Dealing with elite sport competition demands: an exploration of the dynamic relationships between stress appraisal, coping, emotion, and performance during fencing matches

ABSTRACT

The present research aimed to provide a more holistic analysis of stressful experiences in sport by examining how stress appraisal, coping and emotion are dynamically inter-related constructs and the extent to which their dynamic relationship is associated with objective performance. Based on process-oriented methods, two studies were conducted with elite athletes in order to investigate the dynamic relationship between these constructs and performance in highly demanding sport situations (Study 1: simulated competitive fencing matches during a training session; Study 2: real-life competitive fencing matches during an international competition). The results of the random coefficient regression models emphasise the dynamic nature of the relationship between stress appraisal, coping behaviour, emotion and objective performance over the course of fencing matches. They allowed identification of additional mediating effects of coping and emotion within dynamic relationships between stress appraisal and performance. These studies contribute to a deeper understanding of psychological adaptation in performance environments. The implications of the findings are discussed in relation to the design of effective coping interventions to support the learning of performance-related coping skills and the attainment of performance goals among individuals in highly demanding environments.

KEYWORDS:

• coping
• emotion
• objective performance
• process-oriented approach
• stress appraisal

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the athletes and coaches who took part in the study and the French Federation of Fencing for organisational support.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Some of the data from the present study’s sample were also used by Doron and Gaudreau (2014). The theoretical rationale, the aim of the study, the data analysis and the results are fundamentally different here.

2 RCRM explored the relationships between the core transactional constructs assessed at the same measurement time (time t) controlling for dependent variables assessed at time t – 1. Hypothesising that core transactional constructs (appraisal, emotion and coping) assessed at the same measurement time would be related together is consistent with the adoption of an ongoing process-like nature of the relationships between the transactional constructs within highly demanding sport situations. Given the actions of the fencers and their opponents (on the next point) as well as the coaches’ and referees’ actions or audience’s reactions, it seems unlikely that appraisal made by a fencer at time t (e.g. score is 10-10) influence the coping strategies or emotions experienced by the fencer at the next point at time t + 1 (e.g. score is 11-10). Thus, RCRM was adopted within the present studies (rather than a cross-lagged multilevel structural equation modelling approach).

3 It is noteworthy that the random effect of the lagged parameter was included in the problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping and unpleasant emotions models because the addition of this parameter provided a significant improvement to the model as indexed by the chi square tests (Δ χ² (2) = 38.34, 31.13 and 63.95 respectively, p < .001), whereas it was not included within the performance model (Δ χ² (2) = .03, p > .50).

4 The present study sample was also used by Doron and Martinent (2016). Specifically, the last 5 points of each of the 25 matches (mean of 26.36 points + 3.75 points per match) were used in Doron and Martinent (2016)’s study. The rationale, aims, data analysis and results of each study are fundamentally different.

5 It is noteworthy that the random effect of the lagged parameter was included in the emotion-focused coping model because the addition of this parameter provided a significant improvement to the model as indexed by the chi square test (Δ χ² (2) = 10.36, p = .006), whereas it was not included in the problem-focused coping, unpleasant emotions, pleasant emotions and performance models (Δ χ² (2) = 2.92, 1.21, 2.35, and .00 respectively, p > .20).