The effects of arousal reappraisal on stress responses, performance and attention

ABSTRACT

Background and Objectives: This study examined the effects of arousal reappraisal on cardiovascular responses, demand and resource evaluations, self-confidence, performance and attention under pressurized conditions. A recent study by Moore et al. [2015. Reappraising threat: How to optimize performance under pressure. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 37(3), 339–343. doi:10.1123/jsep.2014-0186] suggested that arousal reappraisal is beneficial to the promotion of challenge states and leads to improvements in single-trial performance. This study aimed to further the work of Moore and colleagues (2015) by examining the effects of arousal reappraisal on cardiovascular responses, demand and resource evaluations, self-confidence, performance and attention in a multi-trial pressurized performance situation.

Design and Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to either an arousal reappraisal intervention or control condition, and completed a pressurized dart throwing task. The intervention encouraged participants to view their physiological arousal as facilitative rather than debilitative to performance. Measures of cardiovascular reactivity, demand and resource evaluations, self-confidence, task performance and attention were recorded.

Results: The reappraisal group displayed more favorable cardiovascular reactivity and reported higher resource evaluations and higher self-confidence than the control group but no task performance or attention effects were detected.

Conclusion: These findings demonstrate the strength of arousal reappraisal in promoting adaptive stress responses, perceptions of resources and self-confidence.

KEYWORDS:

• Challenge
• threat
• psychophysiology
• cardiovascular
• attention

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. CO means for the control and intervention groups were M = 0.25, SD = 0.39 and M = 0.14, SD = 0.44 respectively while TPR was M = −94.17, SD = 119.88 and M = −33.5, SD = 160.36 respectively. Following the intervention/control task, CO means for the control and intervention groups were M = −0.45, SD = 0.98 and M = 0.01, SD = 0.66 respectively while TPR was M = 87.07, SD = 118.7 and M = 1.16, SD = 272.18 in that order.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Commonwealth Scholarship Commission [grant number TTCS-2014-723].