene, 1970). This device made it possible to assess both trait and state anxiety with the same instrument at the same time. While the reasons for threat perception are numerous, one of the most central factors may be the athlete's perception of threat and how it relates to success and failure (Scanlan, 1977). These factors appear to develop from cumulative success or failure experiences in similiar situations (Scanlan & Passer, 1978). Numerous studies have proposed that individual levels of state anxiety increase after failure and decrease after success (Dowthwaite & Armstrong, 1984; Gaudry and Poole,1972; Hall, 1980; Martens & Gill, 1976; Weinberg, 1979). For example, in Gruber and Beauchamp's (1979) study, women basketball players were more anxious before three crucial games than three easy ones. State anxiety was 16 significantly reduced after games that they won but remained high following games they lost. Wrestlers who competed for positions on various national teams found that those who were successful recorded lower levels of anxiety than those who were unsuccessful (Highlen & Bennett, 1979; Morgan, 1974). Successful divers and wrestlers experienced lower arousal at competition time when compared to less successful divers and wrestlers (Highlen 8 Bennett, 1983). W. The evolution of these new theories resulted in the development of a new situation-specific measuring inventory, the Sport Competition Anxiety Test (SCAT)(Martens, 1977). It became the first situation-specific device capable of assessing subjects' general expectations to feel anxious in competitive situations as well as being an excellent predictor of precompetitive state anxiety ( Gerson & Deshaies, 1978; Martens & Gill, 1976; Martens & Simon, 1976; Wandzilak, Potter 8: Lorentzen, 1982). In the development of SCAT, Martens (1977) defined trait and state anxiety in a competitive situation. Trait anxiety was defined as "a predisposition to perceive certain environmental stimuli as threatening or nonthreatening and to respond to these stimuli with varying levels of state anxiety" while state anxiety was defined as "an existing or current emotional state characterized by feelings of apprehension and tension and 17 associated with activation of the organism." With the advancement of SCAT, it was possible to accurately assess differences between high and low trait anxious athletes in competitive situations. Comparison studies soon established a couple of important points. Athletes inflicted with higher levels of competitive trait anxiety were suspectible to higher levels of pre-competitive state anxiety (Huband & McKelvie, 1986; Scanlan & Passer, 1978) and athletes who displayed superior skills generally experienced lower levels of competitive trait anxiety than lower skilled athletes (Power, 1982). With the knowledge of the effects of trait anxiety and player skill level on state anxiety, additional studies began to examine new potential sources of competitive anxiety, situations where it occurred, and the possible reasons behind it. This research uncovered a new source of anxiety by suggesting that subjects were greatly influenced by the event's outcome. Winners of competitive events remained relatively calm despite being high or low trait anxious (Martens & Gill, 1976). Winning or losing the game was clearly a very powerful predictor of post-game state anxiety with the losers having higher levels than winners (Scanlan & Passer, 1978). In evaluating differences between winners (successful) and losers (unsuccessful), fear of failure and fear of evaluation were found to be central contributors to increased state anxiety (Dowthwaite 8. Armstrong, 18 1984; Passer, 1983; Scanlan 8. Passer, 1981 ). Further research proposed that individuals who are more competitive trait anxious may be more likely to experience higher levels of state anxiety from negative thinking, feelings of incompetence, low self-esteem, and frequent worries about their performance ( Brustad & Weiss, 1987; Rainey, Conklin 8r Rainey, 1987; Scanlan 8 Passer, 1978). WWW Research into anxiety was expanded by examining anxiety as more than a one dimensional variable. Landers (1980) followed earlier researchers by proposing that new studies on anxiety be more specific. To accurately assess anxiety, a multidimensional, situationally specific measuring device was necessary. He proposed that anxiety was more than one dimensional and to only assess one aspect of anxiety was providing less than complete research. Fisher and Zwart (1982) were among those who furthered the multidimensional theory by suggesting that anxiety was the by-product of three dimensions, ego threat, outcome certainity/uncertainity and anticipation. Their research proposed that ego threatening situations would reveal the highest state anxiety responses. Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump & Smith (1983) were the first to develop and refine a multidimensional testing instrument for a competitive situafion, the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). The CSAl-2 proposed that state anxiety comprised three subcomponents, cognitive 19 anxiety (worry), somatic anxiety (physiological arousal), and confidence. Research studies using this instrument have generally verified that the CSAl-2 does assess these three separate components (Gould, Petlichkoff 8r Weinberg, 1984; Gould, Petlichkoff, Simons & Vevera, 1987; McAuley, 1985b) although Barnes, Wesley, Dienstbier, and Plake (1986) suggested that the CSAl-2 does not measure these three variables. They proposed that cognitive anxiety and confidence fall on the same continuum and that they are actually measuring the same variable. We. Other researchers examined differences between individual and team sport participants and how scoring may influence anxiety. Studies revealed that athletes in individual sports exhibited greater pro-game anxiety than athletes in team sports (Johnson, 1949; Simon & Martens, 1979) and that athletes in sports scored subjectively by judges had higher cognitive anxiety and lower self-confidence than athletes in objectively scored sports (Krane & Williams, 1987). W The knowledge that threat, fear of failure, evaluation, and subjective scoring can influence anxiety and alter feelings of competence is vitally important. This leads many athletes to strive to reduce stress in hopes of achieving successful performance. Unfortunately, one of the major obstacles to reducing state anxiety is the ability to 20 perform the necessary skills. The ability to perform can have an influence on anxiety just as anxiety can influence performance (Cook, Gansneder, Rotella, Malone, Bunker 8 Owens, 1983). Experiences with both success and failure in competitive situations often times serves as the catalyst for increases or decreases in state anxiety. Successful athletes who have achieved a high level of expectancy and self-confidence seem to be able to deal with anxiety in a way which allows them to achieve peak performance over a wide range of situations (Bunker 8 Rotella, 1980). Expectancy of success has been found to be an important determinant of contest outcomes. Expectancy is vital because it may determine the amount of effort put forth before, during, and after the contest and thus influence performance and outcome (Fleet, James 8 Rushall, 1984). Sports officials may be very much like athletes. The perception of a situation as threatening, the fear of failing at crucial moments, and being constantly confronted with subjective evaluation could cause increases in anxiety. High trait anxious officials may view more situations as threatening and see themselves performing poorly under pressure. Pre-game and/or post-game performance evaluations may serve to create state anxiety and negatively influence future performances. Officials who are capable of recognizing and controlling their anxiety will be more successful officials. They will be able to perform at their maximum ability level 21 despite the stress of the contest. Millennium While research generally agrees that sport performance is impacted by feelings of anxiety and confidence, coaches, players, and other sports authorities concur that self-confidence is a highly important ingredient when attempting to achieve success. The reason that sports figures so sincerely covet and place such a high price on the presence of self- confidence may derive from the knowledge that it is so evasive. Part- icipants know that while it may take years to capture an adequate dose of self-confidence, a sub-par performance or one critical mistake can set the feelings of self-doubt in motion. WWW Various terms defining self-confidence have arisen in sport psychology literature but the most prominent is "self-efficacy" (Bandura, 1977). Bandura described self-efficacy as the conviction one has to execute successfully the behavior required to produce a certain outcome. He makes his distinction between self-confidence and self-efficacy this way. Self-confidence is the strength of the belief that an individual possesses the necessary capabilities to perform and be successful. Self-efficacy, on the other hand, is considered to be situationally specific and emphasizes with more specificity the level of perceived competence and the level of the individual's belief. In other 22 words, the belief that one can perform a particular activity in a particular setting (Feltz, 1988). Self-efficacy is concerned with judgements about how well an individual can organize and execute a course of action required to deal with situations containing many ambiguous, unpredictable, and often stressful elements (Bandura 8 Schunk, 1981). In accordance with Bandura's theory, the strength of self-efficacy expectations is influenced by four primary sources of information; performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states (Bandura, 1977). The most important and informative of these variables is past performance accomplishments. If prior experiences are thought of as successful, they will raise efficacy expectations, if they are viewed as not being successful they will in all likelihood lower efficacy expectations. Bandura suggests that level and strength of efficacy will fluctuate depending on the difficulty of the task, the number of failed attempts when the task is performed early in learning, and whether the task is performed independently or with external aids (Bandura, 1982). Vicarious experiences influence self-efficacy by making available information obtained from observing someone perform a task that they themselves have never attempted. This technique, known as modeling, can invoke more efficacy information if the outcome of the model's performance 23 is seen clearly rather than when the outcome remains ambiguous. If people of widely differing capabilities are viewed as being successful, rather than someone who specializes in a particular technique, then observers have a reasonable basis for experiencing an increase in their efficacy expectations (Bandura, 1977). Persuasive techniques, while not as potent as one's own accomplishments, can be influential in modifying the learner's behavior. Verbal persuasion is often used as an information source because of its ease and ready availability. If feedback is within an acceptable range, not viewed as false or heightened beyond reason, and the persuader is viewed as credible and trustworthy, then persuasive techniques can be effective in modifying behavior (Bandura, 1977; Feltz, 1988). A fourth source of information that can influence efficacy expectations is emotional arousal. Emotional arousal can provide information that can affect a person's perceived self-efficacy in dealing with stressful and/or threatening situations. People rely partly on the knowledge of their physiological arousal in determining their anxiety and vulnerability to stress. Because large amounts of anxiety have an adverse effect on performance, individuals may feel more comfortable with their prospects for success if they are not overrun with aversive arousal. Fear about their perceived ability or their ability to perform can cause elevated levels of 24 anxiety that are worse than the anxiety experienced during the actual threatening situation. Increased self-efficacy is associated with low performance arousal (Bandura, 1977) and can lead individuals to believe they are less vulnerable than they previously believed and are therefore less likely to succumb to frightening thoughts in fearful situations (Bandura, 1977). Bandura's theory of self-efficacy served as the basis for much of the research on self-confidence in sport. Bandura's hypothesis regarding performance accomplishment was tested by comparing high and low self-efficacy subjects on their ability to perform a muscular endurance task (Weinberg, Gould 8 Jackson, 1979). It was predicted that individual efficacy expectations would influence the amount of effort that a person would put forth. Subjects were divided into high and low self-efficacy groups. Results indicated that the subjects in the high self-efficacy group performed better by extending their legs longer than subjects in the low self-efficacy condition (Weinberg, 1986; Weinberg, Yukelson 8 Jackson, 1980). Weinberg, Gould, Yukelson and Jackson (1981) conducted a study which attempted to manipulate the efficacy expectations of both high and low efficacy subjects. Results found that when subjects were confronted with changes in their efficacy expectations there was a corresponding change in their performance. High self-efficacy subjects again extended 25 their legs longer than low efficacy subjects. Research into Bandura's prior performance theory has proven to be highly significant in attempting to predict future athletic performance (Feltz, 1982; Feltz 8 Weiss, 1982). Lee (1982) found that another accurate predictor of athletic performance is the athlete's expectation of success. If the athlete has high self-efficacy and expects to perform well, this will probably be transferred to his periomlance and serve to greatly enhance his chance for success. Research on participant modeling has concurred with information gathered on performance accomplishments. In studying the effects of modeling, Feltz, Lenders and Raeder (1979) found that participants who observed a model perform a skill and who were then assisted in their performance attempts performed better and obtained stronger efficacy expectations than persons who were exposed to live or videotaped modeling techniques but received no assistance. McAuIey (1985a) found similiar results using female undergraduates on a gymnastic skill. Subjects who were exposed to modeling performed better than those in a control group and those subjects who observed the model and were then aided, scored higher on the performance measure than did the unaided participant modeling group. Gould and Weiss (1981) examined the specificity of modeling in their study using college females and a muscular endurance task. Their results 26 indicated that performance and self-efficacy were enhanced after observing a model who was perceived to be similiar in age, sex, and athletic ability. W Research into emotional arousal suggests that arousal has a definite impact on efficacy expectations. Lan and Gill (1984) in their study comparing easy and difficult tasks and the effects of arousal suggest that easy tasks elicited higher self-efficacy than difficult tasks. Individuals reported lower cognitive and somatic anxiety, higher self-confidence and a lower heart rate when performing easy tasks. Highlen and Bennett (1979) in their wrestling study, discovered that elite wrestlers who qualified for positions on various national teams were more self-confident and experienced lower levels of anxiety prior to and during competitions than non-qualifiers. WW While Bandura's theory of self-efficacy is the most prominent and widely tested theory regarding self-confidence it is not the only theory. Harter's (1978) theory of perceived competence, though better suited for children and not as specific as Bandura's theory of self-efficacy, proposes that an individual's feelings of competence are related to physical, social, and cognitive considerations. This developmentally oriented theory suggests that perceived competence is altered by individual successes and failures, by the individual who has control over the results, and how those results are translated by a 27 significant other. Favorable results and interpretations will result in increased perceived competence, motivation, and continued participation (Roberts, Kleiber 8 Duda, 1981) while failures will result in perceptions of low ability, decreased motivation, and discontinued involvement. Harter further proposed that the longer an individual persists in a given activity, the more experience that is garnered, the more opportunity one has to develop a sense of competence in that particular setting. W Vealey (1986) extended the study of confidence a step further by developing instruments designed specifically to study confidence in sport. Vealey conceptualized that confidence in sport was divided into two seperate components, trait and state, and developed instruments to measure each. Trait sport-confidence, which is assessed using the Trait Sport-Confidence Inventory (TSCI), represents the feelings that an individual possesses about his/her ability to be successful in sport. State sport-confidence, measured by the State Sport-Confidence Inventory (SSCI), is concerned with an individual's perception of his/her ability to be successful in sport at a particular moment. In an unusual approach, the TSCI and SSCI are designed to measure subjects' feelings of confidence compared to the most confident athlete they know. These feelings revolved around both physical and psychological expectations. To gain added insight, Vealey also devised the Competitive Orientation Inventory (COI) to help in 28 determining and defining what success means to different people. She based the COI on two different variables, performing well and winning, and that individual ideas about the value of these variables would influence perceptions of success. Vealey (1986) hypothesized that individual performance could be predicted by evaluating state sport-confidence scores. Unfortunately her research on the development of the measurement scales revealed that pre—game SSCI results were not an accurate predictor of performance although preformance was a predictor of post-game SSCI scores. Warmer! Bandura's (1977) theory of self-efficacy is considered to be situationally specific, to have an emphasis on perceived competence and the level of an individual's belief. Individual expectations of efficacy are thought to be influenced by performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. The information individuals absorb from these four sources influences their level of belief to achieve a certain outcome. When individuals have high self-efficacy expectations they have a tendency to perform better than those with low efficacy expectations. If an athlete believes in his/her chances for success they are more likely to be successful (Lee, 1982). The belief individuals have in their own ability is impacted by levels of anxiety. Successful 29 performers are more likely to feel confident and less anxious than less successful athletes (Highlen 8 Bennett, 1979). Harter (1978) proposes a person's competence is altered by three factors; individual successes! failures, who has control over the results, and how the results are translated. Harter also stresses the importance of experience. The longera person persists in an activity the more competent he/she will feel. Vealey (1986) attempts to narrow the concept of confidence by developing inventories specifically for measuring confidence in sport. She proposes that "sport-confidence" is comprised of two subcomponents, trait and state-sport confidence. Vealey predicts that performance can be predicted by evaluating state confidence. In a continuing effort to enhance their confidence, the literature suggests that officials should study and learn from their past experiences, observe other officials, obtain and evaluate feedback about their performances, and learn how to control their arousal level. Developing a strong belief in their ability to perform successfully in any situation is critical to excellence. CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 511919915 Twenty-seven high school basketball officials from the Colorado Springs Basketball Officials' Association (CSBOA) served as subjects for this study. High school officials were selected because it was anticipated they would present a wide variety of officiating ability, anxiety, and self- confidence. It was felt that most college and professional basketball officials would possess unique abilities, very high levels of confidence, and be capable of controlling their anxieties. Officials working below the high school varsity level might generally possess less ability, be less confident, and be incapable of controlling their anxieties. Fifty-five officials were targeted as potential subjects. They were selected because they had at least three years of varsity officiating experience and were currently officiating some level of high school varsity basketball. Following the completion of the protocol established by the Human Subjects Board, the fifty-five potential subjects were notified by mail of the study and asked for their participation (see Appendix A). In addition, two members of the CSBOA were contacted to ask their help in gathering 30 31 completed questionnaires and forwarding them to the author. Each subject was asked to attend a meeting where the investigator could distribute questionnaires, explain procedures regarding the questionnaires, answer questions and subjects could sign human subject consent forms. All subjects were guaranteed that their individual responses would be kept confidential although group data would be shared with the entire association. Thirty-three chose to participate in the study and twenty-seven were eventually selected for analysis. There were twenty-five men and two women. The selection of the CSBOA was based upon the investigator's knowledge of the group, their use of frequent group meetings, mandatory nlles governing attendance of meetings, strict attention to officiating mechanics and rules knowledge, and their exclusive officiating rights to all high school basketball games in the area. CSBOA members officiate with many different partners and would be capable of generally assessing each member's officiating ability. WWI: Each school is assigned to a specific classification, according to school size, by the Colorado High School Activities Association (CHSAA). Official CHSAA classifications are 1A-ll (smallest), 1A—l, 2A, 3A, and 4A (largest). For the purpose of this study 1A-ll and 1A-l were combined into the 32 classification 1A. This was done because of the large crossover in games played between the two classifications. Class 2A schools were capable of being evaluated alone as there was very little crossover with other classifications. Class 3A and 4A schools were combined because they were few in number and played within the same league. W Each subject was asked to rank each of the 55 other potential subjects on how they perceived each person's basketball officiating ability. The ranking questionnaire contained the names of the 55 possible subjects. The questionnaire required that the subject place a number beside each name. The number signified where that person was ranked in relation to everyone else. If the rater felt that someone was the best official in the group they placed the number one by that person's name. This continued until all 55 subjects, including themselves, had a number. Numbers could be used only once. Those who were ranked in the top 33% were considered high ability officials and those in the lower 33% were considered low ability officials. W In an effort to assess each subject's general and immediate feelings of confidence the Trait Sport-Confidence Inventory (Vealey, 1986) and the State Sport-Confidence Inventory (Vealey, 1986) were administered to each subject. The TSCI and SSCI contain 13 questions and are self-report 33 measures which ask the respondents to compare their levels of confidence to the most confident athlete they know on a 9-point Likert scale. To make both instruments more appropriate, the author substituted the word "official" for the word "athlete". Thus each subject was asked to compare him/herself to the most confident official they know. Validation procedures for the TSCI and SSCI involved 666 high school, college and adult subjects and took place over five phases. Both instruments demonstrated adequate item discrimination, internal consistency, test- retest reliability, content validity, and concurrent validity as well as determining that both constructs were unidimensional (Vealey, 1986). W Each official's general feelings of confidence were measured by the Trait Sport-Confidence Inventory (Vealey, 1986). The TSCI is designed to assess an individual's general feelings of self-confidence compared to the most confident official they know. Comparisons were made on numerous variables such as "ability to make critical decisions," "performance under pressure," and "their ability to concentrate." Scores on the TSCI assess trait-confidence in a sport environment and range from 13 (very low confidence) to 117 (very high confidence). The normative means for each sample group indicate moderate levels of trait sport-confidence for the high school and college/adult samples. These 34 means contrast sharply with the elite athlete sample whose mean score is much higher than the high school and college/adult samples. Such a high mean indicates that elite athletes are much more confident in a sport situation than the other two sample groups (see Table 1)(see Appendix B for a copy of the TSCI and scoring procedures). Table 1 W Group M Median L91! High 32 High Schoola 77.66 77 43 117 14.61 College/Adultb 77.77 79 16 117 17.09 Elitec 99.79 99 65 117 13.65 Totald 82.30 83 16 1 17 17.66 an=92. IDn=91. °n=48. (13:231. SEW Each subject's level of baseline, pre- and post-game confidence was measured by using the State Sport-Confidence Inventory (Vealey, 1986). The SSCI is designed to assess immediate feelings of self-confidence compared to the most confident official they know. Like the TSCI, the SSCI compared official's feelings on, among other things, their "ability to concentrate," "perform under pressure," 35 and their "ability to make critical decisions." Like the TSCI, scores on the SSCI assess confidence in a sport situation and can range from 13 (very low confidence) to 117 (very high confidence). The normative data mean scores indicate moderate levels of state sport- confidence for the high school and college/adult samples. The elite sample mean indicates a very high level of confidence. This denotes that the elite sample is much more state sport-confident than the other normative samples (see Table 2) (see Appendix C for a copy of the SSCI and scoring procedures). Table 2 hkununuadlanLktheififlzi Group M Median Lmllt High 32 High Schoola 77.64 79 32 117 17.66 College/Adultb 76.66 76 37 117 17.90 Elitec 106.19 111 77 117 11.14 Totald 64.20 64 32 117 20.16 an=88. b11:90. °n=48. dn=226. Wm In an effort to assess each official's general and immediate feelings of anxiety, all subjects were given tests to measure their competitive trait 36 anxiety as well as baseline, pre and post-game state anxiety. Competitive trait anxiety was measured using the Sport Competition Anxiety Test (Martens, 1977). Baseline, pre and post-game state anxiety was evaluated using the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory - 2 (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, 8 Smith, 1983). In an effort to make both instruments more appropriate, the author substituted the words "official" and "officiate" for the words "athlete" and "competition." W The SCAT (Marlene. 1977) is an instrument developed to measure an individual's level of trait anxiety during competitive situations. The SCAT is a 15—item, three point Likert scale, self-report instrument. Respondents answer statements such as "before I compete I worry about not performing well," and "I get nervous waiting to start the game," by responding "hardly ever," "sometimes," or "ohenf Validation procedures revealed that the SCAT possesses adequate item discrimination, internal consistency, reliability, content validity and concurrent validity. The instrument was developed by testing over 2500 subjects. Scores on the SCAT can range from 10 (low anxiety) to 30 (high anxiety). The normative data indicate moderate levels of trait anxiety for both males and females in the high school and college age samples. Males in both groups 37 are less anxious than females with college age males experiencing the lowest levels of anxiety of any of the normative samples (see Table 3) (see Appendix D for a copy of SCAT and scoring instructions). Table 3 W Group M SD 10th 812th graders malea 20.03 3.90 femaleb 22.22 4.40 College age students malec 19.74 4.66 femaled 22.60 4.87 90=129. 9 =113. 90:370. d =158. W The CSAl-2 (Martens. Burton, Vealey, Bump 8 Smith, 1983) was administered to all subjects to determine baseline, pre- and post-game anxiety. It is a 27 item, four point Likert scale, self-report instrument designed to measure competitive state anxiety. It is a valid multidimensional device that separately evaluates cognitive anxiety (worry), somatic anxiety (heightened physiological arousal) and self-confidence. Subjects respond to statements regarding cognitive 38 anxiety, "I am concerned that I may not do as well in this game as I could," somatic anxiety, "I feel tense in my stomach," and self-confidence, "I feel at ease," by answering "not at all," "somewhat," "moderately so," or "very much so." Scores on the CSAl-2 can range from 9 to 36. A score of 36 indicates very high levels of anxiety and confidence while a score of 9 means low levels of anxiety and confidence (see Appendix E for a copy of the CSAl-2 and scoring instructions). To establish norms for the CSAI-2, college male and female athletes from a variety of team and individual contact and non-contact sports were examined. Martens et al. (1983) attempted to Table 4 WW leamsooclsa lndixiduaLSmctsb Group M SD M SD cognitive 13.92 3.99 15.43 4.62 somatic 15.55 4.56 17.34 4.27 self-confidence 27.64 4.76 25.06 5.72 §n=96. b =111. 39 provide the most comprehensive and detailed analysis of the normative data. The researchers performed studies not only on individual, team, contact, and non-contact sports but they also combined numerous sports to provide crossover data. However, for the purpose of this study and in an effort to simplify and minimize the normative data, only data from individual and team sports were reported (see Table 4). Data from individual sports (n=111) were compiled from gymnastics (22 males and 20 females), swimming (18 males and 16 females), and track (35 males). Team sports (n=96) were basketball (41 males and 43 females) and volleyball (12 females). W W Subjects were asked to provide trait and baseline data in addition to data before and after three games. Because data were to be completed over a three week period, each subject received a questionnaire packet which included an instruction sheet detailing when each form was to be completed (see Appendix F). Subjects were instructed to complete the trait anxiety and confidence measures at their convenience but not less than 48 hours prior to a game and the baseline assessments not less than 24 hours prior to a game. Subjects were asked to complete the pre- and post-game inventories for any three games. And player gender should have no bearing on their decision to provide data for a particular game. State confidence and 4O anxiety materials were to be completed-not more than 30 minutes prior to the game while post-game assessments were completed within 30 minutes following the game. Subjects were asked to provide the date and time they completed the questionnaires. This helped provide a check on whether they followed the instructions. With the completion of each questionnaire, it was inserted into an envelope containing the test name or game number and the subject's pre-assigned identification number. The envelope was then sealed to insure complete confidentially and to extinguish the desire to change a response. Each subject then placed all his/her envelopes into a larger envelope and had them returned to the investigator. Win, To make the comparisons between high ability and low ability officials, descriptive statistics, chi-square analyses, t tests, and post hoc comparisons were performed on the data. All statistical analyses were conducted on a Cyber 750 mainframe computer using version 8.3 of the WWW (SPSS; Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner 8 Bent, 1975). Descriptive statistics of each official's ranking, as rated by their peers, provided the median for the breakdown of the officials into their respective groups. Chi-square analysis examined differences between groups on the variables player gender and school classification. T tests were employed to 41 compare the group's trait, baseline, pre- and post-game confidence and anxiety. In most cases multivariate analyses could not be used because the breakdown of the data provided too few subjects in each group. The Scheffe' method was used for all post hoc multiple comparisons. CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The original premise of this study revolved around the psychological characteristics of officials who were rated either high or low in ability. It was hypothesized that high ability officials would express greater amounts of confidence and be less susceptible to increases in anxiety than low ability officials. This comparison could lead to a better understanding of why some officials are thought to be better than others and why the better officials are more likely to receive the most coveted assignments. There are many variables which may eventually prove to have a direct impact on a referee's feelings of confidence and anxiety. Of these variables the official's rankings, official's age, their level of education, occupation, sports background, officiating experience, player gender and school size may hold important keys to this research. Wilkins: Perhaps the most difficult and critical area of this study involved the creation of the high and low ability groups. Fifty-five officials were originally designated as possible subjects. Those officials who elected to participate were asked to rank each of the 55 potential subjects, including themselves, according to their perceptions of each person's officiating ability in relation to everyone else. Based on these ratings, each official 42 4 3 was assigned to a high, medium, or low ability group as determined by the median of all the scores assigned to them (see Table 5). The median was used because while most subjects were familiar with all 55 officials, it became apparent when observing the data that some subjects were not as familiar with everyone as others were. Using the mean would have skewed the rankings and not offered the most accurate assessment. Of the 55 possible subjects, 33 (60%) actually contributed data to the study by completing the confidence and anxiety questionnaires. Two of the 33 participants failed to fill out the group ranking form. This left 31 officials who took part in the group rankings. The higher rated group (HRO) had 14 subjects, the lower rated group (LRO) had 13 subjects, and the middle group had six subjects. In an effort to enhance the comparisons between the high and low ability officials, the middle six subjects were eliminated from the analyses. The individual rankings, which could be considered an assessment of each official's own perceived ability relative to the other officials, proved most insightful. Two subjects ranked themselves number one (the best official in the group) while five others ranked themselves as the second best official. Sixteen subjects (51.6%) rated themselves in the top 10 and 21 (67.7%) ranked themselves 17 or higher, placing them in the upper 30 percent of the total group. Ten rated themselves in the 11 to 20 range while six felt they fell within the span of 21 to 32. Out of 55 possible positions, 44 Table 5 HIGH RANKED OFFICIALS LOW RANKED OFFICIALS Assigned Assigned Group Self Group Self Banking Banking Diff. Median Banking Banking Diff. Median 1.41 20 34.33 210 3. 60 38 19 19 35.00 3 4.40 39 37.12 4 1 3 6.25 40 32 8 39.00 5 1 4 7.25 41 8 33 40.08 6 9 -3 8.80 42 17 25 40.50 7 6 1 9.00 42 40.50 8 9.25 42 40.50 9 2 7 10.00 45 42.50 10 2 8 10.75. 46 43.75 11 12 -1 11.25 47 19 28 43.83 12 11.33 48 44.25 13 5 8 14.63 49 17 32 45.50 14 8 6 14.87 50 30 20 46.00 15 5 10 15.25 50 20 30 46.00 16 16 0 17.75 52 46.83 17 22.25 53 47.00 17 2 15 22.25 54 24 30 49.50 55 10 45 52.50 MIDDLE GROUP (not used) 19 5 14 23.00 20 23.33 21 24.00 22 24.50 23 25.00 24 13 11 25.50 25 14 11 25.75 26 27.00 27 27.75 27 27.75 29 28.25 30 25 5 28.33 31 30.00 32 30.75 33 9 24 32.00 34 30 4 32.50 35 32.67 36 33.33 (Each official was assigned their gm ranking according to their median score. Selfiank is where each official ranked him/herself in relation to the entire group. Dill. is the difference between their group and self-ranking. Blank spaces under sell-rank and diff. reflects those subjects who were submitted to the group for rating but did not participate themselves) 45 no one ranked themselves below 32. Twenty-eight of the 31 participating officials (90.3%) rated themselves in the top half of the total group (27th or better). Only two officials rated themselves equal to their group rafi ng. Three subjects placed themselves below their group rating and one of those was considered the best official by the group, thereby allowing that subject no margin for error. The largest range between an individual's self and group rating was 45. The mean difference between an individual's group and self-rating varied depending upon the group. The difference within the high ability group was 4.8 places, the middle group 11.5, and the lower group 26.1 places. All three groups combined had a mean difference of 13.7 places while the high and low rated groups combined varied 14.2 places. mm mm The combined average age of the high and low rated officials was 39.5 years (SD = 6.59). There was less than one year separating the ages of the high ability officials (M = 39.2 yrs., SD = 6.28) from the low ability officials (M = 40.0 yrs., SQ = 7.00). mm Each official was asked to report the highest level of education he/she had completed. Results indicated that all participating officials had completed high school and no subject had completed a degree beyond a master's. Eighteen officials (75%) had received 4 6 a degree from a four year college. Each groups' educational experiences are reported in Table 6. Table 6 Dif'l'll'l II III: II IEI l' Hiehflanlsada LemBanliedb High School 4 0 Jr. College 0 2 College (4 yr.) 4 3 Master's Degree 5 6 Note, Missing data accounted for fewer subjects in the high and low ability groups an=13. b11411. Qfllclallsmunatm The majority of officials in this study engaged in occupations that could be considered "white collar." The high ability group is comprised of five teachers, two principals, two computer analysts, a recreation professional, a real estate broker, a pilot, and a warehouseman. The low ability group is made up of three teachers, two individuals who operate their own businesses, a rate analyst, an electrical engineer, a manager, a financial planner, a postal service worker, and a salesman. Qfllelalzesnenslzanleleatlen. All subjects were requested to 4 7 supply data on their participation in scholastic and/or collegiate sports. Results indicated that six HROs participated in high school sports, seven competed in both high school and college, and one did not participate in either. Lower rated officials reported that five subjects competed in high school, five in both high school and college, one in college only, and one did not participate in either high school or college (see Table 7). Table 7 Olf'l'S |E|"|° tlinlLBanlsada LQIIILBanlsadb High School Basketball 11 6 Football 9 6 BasebalVSoftball 9 3 Track/Cross Country 5 3 Tennis 3 1 Swimming 0 1 Volleyball 0 1 College Basketball 6 1 Football 0 1 Baseball/Softball 2 3 Track/Cross Country 2 0 Tennis 3 1 Volleyball 0 1 an=13. '3 =11. 4 8 W Officials in this study worked both boys' and girls' high school basketball games. Data were reported for 78 games, 51 boys and 27 girls. The higher rated group worked 42 games, 33 boys (78.6%) and nine girls (21.4%), while the lower rated officials worked 36 games, 18 boys (50.0%) and 18 girls (50.0%)(see Table 8). Chi-square analysis determined that these differences between boys' and girls' games and official's rank were statistically significant, )5? (1, u .—. 78) = 6.996, p < .01. Table 8 tlienfianlseda LeLBanlsedb Boys' games 33 18 Girls' games 9 18 an=42 b[1:36. WW Another important variable that may influence feelings of anxiety and/or confidence is school size. Larger schools often draw bigger crowds, more media attention, and involve a higher caliber of play. Higher rated officials worked only seven games of the smallest classification (1 A) while they officiated seventeen 2A and seventeen 3 and 4A games (see Table 9). The low ability group officiated 4 9 many more games involving smaller schools. The LROs worked more 1A games (18) than 2A and 3 and 4A games combined (17)(see Table 9). Chi-square analysis found these differences to be highly significant, X2(1,N=76)=10.99,_p<.01. Table 9 O I O . I. I O O. I ,. 0|. .0| ,lco -I 0,. .0. _.n: O] .:,00 .03... We mastered” Classification of teams (All Games) 1A = smallest 7 18 2A 17 6 3 8 4A = largest 17 11 N919. Missing data resulted in the fewer number of games than the 42 and 36 games that were previously reported. an=41. l93:35. Wage, The influence that past experience has on anxiety and confidence cannot be underestimated. To determine how much variation existed between HROs and LROs, each groups' previous basketball officiating experience was assessed two ways. First, a comparison was conducted involving their total number of years of basketball officiating experience. This comparison revealed highly significant differences 5 0 between the two groups (see Table 10). This variance appears to have resulted from HROs having more basketball officiating experience (5.8 yrs.) than the low ability group. Second was an examination of the differences relative to officiating high school varsity games. A mean difference of 6.3 years of varsity experience proved to be significant. As shown in Table 10, the high rated groups' varsity officiating experience (12.5 yrs.) is more than double the years of varsity experience for the entire lower rated group. Table 10 “MI. E . III II ISI | ID 'I' momma Mama” Measure M .SD M SD .1. probability Years of officiating experience 14.2 5.4 8.3 4.5 2.87 < .01 Years of officiating H. S. varsity 12.5 6.3 5.7 4.9 2.91 < .01 an=13. b =11. W A brief examination of the official's rankings and the comparisons of the official's ages, officiating experience, player gender and school size revealed some interesting results. The rankings indicated that both groups of officials have strong, positive feelings about their basketball officiating 5 1 ability. These feelings may be reflected in later analyses by revealing high confidence scores and low levels of anxiety. There was an average of less than one year separating the ages of the two groups although analyses found significant differences in officiating experience and varsity officiating experience. These findings result from HROs having more experience than LROs. All subjects have completed high school and 75% have obtained a bachelor's degree from a four year college. Both high ability and low ability subjects were active in high school and collegiate athletics although one subject in each group did not participate in either high school or college sports. Frequencies and chi-square analyses found that high rated officials worked significantly more boys games and games involving larger schools than the low ability group. These differences may accompany mixed feelings of confidence and/or anxiety depending on the circumstances surrounding each game. SPORT CONFIDENCE Assessments of sport-confidence were taken from each subject on eight separate occasions. This was done to gain a more accurate determinate of group differences. Testing instruments included the trait sport-confidence inventory (T SCl)(Vealey, 1986), and the state sport-confidence inventory (SSCl)(Vealey, 1986). The SSCI served as the baseline measure as well as 5 2 for assessing pre-game and post-game confidence. Analyses were conducted using t tests and the Scheffe' method for post hoc comparisons. W209! The hypothesis concerning trait sport-confidence proposed that HROs would possess greater amounts of confidence than LROs. The analyses, using ttests, verified this hypothesis by revealing a strong statistical difference between the two groups. An examination of the group means suggested that this difference resulted from HROs generally feeling more confident about their officiating ability than LROs. Group means showed that both groups had confidence levels equivalent to those found in elite athletes in Vealey's (1986) normative sample (see Table 1). Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 11 . In spite of the value of establishing a fundamental score for state confidence, no hypothesis was formulated for baseline confidence (assessments completed 24 hours prior to a game). However, an examination of the means uncovered no statistical significance. This contradicts the trait confidence finding and appears to result from LROs exhibiting a heightened sense of confidence. A visual check of the means found that both groups experienced a slight increase in confidence over their trait levels and that both groups continued to be equally as confident as Vealey's (1986) elite athletes (see Table 2). Means and standard deviations for trait and baseline confidence are reported in Table 11. 53 Table 11 . .go 3,. 3|: ojol- 0.3:. : : 113—l :go :Io-ol:j.o| fliohflanlsada LQMLBanlssdb Measure M SD M SD .1. mm TSCI 105.79 7.34 95.00 10.15 3.09 p < .01 SSCI, Baseline 106.07 7.01 101.00 9.68 1.55 p > .10 an=14. 9 =13. W The state sport-confidence hypothesis proposed that high ability officials would express significantly more confidence than low ability officials. The pre-game and post-game analyses revealed this hypothesis to be true. Interestingly, both groups reported their post-game confidence levels to be greater than pre—game confidence. Both HROs and LROs continued to report their confidence, in all cases, to be equivalent to or greater than the levels reported by Vealey's (1986) elite athletes (see Table 2). Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 12. With both pre- and post-game confidence levels significantly different, it was fundamental to take a closer look at probable causes. Further investigation examined the likelihood that player gender and school size would impinge on official's pre- and post-game confidence. 54 Table 12 SIIS H: [il IIIII ISI IID'I' W8 LQMLBanlssdb Measure M SD M SD .1. probability SSCI, Pro-game 106.74 8.45 100.81 9.81 2.87 p < .01 SSCI, Post-game 108.26 9.41 103.75 9.93 2.06 p < .05 an=42. bn=36. The influence of players gender on an official's state confidence could be substantial. T tests revealed that both before and after boys' games l-lFlOs were significantly more confident than LROs (see Table 13). These results appear based on HFiOs expressing more confidence than LROs despite both groups continuing to have confidence levels similiar to Vealey's (1986) elite athletes. A visual inspection of the means revealed that both groups post-game confidence showed a slight increase over pre-game confidence. WWW Girls' games produced the opposite results from those found for boys' games. The pre- and post-game analyses found no significant differences between HROs and LROs (see Table 14). A visual comparison of the means indicated that both groups exhibited lower amounts of confidence prior to 55 158913 .: OJI- 0.0:. : : ”:2. ..0 -.0..0I:...0. -:0 ' (z..: umaankega LmBankedb Measure M SD M SD .L nmhabilint SSCI, Pre-game 107.45 8.52 102.28 8.22 2.10 p < .05 SSCI, Post-game 108.33 10.05 102.94 10.82 1.78 p < .05 an=33. 9 =18. Table 14 -_= our 010:. = = “:4 =10. a o=0|==lon - ' '--_n: Highflanlseda W” Measure M SD. M .312 .L nmhahilil! SSCI, Pre-game 104.11 8.07 99.33 11.22 1.13 p > .10 SSCI, Post-game 108.00 7.04 104.56 9.19 0.98 p > .10 an=9. b =18. 5 6 girls' games than boys' games. Sustaining the trend found with boys' games, post-game confidence for both groups was greater than pre-game. Despite the lack of significance, HROs and LROs continued to display very high levels of confidence. Winn In a further attempt to understand the initial differences in state confidence, t tests were used to assess the impact of school size on official's state confidence. Test results found significant differences on three of the six measurements. Significance was discovered just prior to 1A games and both before and after 2A games (see Table 15). Maintaining the trend found with player gender, significant differences appear to be the result of HROs being more confident than LROs. Both groups continued to express more confidence following games than before them. Interestingly, LROs signified their greatest levels of confidence prior to and after 3 and 4A games. This is the opposite reaction of the HROs who exhibited their highest levels of confidence before 1A games and experienced a decline in confidence as the size of the schools grew larger. Both groups, however, continued to emit very high confidence levels regardless of school size. MW While some significance was found when the groups were examined by school size, the Scheffe' method was administered as a post hoc comparison to determine if there were any statistical differences in the six pre-game 57 Table 15 .: 0‘0.- 0.0:.3 : 113-l :.0 ,..0..0I:.:0. - .00 .- 1A Games Hiohflanlsada LomBanlsadb Measure M SD M SD .1. nmhahilh! SSCI, Pre-game 110.71 4.61 99.94 8.89 3.02 p < .01 SSCI, Post-game 110.29 4.81 104.33 9.40 1.58 p > .05 2A Games WC W Measure M 32 M SD .1. nmhabililx SSCI. Pre—game 108.24 4.60 95.83 5.23 5.49 p < .01 SSCI, Post—game 110.12 6.19 96.17 9.91 4.05 p < .01 3 8: 4A Games lilohflanlsede mammal Measure M SD M SD .1. nmhahilil! SSCI, Prevgame 103.00 11.08 104.45 7.67 -0.38 p > .10 SSCI, Post-game 108.18 7.19 105.91 9.64 0.71 p > .10 aln=7. 9 =18. 0 =17. dn=6. 9 =17. f11:11. 5 8 means and six post-game means. The comparison of HROs and LROs extreme high and low pro-game means found no significant differences. This lack of statistical evidence was indicated by the contrasting F-ratio, E (5, 70) = 2.72, p > .05 (Glass & Hopkins, 1984). A comparison of six post-game means found the same lack of significance. The comparison of the extreme high and low means revealed a contrasting F-ratio of, E (5,70) = 2.49, p > .05. summmmnflnfldmm Tests to compare differences in confidence between high and low rated officials resulted in some statistical significance. Trait sport-confidence, which indicated each groups' general feeling of confidence regarding their officiating ability, revealed that HROs were significantly more confident than lower rated officials. This result confirmed the hypothesis that HROs would be more confident. This significance disappeared in the evaluation of baseline confidence although both groups reported baseline confidence to be greater than trait confidence. The hypothesis which suggested that HROs would express greater levels of state confidence was also confirmed. Test results on pre- and post-game confidence found group differences to be significant. These results are supported by a larger number of subjects in both groups. A visual check of the means found HROs and LFlOs both reported slight increases in confidence over their trait and baseline levels. The trend of significant findings was 5 9 interrupted when the games were broken down by player gender. Significant differences were found in boys' games but not in girls' games. These results led to an examination of the data by school size. Test results found significant differences in pro-game confidence for 1A games and both pre- and post-game confidence for 2A games. Post hoc comparisons found no significant differences in the six pre-game and six postgame means. Despite the significant results, both the HROs and LROs confidence levels were as high or higher than those expressed by Vealey's (1986) elite athletes. Both groups of officials were consistently more confident after games than before, and higher rated officials experienced a decline in confidence as the schools got larger while the LROs did not. The lack of subjects not only prohibited any further breakdown of the data, but also hindered the validity of those tests that were done using player gender and school size. While most tests were conducted with a small and unequal number of subjects, a similiar ratio of subjects in individual tests does account for some consistency throughout the analyses. ANXIETY While the study of sport-confidence resulted in some statistical significance, it was apparent that each official's level of confidence was constantly fluctuating. This vacillation can be traced to numerous elements. Among these factors are sex of the players, size of the schools, crowd size, 6 0 ability level of the official, officiating experience, as well as familarity with the environment. However, in spite of these obvious influences, nothing may be more relevant to an official's confidence than how well he is able to cape with his own level of anxiety. In an effort to assess these emotions and their potential impact, the SCAT and CSAl-2 were administered to each subject. The SCAT was used as the trait measure and the CSAl-2 served as the baseline and pre- and post-game inventory. T tests were used in the evaluation of these tests as well as the Scheffe' method for post hoc comparisons. WW! The hypothesis concerning trait anxiety advanced the idea that high ability officials would generally be less anxious about officiating than LROs. Analysis found this hypothesis to be false as t tests reported no significant differences between groups. A closer visual look at the means confirmed that even though both groups were lower in trait anxiety than Martens (1977) normative samples (see Table 3), HROs had a slightly lower combined trait anxiety score than LROs. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 16. Just as there was no hypothesis regarding baseline confidence, there was no proposed theory for baseline anxiety. However, analyses of the three CSAl-2 subscales found no differences in baseline cognitive or somatic anxiety but did find a statistical difference in the vaiable self-confidence. 61 This significance is a reflection of a large variance in confidence within the LROs as well as HROs reporting a greater quantity of confidence (see Table 16). Both groups of officials appeared to experience anxiety levels equal to, or less than, those experienced by the normative samples (see Table 4). Group means were in closer proximity to those subjects participating in team sports rather than those in individual sports (Martens et al., 1983). Table 16 no: - .1 =1 u :.0 do I 0| TRAIT ANXIETY magma 1.9mm” Measure M SD M SD .1. MEI! SIAT 16.00 4.28 17.09 5.01 0.58 p > .05 BASELINE ANXIETY WC mam” Measure M SD M SD .1. ambahililx cognitive 13.50 5.27 13.23 5.18 -0.35 p > .05 somatic 12.86 3.57 12.54 5.49 -0.47 p > .05 confidence 31.93 4.32 28.62 9.36 2.93 p < .01 an=14. b =11. cfl=14. dfl=13. 6 2 W The hypothesis regarding state anxiety proposed that HROs would be less susceptible to pre- and post-game anxiety than LROs. Analyses of pre- and post-game means found two variables that varied significantly, specifically, pro-game cognitive anxiety and pre-game self-confidence (see Table 17). There were no differences in post-game anxiety. These results confirmed the hypothesis for pre-game anxiety but not for post-game anxiety. The larger number of subjects in both groups helped to validate the findings. Group means found both HROs and LFiOs to be relatively low in anxiety. Also, both pre- and post-game somatic anxiety was lower than cognitive anxiety. Table 17 SIIE'IIIIll ISI IID'I' We LomBanlsedb Measure M SD M SD .1. probability Pre cognitive 13.05 4.56 14.70 3.52 1.78 p < .05 somatic 12.62 4.37 11.70 2.25 -1.15 p > .10 confidence 31.48 4.28 29.84 4.36 1.69 p < .05 Post cognitive 12.36 4.05 12.68 3.98 0.35 p > .10 somatic 11.17 3.68 11.56 3.12 0.50 p > .10 confidence 32.05 3.86 31.03 4.30 1.11 p > .10 an=42. bn=37. 6 3 Both groups continued to express anxiety levels equivalent to their baseline means and the means of Martens et al. (1983) normative samples. Because of the pre-game significance it became necessary to examine the possible effects of player gender and school size on state anxiety. Wm T tests used in the examination of pre- and post-game anxiety in boys' games revealed no significant differences between the two groups on any of the anxiety variables (see Table 18). Both groups reported levels of anxiety and confidence that were equivalent to both the normative samples and their group state anxiety scores although lower ability officials reported slightly more cognitive anxiety than their baseline measurement. Table 18 ...I.-\ u I I0 .10-IND: 0. 0 :0 ' ll Hlohfianlseda anflankedb Measure M SD M SD .1. nmhabilil! Pre cognitive 12.88 4.51 14.61 4.13 1.35 p > .05 somatic 12.48 3.89 13.39 2.30 0.91 p > .10 confidence 31.91 3.73 30.67 4.91 1.02 p > .05 Post cognitive 12.67 4.16 12.94 3.92 0.23 p > .10 somatic 11.61 4.01 11.61 3.52 0.01 p > .10 confidence 31.97 4.14 30.11 4.86 1.46 p > .05 33:33. 9 =18. 6 4 Girls' games continued to follow the same innocuous pattern as boys' games with one exception, there was a significant difference found in post-game somatic anxiety (see Table 19). This appeared to be a consequence of the HROs feeling virtually no post-game anxiety whatsoever. Continuing the trend found in boys' games, both groups appeared to be influenced less by somatic anxiety than cognitive. Both groups of officials reported equivalent or lower levels of anxiety than the normative samples. Table 19 .-.I.-\ = u I I- =Io-Io U: 0| 0 ' n- 11190331188513 LQLBankadb Measure M SD M SD .L pmbabilitx Pre cognitive 13.67 4.97 14.78 3.02 0.72 p > .10 somatic 13.11 6.07 12.06 2.26 -0.66 p > .10 confidence 29.89 5.90 29.11 3.82 0.42 p > .10 Post cognitive 11.22 3.60 12.33 4.37 0.66 p > .10 somatic 9.56 1.13 11.39 2.85 1.84 p < .05 confidence 32.33 2.78 32.06 3.64 0.20 p > .10 an=9. b =18. WWW DeSpite the few statistical differences in state anxiety between HROs 6 5 and LROs, school classification was explored to determine what impact, if any, school size had on anxiety. Analyses uncovered statistical significance on only two variables, cognitive anxiety prior to 1A games and somatic anxiety after 2A games. These differences, in both cases, appeared to be the result of the high ability officials feeling less anxious than low ability officials (see Table 20). Generally, although not in all cases, HROs expressed more pre-game anxiety and less confidence as the schools got larger. These feelings were accompanied by favorable decreases in anxiety following games in almost all cases regardless of school size. Lower ability officials established no distinguishable pattern of increases or decreases in cognitive or somatic anxiety as school size grew larger although their highest level of pre-game anxiety was found prior to 1A games. Before 1A games was the only time when cognitive anxiety was much higher than their baseline level. In addition, LROs pre-game confidence steadily grew as the schools got larger. Generally both groups expressed anxiety levels lower than those found for persons involved in individual sports and equal to or lower than the team sports normative sample (see Table 4). Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 20. W Very little statistical significance was found when the groups were 66 Table 20 ::.‘...:. H- ‘.0 :.0-.0 0:-0. .00 : 1A Games W Lcuflankedb Measure M SD M SD .L nmbabjllm Pre cognitive 11.71 3.55 15.67 4. 30 2.16 p < .05 somatic 12.57 4.24 11.94 2. 29 -0. 48 p > .10 confidence 31.43 2.94 28.78 4. 80 1.36 p > .05 Post cognitive 11.86 3.48 13.00 4.35 0.17 p > .10 somatic 12. 29 4.07 11.17 2.90 -0.92 p > .10 confidence 31.57 3.05 30.50 3.94 0.64 p > .10 2A Games W LonBanlscdd Measure M SD M SD .1. Mint Pre cognitive 12.29 3. 72 13.50 2.74 0.73 p > .10 somatic 12.47 4. 56 11.00 1.79 -0.76 p > 1.0 confidence 32.08 4. 67 29.83 5.19 0.98 p > 1.0 Post cognitive 11.29 3. 27 11.83 2.48 0.37 p > .10 somatic 9.76 1.44 11.33 2.88 1.75 p < .05 confidence 32.59 3 .37 30.17 3.49 1 5.0 p > .05 3 & 4A Games Hiahfiankade mammal Measure M f SD M SD .L probability Pre cognitive 14.59 5.46 13.91 2.43 -0. 39 p > .10 somatic 13.00 4.51 11.64 2. 66 -0. 90 p > .10 confidence 31.29 4.36 31.55 3. 11 -0. 17 p > .10 Post cognitive 13.00 4.23 12.64 4.54 -0. 21 p > .10 somatic 11.24 3.15 12.36 3. 85 0.84 p > .10 confidence 32.71 2.08 32.09 5.38 0.43 p > .10 aln=7j° =18. °n=17. d n=6. 9 =17. 7n=11. 67 compared using school size. To secure a more thorough and powerful comparison, the Scheffe' method of multiple comparison was administered as a post hoc test to determine if there were any statistical differences between the six pre- and six post-game means regardless of class. The comparison of HFlOs and LROs extreme high and low ore-game cognitive anxiety means found no significant differences. This was determined by the contrasting F-ratio, E (5.70) = 2.04, p > .05. Differences in the extreme pre-game somatic anxiety means were also not significant as indicated by the contrasting F-ratio, E (5.70) = 1.13, p > .05. Confidence continued the pattern of non-significance by revealing an F-ratio of, E (5,70) = 2.11.9 > .05. Post-game cognitive anxiety was also not significant. This was exhibited by the F-ratio, E (5, 70) = 1.24, p > .05. Differences in post-game somatic anxiety were also not significant, E (5, 70) = 2.15, p > .05, as was post-game self-confidence, E (5, 70) = 1.42, p > .05. Anxlntviummanr Distinguishing levels of trait, baseline, and state anxiety between high and low ability officials resulted in few statistical differences. Trait anxiety, which was measured by the SCAT and indicated each groups' general feelings of anxiety regarding their officiating ability, found no statistical significance. This finding was contrary to the hypothesis which proposed 6 8 that HROs would be significantly less anxious than LROs. Both groups registered lower amounts of anxiety than the normative samples. Baseline anxiety was significanct on the CSAI-2 subscale self-confidence. Cognitive anxiety was slightly lower than somatic anxiety in all measurable cases and was equal to or slightly lower than the normative samples. The state anxiety hypothesis suggested that HROs would express less state anxiety than LROs. The data offered conflicting results as it was generally shown to be true for pro-game measurements and false for post-game measurements. Test results found significant differences on the pro-game CSAl-2 subscales cognitive anxiety and self-confidence and no significance on the post-game variables. The cognitive anxiety significance may be related to HROs feeling less anxiety prior to games than after and LROs generally feeling more anxious than HROs. Despite the significance found in self-confidence, the value of the pre-game confidence means was actually closer together than their baseline means. In general, both groups experienced less anxiety than Martens et al. (1983) normative samples and reported anxiety levels equivalent to those found in athletes invloved in team sports. The pre-game significance disappeared when the groups were broken down by player gender. Boys' games uncovered no statistical differences whatsoever, while group means continued to be equal to those found for participants in team sports. Girls' games found only post-game somatic 6 9 anxiety to be significant. This difference may be a result of the HFtOs feeling virtually no post-game somatic anxiety. 1 An examination of the data by school size continued to find no substantial differences between groups. Only 1A, pro-game, cognitive anxiety and 2A, post-game, somatic anxiety were significant. High ability officials reported more pre-game anxiety as schools got larger while LROs did not. LROs highest levels of anxiety were prior to 1A games. Both groups expressed less somatic anxiety than cognitive and were usually less anxious after games than before. Post hoc comparisons found no significant differences in the six pre-game means and the six post-game means. The lack of subjects not only prohibited any further breakdown of the data, but also hindered the validity of those tests that were done. However, while a small number of subjects appeared in both groups, a similiar ratio of subjects in the individual tests does account for a moderate level of consistency throughout the analyses. CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS and IMPLICATIONS W Results of the analyses revealed statistically significant differences in trait and state sport-confidence and pro-game state anxiety between high and low ability high school basketball officials. While these findings served as the basis of this study, it was equally important to indicate that individual levels of anxiety and confidence were constantly fluctuating. Individual perceptions of anxiety and confidence seemed to be transformed with each new game depending on the circumstances (Suinn, 1980). The sources behind these changes are no doubt numerous and probably vary from official to official. These alterations may be a reflection of each official's perceived competence and his/her ability to handle upcoming situations. This study anticipated that those officials who had learned to cope with their anxieties and sudden losses in confidence would be perceived as the better officials. Moreover, it was expected that elite officials had encountered large fluctuations in anxiety and confidence, but through years of experience had learned coping strategies that enabled them to handle any situation. The four proposed hypotheses followed these lines of reasoning. 70 71 W The first hypothesis suggested that high ability officials would experience greater levels of trait sport-confidence than low ability officials. This premise was derived from the idea that better officials would have a wider range of successful experiences and would therefore feel more confident about their officiating (Suinn, 1980). Statistically, this hypothesis was confirmed. A visual comparison of the means between trait, baseline, and state sport-confidence revealed that HROs trait confidence represented a relatively consistent view of their confidence while LROs trait confidence symbolized their lowest level of confidence of any time during the study. Group means revealed that both HROs and LROs had trait confidence levels equivalent to Vealey's (1986) elite athlete sample. The statistical difference found in trait sport-confidence was the by-product of HROs feeling significantly more confident than LROs. While this analysis offered a singular conclusion, the sources behind these results were no doubt numerous. One explanation proposed that LROs viewed their comparison mates as more confident because they saw them receiving the most coveted assignments, being selected to officiate tournaments, providing direction to new officials as well as providing leadership to local, state and/or national associations. Another reason may stem from the HROs having more officiating experience. Having been involved with officiating 72 longer, HROs may have been exposed to more difficult situations and developed a more confident attitude about officiating and their ability to handle potential problems. Despite there being no hypothesis regarding baseline sport-confidence, analysis of the basal data disclosed no statistical significance between the groups. Group means showed increased confidence over trait levels as well as group confidence levels being drawn closer together. This lack of significance and sudden increase in LROs confidence is difficult to explain considering both instruments were completed at approximately the same time. With all data being collected during the season, and all of the subjects officiating three or four days a week, it was difficult for each official to have a two day time period available to complete the Trait Sport-Confidence Inventory. With such compact scheduling, in many instances, the baseline data was collected no more than one day after the trait data. This result is interesting and established a trend that generally both high ability and low ability officials expressed slight increases in confidence as game time got closer. W The second hypothesis suggested that high ability officials would possess greater levels of state sport-confidence than low ability officials. Analyses found HROs expressing more confidence than LROs and enough 73 statistical evidence to support this hypothesis for both pre- and post-game confidence. Both groups' post-game confidence were found to be slightly higher than pre-game and the confidence levels of both groups were equivalent to Vealey's (1986) elite athletes. In assessing the differences in state-confidence, player gender proved to have a significant impact. Even though no hypothesis was formulated concerning the possible effect of player gender on confidence, it was anticipated that injecting gender into the analyses would localize the results and uncover some statistical significance. Results achieved the desired effect as group confidence levels were found to be statistically different in boys' games. This significance was anticipated because of the potential influence of perceived pressures that are often associated with boys' games. Because HROs had more varsity officiating experience they would be better equipped to deal with larger and more vocal crowds as well as the criticism that comes from them. Their experience would allow them to be more relaxed and confident about their games regardless of the perceived pressures. Even though these results were expected, a visual examination of the means uncovered an unexpected finding, HROs and LROs were less confident prior to girls' games than before boys' games. Reasons for this may stem from the classification of the schools, officiating partners, prior games involving the participating schools, or perhaps a 74 previous poor performance. In any event, additional analyses were required to uncover reasons why girls' games would promote less confidence than boys' games. HROs post-game confidence was found to be fairly consistent despite player gender while LROs were slightly more confident after girls' games than boys' games. HROs consistent confidence levels may have been the result of a series of uneventful games or the development of a routine attitude about officiating. Lower ability officials may have expressed more confidence because they considered girls' games routine, they felt they had officiated very well, they found their games easier to officiate than boys' games, or they were developing an inflated opinion about their ability. An underlying cause of these unexpected levels and fluctuations in confidence may be school size. It was anticipated that school size would significantly impact confidence as schools grew larger and that confidence would generally decrease as school size increased. Results varied signif- icantly prior to 1A games and before and after 2A games. In each case the significance resulted from HROs expressing more confidence than LROs. These substantial differences were not suprising, but the location of the significance was. It was anticipated that HROs and LROs would report less confidence in games involving larger schools. However, HROs were found to be consistently less confident as school size grew whereas LROs were more confident in games with larger schools than smaller schools. LROs high level 75 of confidence in 3 84A games was difficult to explain but may be due to an unrealistic opinion of their ability. They may have believed that they are better than they actually are because they had been assigned to work larger schools. It was anticipated that because the trait confidence data would be gathered in a relaxed non-basketball environment it would reveal trait confidence to be greater than state confidence. Lower levels of state confidence would result from the officials feeling slightly less confident as game time approached. The analyses confirmed the hypotheses but the group means did not follow the anticipated pattern. A tenable explanation may lie within the testing instrument. Knowing that the officials were required to make their comparisons with the most confident official they knew, the LROs may have made their trait comparisons imagining someone under circumstances LROs had rarely experienced (boy's 3 and 4A games). Lack of knowledge about these circumstances may have led to a reduction in confidence. On the other hand, when it came time for the LROs to complete the state measures, they either found themselves in an environment that was familiar to them or they were working with a partner whom they trusted to take charge of difficult situations, thus boosting their confidence. The trait and state sport-confidence results revealed that both HROs and LROs were more confident than Vealey's normative adult sample and very 76 close to the confidence levels of elite athletes. Discovering officials' confidence levels equal to elite athletes was not anticipated. Top caliber athletes must work many years to refine the skills necessary to compete at an elite level. Countless hours of practice and innumerable games have resulted in enough success to breed high levels of confidence. In many ways officials may follow a similiar path. Unlike high school basketball teams that may play 20 to 25 games a season, officials in this study may work as many as 50 to 60 games a year. By making countless appearances in a competitive environment and having experienced enough intrinsic success to continue officiating, officials may begin to take on many of the same psychological characteristics as elite athletes. This abundance of confidence was unexpected but may be a reflection of the determination and persistence required to cope with the pressures associated with officiating. W The third hypothesis suggested that the high ability officials would endure less trait anxiety than lower rated officials. Unlike trait confidence, the trait anxiety data revealed no statistical significance. Both groups of officials experienced less trait anxiety than the normative adult sample. Baseline anxiety revealed significance only on the CSAl-2 variable self-confidence (this does not correspond with the lack of significance found in baseline sport-confidence). Cognitive and somatic anxiety mirrored the 77 non-significance of trait anxiety. These results would indicate that unlike sport-confidence, reports of anxiety did not deviate as game time drew closer. The final hypothesis proposed that high rated officials would report less state anxiety than LROs. Statistical analyses found this hypothesis generally to be true for pro-game anxiety and false for post-game anxiety. The ore-game significance may be attributable to HROs expressing less anxiety and more confidence thanLROs. This trend was maintained following games despite the lack of significance. Both groups reported relatively low amounts of cognitive anxiety and high levels of confidence when compared to the normative sample. The largest discrepancy between officials and the normative data occurred in somatic anxiety. Both groups of officials indicated far less somatic anxiety, both pre- and post-game, than the normative sample. Following the pattern of analyses used for sport-confidence, player gender was examined to determine its' potential influence on anxiety, to localize the results, and to pinpoint areas of significance. The analyses resulted in an unexpected development as the earlier pre-game significance disappeared. Only post-game somatic anxiety experienced during girls' games was now significantly different. Lower ranked officials reported consistent anxiety levels regardless of player gender. 78 It was further anticipated that school size would have a significant impact on anxiety and that both groups would experience less anxiety in games with smaller schools. Results found very little statistical evidence to support this. Analyses found statistical significance only in 1A, pre-game cognitive anxiety and 2A, postgame somatic anxiety. In each case the results were based on HROs being less anxious than LROs. High ability officials appeared to become more anxious as school size increased while LROs displayed consistent levels of anxiety and no discernible pattern despite school size. This consistency in LROs anxiety is difficult to explain. Unlike HROs, LROs may experience an unwarranted ease concerning their games. Having been selected to work larger schools with possibly a high ranked partner, they may have reported a suppressed and unrealistic view of their anxiety. Differences in trait, baseline and state anxiety were generally confined to the CSAl-2 variable self-confidence. Both groups of officials reported anxiety levels equivalent to the normative sample. This result was not unexpected after considering each official's high self-ranking and high level of confidence. Results would have appeared contradictory if the officials were extremely confident and highly anxious at the same time. Logic would propose that those officials who were continuously subjected to detrimental amounts of trait and/or state anxiety would probably not be officials very 79 long. Research indicates that officiating can be a very stressful activity (Conti & McClintock, 1983; Taylor 8 Daniel, 1987) and a strong overdose of anxiety would in all likelihood lead most officials to resign. Fenz and Epstein (1967) suggested that the lack of significance could be due to actual feelings of anxiety being supressed. In other words, anxiety does not disappear with experience, it is just inhibited better. Aresu, Bucarelli and Marongiu (1979) followed the same reasoning by suggesting that referees attempt to reduce anxiety by denying that it exists. Lower rated officials may be working many of their games with HROs and are unwilling to admit outwardly, or to themselves, their true feelings. While it is possible that they are not feeling anxious, it is more likely that they are attempting to supress their true feelings in an attempt to not to worry themselves or their pannen W20 To more accurately assess the impact player gender and school size may have had on confidence and anxiety, it would have been beneficial to combine the two variables within the analyses. Unfortunately, because of the small number of subjects and the uneven distribution of games, the results would have been meaningless. Frequencies clearly show the discrepancies in the data. High ability officials worked more boys' games in larger schools than smaller schools (see Table 21). Chi-square analysis found this difference to 80 be significant, X2 (2, N = 41) = 6.48, p < .05. However, these results are hampered by a lack of subjects in each cell so the results should be viewed with caution. Lower ability officials indicated they worked more games with smaller schools but, generally, there was an even distribution of games between the sexes and school class (see Table 22). Contrary to the high ability officials, chi-square analyses uncovered no statistical differences with LROs between player gender and school size, X2 (2, N = 35) = 0.066, p > .10. Again, because of a lack of subjects in each cell these results should be viewed with caution. Banlslnna The individual rankings and the position where each subject rated him/herself may offer the most valuable lesson of the study. Of the 31 subjects who took part in the ratings, 28 rated themselves higher than, or equal to, their rating by the group. These high self-rankings suggest a great deal of self-confidence and that the majority of officials in this study may have an inflated and/or unrealistic view of their abilities. While these perceptions may be accurate, both HROs and LROs may have reported more confidence than they actually have. They may have become accustomed to expressing themselves in a confident manner to avoid being questioned (Rainey, Larson 8 Williard, 1987). Large quantities of perceived self-confidence may be required for someone to remain an official, however 81 Table21 (”"3" .1! . 3' :.I0 -I ' _-II: Ono. :.0'I : I Classification We Wash 1A 6 1 2A 10 7 384A 16 1 Note. Missing data regarding school classification and/or player gender resulted in a fewer number of boys' games than the 33 that were previously reported. afl=32. bn=9. Table 22 O. AOHL .Jl .o -:O .|O . ' -,n: O". :m' ' I C'aSSificalion We 6108;681:128” 1A 9 9 2A 3 3 3 81 4A 5 6 N918 Missing data regarding school classification and/or player gender resulted in a fewer number of boys' games than the 18 that were previously reported. an=17. 9 =18. 82 this large dosage of confidence may also prove detrimental. If one's enhanced perception of ability is reflective of self-confidence, then an individual's propensity for improving may be negated. If the official feels he/she is already one of the best they may not take the necessary steps to improve their skills. The tendency may be to focus on the skills they do well leading to an overestimation of their abilities (Bandura 8 Schunk, 1981). ISQIJDIISSQI In assessing differences in confidence between high ability and low ability officials, Vealey's (1986) trait and state sport-confidence inventories may have unintentionally biased the data and diminished the value of the results. Both the TSCI and SSCI required each subject to equate their own level of confidence to the most confident official they know. This type of unstructured comparison forces a question fundamental to this study; with whom did the officials compare themselves? Did they compare themselves with someone in the local association? Did they compare themselves with someone they knew personally, an official they saw on television, or someone they had only heard about? Did they compare themselves with another basketball official or with an official from a different sport? In attempting to supply answers to these questions the possibility exists that the majority of subjects may have made their comparisons with someone they were familiar with and who may have 83 belonged to the local association. If these assumptions are accurate, it is also likely that individual comparisons were made with the official they ranked number one. This led to the polling of the individual ratings to detect which officials received number one rankings (see Table 23). Table 23 ID number of subject Frequency of number Overall . . l l' l' l' #32 8 1 #25 2 2 #44 2 4 #36 1 5 #18 1 6 I B I I all . I b #32 7 1 #44 1 4 #34 1 8 #31 1 10 #21 1 17 Note. Only 11 of 13 subjects in the lower ranked group participated in the ratings. an=14. 9 =11. 84 The inquiry found that eight different subjects received a number one ranking. Fifteen of the 25 high and low rated officials (60%) rated subject #32 as the best. All of the officials who received a number one ranking were high ability officials. These findings encouraged the notion that at least 15 subjects may have compared themselves to the same person. Further examination of the overall group rankings (see Table 5) revealed that only four LROs ranked themselves high enough to be in the uppermost group while all of the HROs rated themselves one of the best. With the TSCI and SSCI asking for comparisons to the most confident official they know, lower scores for the LROs were not unexpected. Lower scores were a natural result of HROs making comparisons to officials within their group while LROs made comparisons between groups. Despite this flaw, and the fact that the individual group rankings (Table 5) revealed possible inflated and/or unrealistic views of their ability, it could indicate that the LRO’s simply realized that they are not as competent or confident as their higher rated counterparts. maximum Years of officiating experience, despite it's obvious value and statistical significance, is a variable that can not be easily measured. Experience is more abstract than counting the number of years or games officiated. It is conceivable that the better officials had received more 85 adequate instruction, learned more from their games by being better prepared mentally and physically, conducted better pre-game conferences, better post-game evaluations and worked with higher quality partners. If officials falsely believe they were better than they really are, the tendency could be not to take full advantage of their experiences. They may transfer their responsibilities on to someone else or attribute their failures to outside influences. lf officials refuse to accept his/her shortcomings or fails to learn from his/her encounters, then their experience will be minimized. WNW Many other variables may prove to have a significant impact on pre—game confidence and anxiety. These variables may include attitudes officials generate about their partner, coaches, teams, past experience in a particular environment, and the amount of non-basketball related stress the day of the game. An official may encounter increased confidence and lower anxiety when working with an excellent partner and decreased confidence and higher anxiety when working with a weaker partner. Anticipating a coach being considerate or hysterical, a crowd being friendly or frenzied, or inadequately recovering from a stressful workday may cause fluctuations in anxiety and confidence. These impressions can be difficult to overcome and unknowingly skew test results. 86 Won While state anxiety and confidence measurements supplied meaningful information, it was possible that much of the post-game anxiety data may have been misleading. Sanderson and Ashton (1981) proposed that post- game anxieties may persist for some time and it is not known how long it takes for state anxiety to dissipate. The persistence of post-game anxiety was often associated with an unexpected outcome. Officiating, on the other hand, has no outcome, unexpected or otherwise. An official's own evaluation of his/her judgement, mechanics, and effort are often used to determine if an official's efforts were successful. Unlike athletes who often find it difficult to cope with unexpected outcomes, even under the most stressful game conditions, when the game is finished the officials are free to relax. Decreased feelings of state anxiety may stem from relief that the ordeal is over (Sanderson 8 Ashton, 1981). Once they are inside the locker room officials can vent their frustrations and/or get a verbal boost in confidence from a complimentary partner. It is also a time when an official can compare his/her anxiety and confidence with his/her colleague. The discovery of mutual opinions could result in a false presentation of their feelings and allow them to think that their emotions are normal. A wiser course may have been to have the officials recall their feelings during the final moments of the game. This would provide the subjects with a different 87 reference point as well as eliminate the relaxation/confidence building factor. The most accurate measure, although impractical, would have been for the data to be gathered during the game. This would result in a more precise measure and direct knowledge of the events leading to lapses or increases in anxiety and confidence. Sanctum: Within the limitations of this study, trait and state sport-confidence were found to vary significantly between high and low ability officials. These results were based on high ability officials reporting greater levels of confidence than low ability officials. Confidence levels for both groups were equivalent to elite athletes. Analyses of trait anxiety found no significant differences between groups and both groups were less anxious than the normative samples. Pre-game state anxiety was substantially different on the CSAl-2 subscales of cognitive anxiety and self-confidence. These results were based on HROs being less anxious than LROs. Post-game state anxiety was not statistically significant on any variables. Both HROs and LROs reported anxiety levels equal to those found in athletes involved in team sports. Group means revealed that both groups of officials experienced continuous fluctuations in confidence and anxiety, apparently depending on 88 the game situation. High confidence levels were not unexpected because through the group rankings both high and low ability officials expressed high perceived ability, even though their perceptions may not have been accurate. The study was hindered by an inadequate number of subjects, particularly when the analyses included player gender and school size. Group state confidence levels were significantly influenced by player gender and school size while there was little evidence to suggest that state anxiety was influenced by player gender and school size. Wild! The development of more precise measuring instruments is critical before there can be accurate research into confidence. Vealey's (1986) attempt at developing the TSCI and SSCI to assess confidence in a sport setting should be commended. However, the inventories would be more appropriate if they were sport and situation specific. Vealey attempted to evaluate both trait and state confidence, but without the inventories being situationally specific the results from both instmments take on a trait flavor. More accurate assessments would result if Vealey's sport oriented inventories were combined with Bandura's (1977) theory of self-efficacy. Future research needs to take better advantage of the theory that past performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and 89 physiological states influence efficacy expectations. Bandura's suggestion that self-efficacy is situationally specific needs be expanded. For the most accurate assessments of confidence, Vealey's method of comparing someone's confidence to the most confident person they know should be replaced by questioning subjects directly about their pro-game expectations for performing in critical situations. How confident are they about making the crucial block/charge call late in a close game, about calling traveling, inside post-play, goaltending, or dealing with coaches and spectators? Post-game evaluations should request information about current levels of confidence as well as recalling the events that created changes in confidence. By developing an awareness of the specific situations responsible for increases or decreases in confidence and anxiety, officials can anticipate these situations and prepare the appropriate strategy. To gain better insight i nto the psychological characteristics of officials, research should be conducted with those who drop out of officiating, those who referee college sports, and those who officiate professional sports. Results would help in understanding the qualitites that make good sports officials and serve as the foundation for officials' training programs. 90 lmnllrzatlcns The implications arising from this study are numerous. It was obvious that all of the officials in this study were very confident about their ability. However, the group and self-rankings demonstrated that these officials may have overestimated their ability. Because of these false perceptions and the possibility that these impressions may be common outside the study sample, most officials should be advised to progress slowly and be required to take advantage of the opportunities available to them for continued training. All officials, regardless of their stature, should periodically consider attending officiating camps, review videotapes of their past performances, join a local association, watch other officials work, and conduct extensive and honest pre- and post-game evaluations. It may be necessary to begin training officials in the psychological skills needed to deal with anxiety, tension, and sudden losses of confidence. Relaxation training may help officials recognize when they are feeling anxious, help them deal with the constant fluctuations in anxiety, and provide them with the necessary psychological tools to combat it. Lost confidence may be regained by reviewing positive experiences with game tapes or mental imagery, having a fellow official critique a performance, talking with other officials about unusual situations, or anticipating events before they occur. Albeit, this study leaves many unanswered questions, it begins to take 91 a closer look at officiating. The time has come for the ideas and theories in sports psychology to be applied to sports officials. With the outcome of athletic competitions taking on increased importance, improvements in officiating are necessary. More help should be given to the officials who, despite all the outside influences, pressures, and constant scrunity, must remain calm and confident to insure that each team is given an equal opportunity to win. REFERENCES REFERENCES Alker, H. A, Straub, W. F. 8 Leary,J. (1973). Achieving consistency: Astudy of basketball officiating. W, 3, 335-343. Aresu, M., Bucarelli, A, 8 Marongiu, P. (1979). A preliminary investigation of the authoritarian tendencies' In a group of sports referees. tntetnational Joumalflfimdfisxcholonx .10. 42-51. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change W84. 191-215. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Amgngan W31. 122-147. Bandura, A., 8Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. JgumaLnt EarsonaMndScciaLEsxcholocx. 4.1. 586-598. Barnes, M., W., Wesley, S., Dienstbier, R., 8 Plake, B. (1986). A test of the construct validity of the CSAl-2 questionnaire on male elite college swimmers. W. 11. 364-374. Brustad, R., 8 Weiss, M. (1987). Competence perceptions and sources of worry in high, medium, and low competitive trait-anxious young children. We. 97-105. Bunker, L., 8 Rotella, R. (1980). Achievement and stress in sport. Research findings and practical suggestions. In W. F. Straub (Ed.,) SDQL‘I We: (and ed )(pp 104-1 25) Ithaca, New York: Mouvement Publications. Coakley,J. J. (1982a). Intercollegiate sport. Education or commercialism Wm (20d ed )(pp 136-161) St. Louis: The C. V. Mosby Company. 92 93 Coakley, J. J. (1982b). Interscholastic sport. Instruction or disruption Wesmdedmp 111135) - St. Louis: The C. V. Mosby Company. Conti, D. J., 8 McClintock, S. L. (1983). Heart rate responses of a head referee durineafootballgame Wine. .1100). 108-114. Cook, 0., Gansneder, B., Rotella, R., Malone, C., Bunker, L., 8 Owens, D. (1983). Relationship among competitive state anxiety, ability and golf performance. MW. 5. 460-465. Dowthwaite, P. K., Armstrong, M. R. (1984). An investigation rnto the anxiety levels of soccer players lutematicnalqumaLomectflsxchclccx 15. 149-159. Duffy, E. (1957). The psychological significance of the concept of "arousal" or ”activation.” W, 64, 265-275. Eitzen, S. D. (1979a). Sport and deviance. In S. D. Eitzen (Ed.), mm W (pp. 73-89). New York: St. Martin's Press. Eitzen, S. D. (1979b). Toward an understanding of sport In S. D. Eitzen (Ed), Wt» 14) New York St Martin'sPress Endler, N. S. 8Hunt, J. M. (1966). Sources of behavroral vanance as measured by the S- R inventory of anxiousness. EmbnlggjgaLBuflgttn, 65, 336-346. Endler, N. S, 80kada, M. A. (1975). Amultidimensional measure of trait anxiety. The S-R inventory of general trait anxrousness JQutnaLgt ConsultincandfilrmcaLEsxcholcox 43. 319-329. Feltz, D. L. (1982). Path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura' s theory of self-efficacy and an anxiety- -based model of avoidance behavior. W 42. 764-781 Feltz, D. L. (1988). Self-confidence and sports performance. In K. B. Pandolf (Ed) W (on 423457) New York MacMillan. 94 Feltz, D., Landers, D., 8 Raeder, U. (1979). Enhancing self-efficacy in high avoidance motor tasks: A comparison of modeling techniques. 3mm 918W. 1. 112-122. Feltz, D. L., 8 Weiss, M. R. (1982, March). Developing self-efficacy through Sport. WWW. 53(3) 24-26 Fenz, W. D., 8 Epstein, S. (1967). Gradients of physiological arousal of experienced and novice parachutists as a function of an approaching lump. WM. 29. 33-51. Fenz, W. D., 8Jones, B. G. (1972). lndrvrdual differences In physiological arousal and performance' rn sport parachutists. WW, 34,1-8. Fisher, A. C., 8 Zwart, E. F. (1982). Psychological analysis of athletes' anxiety responses. MW. 4. 139-158. Fleet, D. R., James, T. F., 8 Rushall, B. S. (1984). Intercollegiate teams in competition: A field study to examine variables influencing contest results. lntamaticnablcumaLcLSdemhclmx. 15. 193-204. Gaudry, E., 8 Poole, C. (1972). The effects of an experience of success or failure on state anxiety level. W, 41, 18- 21. Gerson, R., 8 Deshaies, P. (1978). Competitive trait anxiety and performance as predictors of pre-competitive state anxiety. WW Wolsey 9 16-26. 3'3“: G- V- 4 Hopkins. K- D. (1984). StatisticaLmethodsJuducatlonand 951909829! (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Gruber, J. J., 8 Beauchamp, D. B. (1979). Relevancy of the competitive state anxiety inventory in a sport environment. W, 53(2), 207-214. Gould, D., Petlichkoff, L., Simons, J., 8 Vevera, M. (1987). Relationship between competitive state anxiety inventory - 2 subscale scores and pistol shooting performance. MW, 3, 33-42. 95 Gould, D., Petlichkoff, L., 8 Weinberg, R. (1984). Antecedents of, temporal changes in, and relationships between CSAl-2 subcomponents. Journal Whom. 6. 289-304. Gould, D., 8 Weiss, M. (1981). The effects of model similarity and model talk on self-efficacy and muscular endurance. MW, 3, 17-29. Hall, E. G. (1980). Comparisons of post performance state anxiety of internals and externals following failure or success of a simple motor task. WW8. 5.1. 306-304. Hall, E., 8 Purvis, G. (1980). The relationship of trait anxiety and state anxiety to competitive bowling. In W. F. Straub (Ed.,) W Amanalysimathletahehavior (pp 250- M256) Ithaca New York Mouvement Publications. Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a deveIOpmental model. W. 21. 34-64. Highlen, P. S., 8 Bennett, B. B. (1979). Psychological characteristics of successful and nonsuccessful elite wrestlers: An exploratory study. .IoumaLnLSnQnfisxclloloox. 1. 123-127. Highlen, P. S., 8 Bennett, B. B. (1983). Elite divers and wrestlers: A comparison between open and closed-skill athletes. W W. 5. 390-409. Huband, E. D., 8 McKelvie, J. S. (1986). Pre and post-game state anxiety in team athletes high and low' In competitive trait anxiety. Internatignal MW. .11. 191- 198. Hull, C. L. (1943). W. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Hunt, P. J, 8 Hillary, J. M. (1973). Social facilitation In a coaction setting: An examination of the effects over learning trials. .lgurnalm BMW. 9. 563-571. Johnson, W. R. (1949). A study of emotion revealed in two types of athletic sports contest. W, 20,, 72-79. 96 Klavora, P. (1978). An attempt to derive inverted- U curves based on the relationship between anxiety and athletic performance. In D. M. Landers & Fl W ChristinalEdsuI WW. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Krane, V., 8 WIIliams, J. (1987). Performance and somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and confidence changes prior to competition. .lQurnaLQLSpgrt WM! 1.0.. 47-56- Lan, L. Y., 8 Gill, D. L. (1984). The relationships among self-efficacy, stress responses, and a cognitive feedback manipulation. .Igurnantfimrt Esxnhnlmx. 6. 227-238. Landers, D. M. (1980). The arousal-performance relationship revisited. W 51. 77-90. Lee, C. (1982). Self-efficacy as a predictor of performance in competitive gymnastics. JnumaLcLSoQLLEmmm 4. 406409. Malmo, R. B. (1959). Activation: Aneuro-psychologicaldimension. W. 66. 367-388. Martens, R. (1971). Anxiety and motor behavior: A review. ,lgurnaLQLMthr 891180683. 151-179. Martens, R. (1977). W. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Martens, R., Burton, D. Vealey,RI, Bump,L., 8Smith, D. (1983). Ina '3 :.0“: I 9 I: Oll'I-‘v 3 . --I.-\ I 3W n' . Unpublished manuscript. Martens, R., 8 Gill, D. L. (1976). State anxiety among successful competitors who differ in competitive trait anxiety. Basaarchfluartarly, 42, 698-708. Martens, R, 8 Landers, D. (1970). Motor performance under stress Atest of the inverted- U hypothesis JoumaLcLEerscnalitundSocial Esycholcox. .16. 29-37 97 Martens, R., 8 Simon, J. A. (1976). Comparison of three predictors of state anxiety in competitive situations. W. 41, 381-387. McAuley, E. (19858). Modeling and self-efficacy: A test of Bandura's model. MW. 2. 283-298. McAuley, E. (1985b). State anxiety: Antecedent or result of sport performance. 490W. 2. 71-77. Morgan, W. P. (1974). Selected psychological considerations in sport. 39.999191112199901. 45. 374-390. Mudra, D. (1980). AhumanIst looks at coachIng .lgurnamLEnysml W190. 51(8) 22-25 Nie, N. H., Hull, C. l-I., Jenkins, J. G, Steinbrenner, K. 8Bent, D. H. (1975). W999 (2nd ed I New York: McGraw-Hill. Passer, M. W. (1983). Fear of failure, fear of evaluation, perceived competence and self-esteem in competitive-trait-anxious children. .LoumaLQLSmnflmhclmx. 5. 172-188. Power, 8. L. D. (1982). An analysis of anxiety levels in track and field athletes of varying ages and abilities. lntarnatlgnaLJgurnaLgLSmrt mm. 1.3. 253-267. Rainey, D. W., Conklin, W. E, 8 Rainey, K. W. (1987). Competitive trait anxiety among male and female junior high school athletes. WW1. 18.171-179. Rainey, D. W., Larsen, J. D., 8Williard, M. J. (1987). A computer simulation of sports officiating behavior. MW, 13, 183-191. Roberts, G. C., Kleiber, D. A., 8 Duda, J. L. (1981). An analysis of motivation in children's sport: The role of perceived competence in participation. MW. 9. 206-216. 98 Sanderson, F. H., 8 Ashton, M. K. (1981). Analysis of anxiety levels before and after badminton competition. lnt9rn9119n9LJgurn9Lot§nQrt W! 12. 23-28- Scanlan, T. K. (1977). The effects of success-failure on the perception of threat in a competitive situation. WM. 43, 144-153. Scanlan, T. K, 8 Passer, M. W. (1978). Anxiety- inducing factors in competitive youth sport. In F. L. Smoll 8 R. E. Smith (Eds.) W. Washington: Hemisphere Scanlan, T. K., 8 Passer, M. W. (1981). Determinants of competitive performance expectancies of young male athletes. .lgurnaLnt W. 49. 60-73. Simon, J., 8 Martens, R. (1979). Children's anxiety in sport and non-sport evaluative activities. MW, 1, 160-169. Sonstroem, R. J., 8 Bernardo, P. (1982). lntraindividual pregame state anxiety and basketball performance: A re-examination of the inverted-U curve. W1. 4. 235-245. Spence, J. T., 8 Spence, K. W. (1966). The motivational components of manifestanxiety: Drive and drive stimuli. In C. D. SpIelberger (Ed) Anxi9nr9n1119rmri9r. New York: Academic Press. Spence, K. W. (1956). W. New Haven: Yale University. Spielberger, C. D. (Ed.). (1966). W. New York: Academic Press. Spielberger, C. D. (1971). Trait-state anxiety and motor behavior. .lgurnal 91M919LB9091891. 3. 265-279. Spielberger. C. D. EM (1972). AW r9999r9n (Vol 1.). New York: Academic Press. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L, 8Luschene, R. E. (1970). In9_tralt;stat9 608W. Palto Alto, CA. Consulting Psychologists Press. 99 Suinn, R. M. (1980). Psychology and sport performance. InW. F. Straub (Ed.,) WWW Ithaca. New York: Mouvement Publications. Taylor A H-. & Daniel. J V (1987) W09: An_9m9i,rjgal_study. Paper presented at the First World Football Sports Science Conference. Liverpool, England. Taylor, J. A. (1951). The relationship of anxiety to the conditioned eyelid respOnse. W999): 4.1. 81-92. Taylor, J. A. (1953). A personality scale of manifestanxiety. .lnurnaLot AbmmaLandfimiaLEsxchclocx. 46. 285-290 Vealey, R. S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport-confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary Investigation and instrument development. JoumaLoLSmrLEsILchnlch. 6. 221-246. Wandzilak, T., Potter, G., 8 Lorentzen, D. (1982) Factors related to predictability of pre-game state anxiety. lntarnathnaLJgurnaLQLSmrt Esxszhnlngx 13. 31-42 Weinberg, R. S. (1979). Anxiety and motor performance: Drive theory vs. cognitive theory WWW-1.0. 1 12-121. Weinberg, R. S. (1986). Relationship between self-efficacy and cognitive strategies in enhancing endurance performance. lnt9rn91i9n9LJgurn9Lnt 59901391900991.11. 280-292 Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., 8Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: An empirical test of Bandura's self-efficacy theory. MW. 1. 320-331. Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., Yukelson, D., 8 Jackson, A. (1981). The effect of pre existing and manipulated self-efficacy on a competitive muscular leg endurance task. MW. 6. 345-354. 100 Weinberg, R. S., Yukelson, D., 8 Jackson, A. (1980). Effect of public and private efficacy expectations on competitive performance. JgurnaLQt 6090891909991. 2. 340-349. Weiner, B. (1966). The role of success and failure' In the Ieaming of easy and complex tasks WW 3. 339- 343. Weiner, B, 8Schneider, K. (1971). Drive versus cognrtrve theory Areply to Boor and Harmon W. 16. 258- 262. Yerkes, R. 8 Dodson, J. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation Joumangficmoaratmflmmlmund 12990091091. 18. 459-482. APPENDICES APPENDIX A LETTER TO SUBJECTS APPENDIX A Dear Referee, It has been quite a while since I have seen most of you and I hope this letter finds you with a full schedule of games. During the past couple of years I have been pursuing a Master's degree in sport psychology at Michigan State University. Part of the requirements to complete the program are to plan, implement and analyze a research project. With my interest in basketball officiating, it seemed to be an appropriate place for me to conduct a study. I am writing you this letter to ask if you would assist me in this project. As you well know, basketball officials can be subjected to a tremendous amount of harassment. It may be possible that this abuse can cause an increase in stress as well as having a negative impact on an official's confidence, both of which may be detrimental to performance. With this idea in mind, I have begun work on my project. As a former member of CSBOA, I know that the association and its members are dedicated to improving the quality of basketball officiating. As a current member of CSBOA, I know that you too are interested in finding out more about what may affect an official's performance. You have been selected because your varsity experience allows you to meet the necessary requirements for participating in the study. I would greatly appreciate your assistance and support although you are under no obligation to participate. However, without your cooperation the study has little chance of obtaining a valid result. Your role in the study would consist of filling out questionnaires at various times which would include just prior to and after three different games. Each questionnaire should require about 5 to 10 minutes to complete. It would require you to attend a meeting of about 30-40 minutes so I can distribute the materials, further explain the study and answer any questions you may have. I would like to stress to you that total confidentiality will ' be kept in this study. No one within the association will ever see or know about your responses except on a group basis. 101 Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and giving your participation some thought. If you are unable to attend one of the meetings listed below, I will contact you considering your participation following the Sunday meeting. Hope to see you soon. Sincerely, Todd D. Schultz 102 APPENDIX B TRAIT SPORT-CONFIDENCE INVENTORY (T SCI) AND SCORING PROCEDURES APPENDIX B TRAIT SPORT-CONFIDENCE INVENTORY Think about how self-confident you are when you compete In sport. Answer the questions below based on how you g9n9ral|y_199l when you officiate your sport. Compare your self-confidence to the W sports official you know. Please answer as you really feel, not how you would like to feel. Your answers will be kept completely confidential. When you officiate, how confident do you g9n9ra|br199l7 (circle one) 1. Compare your confidence in YOUR ABIUTY TO EXECUTE THE SKILLS NECESSARY TO BE SUCCESSFUL to the W official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2. Compare your confidence In YOUR ABIUTY TO MAKE CRITICAL DECISIONS DURING COMPETITION to the 1095190009901 official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3. Compare your confidence In YOUR ABIUTY TO PERFORM UNDER PRESSURE to the mat mnfidant official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4. Compare your confidence in YOUR ABIUTY TO EXECUTE SUCCESSFUL STRATEGY to the mast 99n1i99n1 official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5. Compare your confidence In youn ABIUTY TO CONCENTRATE WELL ENOUGH TO BE SUCCESSFUL to the mmnfldant official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 6. Compare your confidence In your-1 ABILITY TO ADAPT TO DIFFERENT GAME SITUATIONS AND STILL BE SUCCESSFUL to the 0109190019901 official you know Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 103 7. Compare your confidence In YOUR ABIUTY TO ACHIEVE YOUR OFF ICIATING GOALS to the mast 99ntir'l9n1 official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8. Compare your confidence in YOUR ABILITY TO BE SUCCESSFUL to the mgsuzmtidmt official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9. Compare your confidence in YOUR ABIUTY TO CONSISTENTLY BE SUCCESSFUL to the mast mntid9n1 official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Compare your confidence in YOUR ABIUTY TO THINK AND RESPOND SUCCESSFULLY DURING COMPETITION to the W official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1. Compare your confidence In YOUR ABIUTY TO MEET THE CHALLENGE OF COMPETITION to the m931_99ntid9n1 official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12. Compare your confidence in YOUR ABIUTY TO BE SUCCESSFUL EVEN WHEN THE ODDS ARE AGAINST YOU to the Wm official you know. Low Medium ngh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13. Compare your confidence in YOUR ABIUTY TO BOUNCE BACK FROM PERFORMING POORLY AND BE SUCCESSFUL to the machcnfidam official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W199 The TSCI is scored on a 9-point Likert scale. Responses range from: 1- low confidence to 9 - high confidence. The TSCI score is obtained by summing the 13 responses. 104 APPENDIX C STATE SPORT-CONFIDENCE INVENTORY (SSCI) AND SCORING PROCEDURES APPENDIX C STATE SPORT-CONFIDENCE INVENTORY Think about how confident you feel 00010901 about officiating successfully In the Upcoming competition. Compare your self-confidence to the matsfltmnfimm sports official you know. Please answer as you really feel, not how you would like to feel. Your answers will be kept completely confidential. How confident are you 0901.091! about officiating In the upcoming contest? (circle number) 1. Compare the confidence you feel rign1_ng.w in YOUR ABILITY TO EXECUTE THE SKILLS NECESSARY TO BE SUCCESSFUL to the 0191199000901 official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2. Compare the confidence you feel 000L099 in YOUR ABILITY TO MAKE CRITICAL DECISIONS DURING COMPETITION to the W official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3. Compare the confidence you feel 0001091! in YOUR ABILITY TO PERFORM UNDER PRESSURE to the W1 official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 4. Compare the confidence you feel 0901.090 in YOUR ABIUTY TO EXECUTE SUCCESSFUL STRATEGY to the mstmnfldmt official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5. Compare the confidence you feel rlgntngw in YOUR ABIUTY TO CONCENTRATE WELL ENOUGH TO BE SUCCESSFUL to the mgstcgntidam official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 6. Compare the confidence you feel rjghtngn in YOUR ABILITY TO ADAPT TO DIFFERENT COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS AND STILL BE SUCCESSFUL to the rngstgnnfidmt official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 105 7. Compare the confidence you feel 0901090 in YOUR ABILITY TO ACHIEVE YOUR COMPETITIVE GOALS to the rngstmntidmt official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8. Compare the confidence you feel rigntngn in YOUR ABILITY TO BE SUCCESSFUL to the mast 99ntid9n1 official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9. Compare the confidence you feel 0001091! in YOUR ABIUTY TO THINK AND RESPOND SUCCESSFULLY DURING COMPETITION to the [00.61.900110601 official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Compare the confidence you feel fightngw in YOUR ABIUTY TO MEET THE CHALLENGE OF COMPETITION to the mastmnfidmt official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11. Compare the confidence you feel 0901.099 in YOUR ABILITY TO BE SUCCESSFUL BASED ON YOUR PREPARATION FOR THIS EVENT to the 109.51.690110601 official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12. Compare the confidence you feel 0001.001! In YOUR ABIUTY TO PERFORM CONSISTENTLY ENOUGH TO BE SUCCESSFUL to the [096199000601 official you know. Low Medium High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13. Compare the confidence you feel 0901.090 in YOUR ABIUTY TO BOUNCE BACK FROM PERFORMING POORLY AND BE SUCCESSFUL to the 10961990110601 official you know. Low Medium ngh 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W The SSCI is scored on a 9-point Likert scale. Responses range from: 1- low confidence to 9 .. high confidence. The SSCI score is obtained by summing the 13 responses. 106 APPENDIX D SPORT COMPETITION ANXIETY TEST (SCAT) AND SCORING PROCEDURES APPENDIX D SPORT COMPETITION ANXIETY TEST (SCAT) Below are some statements about how persons feel when they officiate in sports. Read each statement and decide if you HARDLY EVER, SOMETIMES, or OFTEN feel this way when you officiate basketball. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend to much time on any one statement. Remember to choose the word that describes how you usually feel when officiating basketball. 0991019191 sometimes 9.1190 1. Officiating with others is socially enjoyable. 1 2 3 2. Before I officiate I feel uneasy. ' 1 2 3 3. Before I officiate I worry about not performing well. 1 2 3 4. I am a good sportsman when l officiate. 1 2 3 5. When I officiate I worry about making mistakes. 1 2 3 6. Before I officiate I am calm. 1 2 3 7. Setting a goal is important when officiating. 1 2 3 8. Before I officiate I get a queasy feeling in my stomach. 1 2 3 9. Just before officiating I notice my heart beats faster than usual. 1 2 3 10. I like to officiate in games that demand considerable physical energy. 1 2 3 11. Before I officiate I feel relaxed. I 2 3 12. Before I officiate I am nervous. 1 2 3 13. Team sports are more exciting than individual sports. 1 2 3 14.. I get nervous waiting to start the game. 1 2 3 107 15. Before I officiate I usually get uptight. 1 2 3 Wm AII SCAT itmes are scored 1: Hardly Ever; 2 = Sometimes; 3 =- Often. An overall SCAT score is computed by omitting items 1,4,7,10, and 13, reverse scoring items 6 and 11 and summing the item scores. 108 APPENDIX E COMPETITIVE STATE ANXIETY INVENTORY - 2 (CSAI-2) AND SCORING PROCEDURES APPENDIX E COMPETITIVE STATE ANXIETY INVENTORY - 2 A number of statements which officials have used to describe their feelings before officiating are given below. Read each statement and circle the appropriate number to the right of the statement to indicate Wm- at this moment. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement. but choose the answer which descnbes your feelings Hellman. very not at moderately much afl___somenbaL_so___so_ 1. I am concerned about this game ............................. 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ............... 4 2. I feel nervous ......................................................... 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 3. I feel at ease ........................................................... t ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 4. l have self-doubts .................................................. 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 5. I feel jittery ........................................................... 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 6. I feel comfortable ................................................... 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 7. I am concerned that I may not do as well in this game as I could .................................... 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 8. My body feel tense .................................................. 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 9. I feel self-confident ................................................ 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 10. I am concerned about losing .................................... 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 11. I feel tense in my stomach ...................................... 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 12. I feel secure ............................................................ 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 13. I am concerned about choking under pressure ....... 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 14. My body feels relaxed ............................................. 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 15. I'm confident I can meet the challenge .................... 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 16. I'm concerned about performing poorly ................. 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 17. My heart is racing .................................................. 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 18. I'm confident about performing well ...................... 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 19. I'm worried about reaching my goal ....................... 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 .......... 4 20. I feel my stomach sinking ....................................... 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 109 21. 24. 25. 26. 27. I feel mentally relaxed ........................................... 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 I'm concerned others will be disappointed in my performance ............................ 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 My hands are clammy ............................................. 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 I'm confident because I mentally picture myself reaching my goal ......................................... 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 I'm concerned I won't be able to concentrate ............................................................. 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 My body feels tight ................................................. 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 I'm confident of coming through under pressure ................................................................. 1 ................ 2 ................ 3 ................ 4 Wm Items 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22 and 25 are included in the "cognitive” anxiety subscale. ltmes 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, and 26 are included in the "somatic" anxiety subscale. Items 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24 and 27 are contained "confidence" subscale. Only item 14 (somatic subscale) is reverse scored. The score of each subscale is obtained by summing the items. 110 APPENDIX F INSTRUCTION SHEET APPENDIX F INSTRUCTION SHEET When completing the questionnaires, it Is essential that you not communicate your responses to anyone. Please answer the questions in reference to how you really feel and not how you think you are supposed to feel. There are no right or wrong answers. All your responses will be kept completely confidential. Consent Form These five are to be completed at the meeting site. The Demographic SCAT and Trait sport-confidence are asking how you SCAT usually feel in regards to the items listed below. Trait sport-confidence When all five forms are completed, please return Rating Sheet them to the Investigator. If you are unable to complete them at the meeting, complete them at your convenience, put them back In the packet and return them after completing all other forms. State sport-confidence These are to be completed a minimum of 24 hour CSAI-2 prior to a game. After completing, insert them along with your Game 1 packet, into an envelope and mail to . Individual game packets' Each game packet contains five forms. The first two are labeled BEEQBE and are Labeled: Garnet to be completed not more than 30 minutes Game 2 prior to the game. The last three are Game 3 " labeled AELEB and are to be completed not more than 30 minutes after the game. After completing the forms, insert the game packet Into one of the business envelopes and mail to . You will repeat this procedure for three games. " Each individual game packet contains the same questionnaires. Although it may become reduntant answering the same questions, it is necessary to assess each Individual under different circumstances. " Following the completion of the third game, please make sure all the forms are completed and return them to . He is going to collect them and return them all at the same time. Thank you for your help. ' 111 APPENDIX G DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX G DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ID# Date 1) Age: 2) Occupation: 3) Highest Education Degree: Less than high school High school Jr. College College (4 year) Master's Doctorate Other 4) Years of basketball officiating experience (including this year): 5) Years of officiating high school varsity basketball (including this year): 6) Have you ever officiated any level of college basketball? ( Jr. College, JV, Varsity, Women) 7) Did you ever participate in high school sports? yes no If yes, what sports 8) Did you ever participate in college sports? yes no If yes, what sports 9) On an average, how many times do you tell yourself to relax during a game. 10) On an average, how many times do you mentally replay games or situations you have encountered? 112 APPENDIX H POST-GAME SUMMARY 1) 2) 3) 5) 6) APPENDIX H Date Time POST-GAME SUMMARY ID# This game involved: boys girls Home team Score Visiting team Score Overtime __ Technical fouls: Number on home team coach Number on visiting team coach How difficult was this game to officiate? 1 2 3 4 5 very easy easy moderate difficult very difficult How well do you think you officiated this game? 1 2 3 4 5 very poor poor OK good very good Prior to the game, how would you rate the amount of stress you experienced today. 1 2 3 4 5 none a little moderate very extremely bit stressful stressful 113 APPENDIX I INFORMED CONSENT FORM APPENDIX I INFORMED CONSENT FORM Michigan State University School of Health Education, Counseling Psychology and Human Performance Investigator: Todd D. Schultz l, . hereby agree to participate as a volunteer in a study examining the effects of confidence and anxiety on basketball officials as an authorized part of a master's study at Michigan State University under the supervision of Wag. The study and my part in the study has been defined and fully explained to me and I understand this explanation. I have been given an opportunity to ask questions and inquiries have been answered to my satisifaction. I understand that my participation in this study does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. I understand that any data or answers to questions will remain confidential with regard to my identity. Within these restrictions, results of the study will be made available to me at my request. I further understand that I am free to withdraw my consent and discontinue my participation at any time. Date Subject's Signature 114 APPENDIX J DATA DICTIONARYI RAW DATA APPENDIX J DATA DICTIONARY/ RAW DATA QABD COLUMN MABIABLE CODE 1 1-2 Subject ID 01-55 3-4 Subject Age Age in years 56 Occupation 7 Highest Education 1 Less than high school Degree 2 High school ' 3 Jr. College 4 College (4 yr.) 5 Master's 6 Doctorate 7 Other 8-9 Basketball 01-99 Officiating Expenence 10-1 1 Varsity 01 -99 Officiating Expenence 12 Ever officiated 1 yes college basketball 2 no 13 Ever participate in 1 yes high school sports 2 no 14-17 High school sports participated in 1 basketball 2 football 3 baseball/softball 4 track/cross country 5 tennis 6 volleyball 7 swimming 115 18 1 9-22 23-24 25-26 27-41 42-54 55-67 68-80 1-14 1 5-80 Ever participate in college sports College sports participated in Tell self to relax during game Mentally replay games SCAT TSCI SSCI (baseline) CSAI-2 (baseline) CSAl-2 (baseline) Group Rankings 116 1 yes 2 no 1 basketball 2 football 3 baseball/softball 4 track/cross country 5 tennis 6 volleyball 7 swimming 01-99 01-99 A Hardly Ever 2 Sometimes 3 Often 1 Low 5 Medium 9 High 1 Low 5 Medium 9 High Not at all Somewhat Moderately so Very much so hum-3 Not at all Somewhat Moderately so Very much so hONd 01-55 3-29 30-42 43 44-70 71 -80 1-3 7-8 Group Rankings ‘ Game number Pre-game CSAI-2 (pretest) SSCI (pretest) Post-game CSAl-2 (posttest) SSCI (posttest) SSCI (posttest) Player gender Classification of teams Winning team Winning margin 117 01-55 Not at all Somewhat Moderately so Very much so Pam-l- Low Medium High cool-e N Not at all Somewhat Moderately so Very much so accrue Low Medium High (0014 Low Medium High (0014 4 boys 2 girls 1A 2A 3&4A (ION-4 —L Home team 2 Visiting team 01-99 10 1O 11. 12 13 2-80 1-13 2-80 1-13 Technical fouls on home team Technical fouls on visiting team Difficulty of game to officiate How well did subject think they officiated Level of stress prior to game Game number Same as Card 5 Same as Card 6 Game number Same as Card 5 Same as Card 6 118 Ch-bODNd (”PUMA U'I-hOJNA I0 very easy easy moderate difficult very difficult very poor poor (X good very good none a little bit moderate very stressful extremely stressful 0138 3110711213412 0704212323322322321789999997999999999999999991141141141141 44114244214114 05185206072217092530310155512050210208294049484303233437263316043614321213534415 452446194727421041115435392838 11114114114114144134314214114999999999999921141141141141443241143143149999999999 9991111900233 21214114114114144114214214114999999999999921141141141141442141142141149999999999 9991322510453 31124113114114144124114314114999999999999921141143141141443144144143149999999999 9992310900151 03 99988879888883111143141141 44114214213214 11314114314114144114114114114999888999989923141141141141441141141141149998888999 8992310800142 2141411411411414411411411411499998989998992313214314144332132123122147997686776 6791121001323 31314114114114144114114114114999988989889923141141141141441141143131149998898889 8991320500342 0428 2090421251 2 0003311323322331311787689876987677667777788784232234133233 43213212413213 27185516051749092524480342413954360610472051503204333519302111014808281238534307 442234025240311323144529371528 11432223413213243213213413113788887787878622142143131142432133143121138887887887 8871399910433 21314214313214333313214343213888788788778822142142142143432132143132148887897888 7882299910442 31414214314314243213314413223878779788778722142143132142432132142131147887887887 8771399900342 0530 4050321213 113 0210322321222312332889787798898888888888888883221131141141 24114313112114 13374615123920194127530530423147170618482952434002242625511404011611280321543322 552332103545340750094938360844 11223113114123134114114112114888888888888722132132141141341142131121148888888888 8881311900342 ‘ 21114114114114144114114112114888888888888821141141141141441141141131149999999999 9991213200251 31114114114114144114114111114888888888888821141141141141441141141121148888888888 8882220500241 0836 512111123 2 0210323333322332221777878978787777788887877874322323232142 43213114213213 16295022131228062735540334172653250524462151523107302318384509014419110439554120 421432024748400837154336331049 11214111114114214314314214214787967876868621111141111141143243142341148998789789 7871311400341 21214121214114114214414313314877877778778622222133241131232244132143248898989789 7991312010443 31212112314122113213212322423678867666757721141121141141142132142132147778789787 6882312400231 1139 505002121 2 1003321313312331211577687666875557688778778753231232131131 33114213213123 . 37055017154531062126300254244855530313440938222918391946321417014011494735345107 411052084223282543042012331636 119 1131412321311323311321321311388877878877762313113113114233113214213113 21214114214124143114113113113888887778787723141132131232331132132131138655687687 8771212611343 31214114213114133213114213123776788687877722231231131141331131141231148875757678 6751212200443 1340 5100522 2 0100231313321332321776887877788887788788888871231242231141 24114113113124 46275221024547113522400320423848140708432839341906102329303301043209180525494112 555124173650531844265413311537 11223223223114233213214113123787887777777621141141241141241141132131248888888888 8772311200353 21114114214114144114413113214888878888787721141141141141441141131141148888888888 8872324300244 31223114124113124114113213114788777787777821141141141141343141131141248888888888 8872320400353 1446 51816112 13 0205222322223212321787778 06345102081244095035261337175236551819380145275305281421333920074922402904463015 234741312411541632034348251042 11223123213113124213443113213777677887878821141142141131141141131143138888988889 8982112300332 21223223213113144213213114213888878988898821141141141141341132121132139899888999 8992311900352 31223113213113234113113113213788767887888921131111141131141131141132138888898889 8891114200242 1649 3080511213413 0204322323221212221777877777888698888888779981141211141211 34214112214124 55303147051917071432430848180810151627442635383402202836295021010903480422454937 411123125139334042535424522513 11111114214314134214213212214888887788878723331334344334242132212122248887977978 8881321210542 21223112214124124214113214114789898978989721141141141141442141142141149999999899 8991910200353 31124114124124134214212214114889889889889721141141141141341141131131149998999889 9971123800153 . 1836 412121131 131 1005322321333322311899989789999999997899889994313211131141 34114112434114 12293541023239103343510422521955130905461650443101213028454906031807270817544215 362034114053471425264824233738 11111111114114144111112114114999999999999923212122213413222432224412425555555555 6441911010533 21332333144132114234221324144799899999999921111141141141441141141141149999999999 9992210200453 31332223333132223212222323124667686655576621111141441141441141141141149999999999 9991321500544 1939 2131011124 2 0102211313312321211899888888998888888789879884141491141131 44114114114114 17155519183435082021500748533852160105423754513804112423252603022714282930494008 483147124539411322434433321009 11314113214114144113114114114799897897999821141141141141441132141141147988898889 9782214100141 21414114114114144124114114114899898998999821131131141141441141141141148898899889 8881120401241 120 31423114114114144114114114114889988799898824141142141141441141141141148887988988 9891220100242 2231 40503212 2 0700323332333323333887988888885588899999889884221211111142 44214214214114 14225008090708212351320533243355451544250417355213414212434020014818490319542928 393837533827261847104831300211 11422122323122224214212214114988989999998723323124311222322122134111128658857555 857131100033 21431321312112223312411312113788888886788821111142141111412191131131149888888888 8881110200252 31 2443 3060311123 2 0002321321333323322777687788788787777888788884331331241341 24334214113113 33385125232234061840520529431053280915541144551902202421323708034907140426483113 411637014542391246174750353036 11422124114124114114314214114888788788988924321141141141141241141141148998899889 8891399900353 21332423314124114324114114114899888887888921141141141141241342131141148898887887 8892113900351 31432434314114234124313214114889889878888924141141141141441141131131148888899797 8891116100453 2543 52119112143154 0007323333311331221988899999999998879888888883131141241141 34114412221124 38304718033517074129480840525354341319262546272802211505373112015504450823444309 492450145133201038163239221142 11313114214124124214213323114888898888899823211131141141241141142131148888888888 8881221500343 21314114114114144114113321124888888888888821141141141141441141112111148888999999 9992210201354 31322122224124124324242221224888889988888823141141141141443141122131148899999998 9891310700553 2833 507071113 113 0203312313112331321898888788888888888878887883141141141241 44114314213124 28463003081528161733470534491853250609541941523202243114501110013508430748394013 372942125536200421224445272351 11114423124124134113214123114888888878888823241241241241332143143134148788878888 8882220400343 21 31223123214123124314313324124887787778877822222232232232232122122132236777778777 7771311300433 2933 205031113422 01012113132123313118551769656856 28263920191133071621470631351755230508522445544004273622303713024812321443514618 490350014438251041095329341542 11114114114114244114114114114687787878887821141141141141441141141141147788768878 8781121510343 21 31 3037 509071113 2 02003223233113313217877878888788 121 10284018112642293435440436482748370812502552545506532417380923035105183049313213 331 5470245192201 4307392021 1441 11223214124114134114114114124877888888888721141141141141441141131141148888888888 8881212500543 21223212913113143113112113114887767777776821141141141141341141131141148888888888 8882112000354 31332332223123223223212213223877777677787722222222231132332131122131137777777777 7772211400444 3132 4121011241 2 0000311313311331311898999998899999999999999991141141141141 44114114114114 11304417062924182814371038532555271218472843382304071932454802014803350820543913 504921055242310951223341401534 11114114114114144114114114114999999999999921141141141141441141141141149999989988 9881210900441 21114114114114144114414114114999999999999921141141141141441111141141149 99999999 9991320700451 31114114114114144114111114114999999999999921141141141141441141141141149999999999 9991110400451 3245 52525112143114 0003321313121232211888888888888888888888888881141141141141 44414114112114 40174518101933074134480331473955160915354849503601322528273011022905130437512221 521428063853231224204354440842 11114114114144144114114114144888889888888821941141141141441141141121148888888888 8882220800251 21114114114114144114114114114888888888888821141141141141441141141121148888888888 8881321300441 31114114114114144114114112114888888888888821141141141141441141141121149999999999 9992110600151 33 77877778777773232232132131 33223213213223 11423223223213233213213213223788788888787721141142231131431143132132148898888988 9882121800242 21213113213213133213213212213877667777767623132232131131331132132132138778877888 8772111200242 31313214223213143213314213112778767787777722111141141141432141132132138988887888 8881122000353 3641 4111011135211 0702322323311323231988999899988899998999897991141141141231 14114114114114 40454622214120141039520419502849181216151743554203353038314424023705320113543808 511129085323280933074847272534 11324134114124124114114114114799988888989921141123121141441231144132147879979989 6891223101331 21111121114114144114114214114999999999889921222131141131442111143141147899889988 7871122300332 31432123124114134224123124124999989899999923141141241141241141123144249999999999 9991310600452 3727 3060511421 2 0302222323312322321887787887787878778888888882231232141141 34214314214214 11465428124914103126500129382555150419412242343503433723383008024718210713513918 444033055248240827095332172045 11222124224114134224214214114777887788788822132142141131442141144141147878878777 8871321102443 122 21213113214113134114213214114777888877677721141142141131442132132141147788787877 7772399900342 31114113214113134124113214113787878777887821141141141141442242132141147788787787 7882122200251 3843 5050222 12 0302221322311321211877898998898898878799897882141442991142 44144414414111 47382928271137052223381250083044311007321548264521194835185413144901433408245517 511852033925090442024133532040 11114233233113334114314113114888798988988921141141141141441141141141149889989989 9892111201443 21114114314214244214213112113888887888888821141141141141441141141141149999999999 9991310400453 31212113114113144223212114222888988888998921141121131131341141121141149889989999 9892110110452 3936. 51513118135181350003321313311331311888888899898899998999999992141231141141 34124112114114 24284127113038132537990633991299230714352299992102992831992015019918100439990818 422938059999191740039932340999 11223123124113124124112114114899998999999922231231241141241141121141248999898899 9992320300352 21114114111114144114114114124999999999999921231231241141241241121141249999999999 9991111000252 3111412 11411414411411411411499999999999992114114114 141441141141141149999999999 9992120200443 4037 2120721213 2 0505322323322322322787787877887778878878878874321232242241 24233323222234 22375516152831102023490535253044170821543451433902381941382909014014180333482808 amummaummnwuflmm 11432223224233124233223223233887788888878823232242232242332333232242238798788798 8881312401342 21223223113113124123214213113988789888998823111113242141141241142142148898787989 8891111800342 31322223224223224233223223223889989899989923221112241232242342232242238899879998 8891110300555 4244 5181811134 2 0000221122322212222889998789998898888889988982231131241221 24124112114124 , 14283713252736081118500453350555281510512952491703123038192009014821392223474031 320242074641341845084433542443 11223113124122124124112114124988888899889822231131241221241241121141249998889898 8981120200342 21111112111111111114312112214999889889999821111131111141341143122231149999898989 7992220510442 31111111114122124134312213124999898989988921111141141141441343131111149999999999 9991220100352 4443 4161311214311 0302311312211321311787787788777888888888898981141141141141 44114114114114 10283913182247152738480451292653230919351 138482105203212451407034424500625414216 553334014937540231083043521740 11114114114114144114114114114888888888989821141141141141441141141141148888988888 8981312200241 21114114114114144114114114114999899899989821141141141141441141141141149999889999 8991320800341 31114114114114144114114114114999999999999921141141141141441141141141149999999999 9991312600241 123 4534 404022114 2 0310312323311322321888788897887778878888887882221232141141 44214214214114 25105245064822321746360249503429052809531941073114303527133304012112230342514024 553937182043280854154716441138 11222212313114122213112213213677776776787622232112131131332131132132147877876887 8882211800424 21114114214114144114114114114888778887887821141111141141441141142 31147787877787 8771210900142 31223214214114144213114214113888778778888821141141141141442141142141148778888888 7882210700242 4850 40707217 2 0407322323321212322485466757854776567487758752132122133231 23323212313213 21233517101820083043490245335152382824421448474112381819392708013713150999484007 502829059932250499113431220344 11223223313123124212213212313657848476567421143143132144443133122132137767688768 8872121800342 21114312323113143313412213213876778778868723323233232232132123232132236576557787 6782199900332 31322213323212123213212312212677667875668821132132131131431132142132138787887788 7781199900243 4738 40804214 2 0003312313322331211888888988888898889899889892141111111141 44114114114114 23155328271424083435450511401054300709393846473302202931283222014803081837554412 431952185149251336174121500442 11222124211213133213313314113777877787888822144142241141441141132141148889989988 9991222000442 21114114114114144114114114114998998999999921141141141141441141141141149999999989 9992199900251 31214114114114144114114114114999999999999922141141141141441141141141149999999999 9991112500351 4851 21918111 11 0307321313332333322888888888888888899888899891111111141141 44114114114114 25355511232430123129360320454450180917512839473704263210481508084907130521524018 542243014842330238274134141953 11122114114114144114114114114888889888888821141141141141441141131141149999999999 9991299900251 21223123114114124114113113114899898998999921141141141141441141141141149999999999 9991214500152 31223123113113134113123114114888898888888822142131131141441141131141148888888888 8881310900353 5129 5080821214 12 0005211313331221311798898788897989879888888981141141141141 44114214114114 13402617543437041421430315321835551646232436485305112539473822014209411052305112 314445025029280727061920330849 11322112223112223213214212223887888788788721121141141131141442111131248998998889 9992210400355 21114114213114144114212213114898788778778822132142141141241342112232148988988898 8981121001342 ' 31 5436 5121012 2 0202311313311331311999999999999999999989998991141141141141 44144144114114 48225421072023081828420934334547101441491148244303442726324013013908120229553015 521737043631192550183553510538 124 11114114224114244214114424114887888888999723222232232142232132232131138788788778 8891210402341 21114114114114144114114114114999999999999921141111141141141241141141149999999999 9991311901344 31223124124114134213112114114898889999999921141141141141441141141141149999999999 9991210900354 125