Psychology
2011. Vol.2, No.7, 760-765
Copyright © 2011 SciRes. DOI:10.4236/psych.2011.27116
Moderating Effects of Self-Confidence and Sport Self-Efficacy
on the Relationship between Competitive Anxiety
and Sport Performance
Mohammad Ali Besharat, Samane Pourbohlool
University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Received August 22nd, 2011; revised September 24th, 2011; accepted October 13th, 2011.
The aim of this study was to examine moderating effects of self-confidence and sport self-efficacy on the rela-
tionship between competitive anxiety and sport performance in a sample of Iranian athletes. A total of 246 vol-
unteer athletes (149 males, 97 females) were included in this study. All participants were asked to complete
Multidimensional Competitive Anxiety Questionnaire and Sport Self-Efficacy Scale. To measure the athletes’
sport performance, their coaches were asked to complete the Sport Achevement Scale. The results revealed that
self-confidence and sport self-efficacy moderated the relationship between competitive anxiety and sport per-
formance. Analysis of the data revealed that moderating effects of self-confidence for the association of cogni-
tive and somatic dimensions of competitive anxiety with sport performance were partial. On the other hand, the
moderating effects of sport self-efficacy for the association of cognitive and somatic dimensions of competitive
anxiety with sport performance were full.
Keywords: Emotion, Stress, Anxiety, Self-Regulation
Introduction
Competitive anxiety and its effect on the sport performance
is one of the important subjects of sport psychology (Hanton,
Neil, & Mellalieu, 2008; Mellalieu, Hanton, & Fletcher, 2006).
High level of anxiety symptoms (intensity of anxiety) usually is
debilitative and has negative effect on the performance (Burton,
1998; Mellalieu et al., 2006; Woodman & Hardy, 2001). On the
other hand, research findings have challenged this assumption
that anxiety always blocks the sport performance (e.g., Hanin,
1986; Hardy, 1990, 1996; Hardy et al., 2004; Raglin & Hanin,
2000). Limitations related to measuring pure intensity of anxi-
ety lead researchers to perceive anxiety direction including
debilitative and facilitative effects of anxiety.
Several studies on sport psychology have investigated de-
bilitative and facilitative effects of competitive anxiety symp-
toms on sport performance. Jones (1995) proposed a debilita-
tive and facilitative anxiety model based on Carver and
Scheier’s (1988) control-process theory of stress and coping.
This model tries to explain how symptoms related to players’
experienced anxiety in relation to match stressors could be met
as facilitative or debilitative anxiety. If individual’s expectan-
cies of ability for achievement and coping are desirable, anxiety
will be facilitative, and if these expectances are undesirable,
anxiety will be perceived debilitative (Hanton & Connaughton,
2002; Hanton, O’Brien, & Mellalieu, 2003; Jones, 1995; Jones
& Hanton, 2001; Ntoumanis & Jones, 1998). Therefore, inter-
pretation of anxiety symptoms is determined based on indi-
viduals’ cognitive appraisal of ability to control environment
and themselves (Jones, 1995; Jones & Hanton, 2001). In this
direction and based on cognitive activation theory of stress,
Ursin and Eriksen (2004) believe that positive coping expec-
tancy reduces likelihood of sport anxiety. Before this, Lazarus
(1999, 2000) had also confirmed the moderating role of coping
strategies on the relationship between emotions and stressful
situations like sport competitions.
Three distinct dimensions are determined in competitive
anxiety experience: cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and
self-confidence (Hardy, 1990, 1996; Hardy et al., 2004; Mar-
tens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990). Cognitive anxiety is the mental
component of anxiety and is determined by negative expecta-
tions and cognitive concerns about oneself, situation and possi-
ble outcomes (possibility of failure). Somatic anxiety is the
physical component of anxiety and shows individual’s percep-
tion of physiological responses and negative appraisal. Self-
confidence refers to individuals’ belief in ability to control
themselves and environment (Burton, 1998; Martens et al.,
1990; Woodman & Hardy, 2001). Research findings have
showed that the association of cognitive anxiety with perform-
ance is negative, whereas the association of self-confidence
with performance is positive (e.g., Martens et al., 1990; Ro-
bazza & Bortoli, 2007). Further, the butterfly catastrophe model
(Hardy, 1996) revealed that self-confidence moderated the in-
teraction between cognitive anxiety and physiological arousal
in a sample of male golfers. Hardy et al. (2004) found interac-
tions upon actual golf performance. The evidence supports the
notion of moderating models for predicting sport performance
rather than linear models of anxiety-performance.
Self-confidence as one of the most important variables re-
lated to sport performance (Robazza & Bortoli, 2007) increases
perceived ability to emotion management and provides possi-
bility for athlete to control negative emotions more effectively.
Empirical research has shown that in athletes, high levels of
self-confidence are associated with perceived useful ability
(e.g., Martens et al., 1990; Robazza & Bortoli, 2007). Self-
confidence also moderates competitive anger symptoms (Han-
ton & Connaughton, 2002; Hanton et al., 2003), facilitates
coping resources for encountering anxiety (Jones, & Hanton,
2001; Hanton, & Connaughton, 2002; Robazza & Bortoli,
2007), and causes to maintenance and continuation of control
during the match. Self-confidence before and during the match
determines lower level of competitive anxiety and often corre-

M. A. BESHARAT ET AL. 761
lates with better performance (Craft, Magyar, Becker, & Feltz,
2003). One aim of the present study was to examine the moder-
ating effect of self-confidence on the relationship between
competitive anxiety and sport performance in a sample of Ira-
nian athletes.
Self-efficacy refers to individual’s belief in his/her ability to
perform particular behaviors for gaining desired outcomes
(Bandura, 1997). Based on the foundations of social-cognitive
theory, individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy are less
vulnerable to severe emotional arousal and are more susceptible
to adaptive coping with emotional arousal compared to indi-
viduals with lower levels of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997, 2001).
Social-cognitive theory has conceptualized self-efficacy as a
general or global construct. However, empirical evidence sug-
gests that a domain-specific conceptualization of self-efficacy
should be considered. For example, studies on computer self-
efficacy (Compeau & Higgins, 1995) and internet self-efficacy
(Hsu & Chiu, 2004; Papastergiou, 2010; Torkzadeh, Chang, &
Demirhan, 2006) revealed significant differences between indi-
viduals with high computer self-efficacy and individuals with
low computer self-efficacy in terms of learning and utilizing
computer-related skills. Given that sport self-efficacy refers to
how confident an individual is in his/her capability to perform
specific sport tasks, it might have a different effect on the rela-
tionship between competitive anxiety and sport performance in
comparison to general self-confidence. Therefore, the second
goal of the present study was to examine the moderating role of
sport self-efficacy on the association of competitive anxiety and
sport performance in a sample of Iranian athletes.
Method
Participants and Procedure
The participants were Iranian professional athletes of differ-
ent sport fields at national and international levels. Two hun-
dred and sixty three athletes from different sport federations
including wrestling, taekwondo, basketball, football, volleyball,
track and field, swimming, gymnastic and weight lifting par-
ticipated in this study voluntarily. Seventeen participants were
excluded from statistical analysis because they did not complete
the questionnaires. Therefore, research sample was reduced to
246 athletes (149 males, Mage = 23.5 years, age range: 18 - 33
years, and 97 females, Mage = 22.30 years, age range: 18 - 29
years). To measure the athletes’ sport performance, their
coaches were asked to answer questions about the athletes’
achievement in sport. In coordination with sport federations
authorities, athletes were asked to complete the research ques-
tionnaires. There was no time limitation, but the maximum time
did not exceed 30 minutes. The aim was that athletes answer to
the questionnaires relaxed and precise without the pressure of
time limitation in order to increase accuracy and reliability of
the answers. The questionnaires were distributed, completed
and gathered the day before the match. The protocol was ap-
proved by Department of Psychology, University of Tehran.
All participants signed an informed consent document prior to
performing the research procedure.
Measures
Multidimensional Competitive Anxiety Questionnaire (MCAQ).
This is a 15-item questionnaire which has been derived from
previous measures of competitive anxiety (Jones & Swain,
1992; Martens et al., 1990; Swain & Jones, 1993) and validated
for the purpose of measuring dimensions of competitive anxiety
in samples of Iranian athletes (Besharat, 2009). The items
measure three dimensions of competitive anxiety including
cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety and self-confidence in a
five-point Likert-type scale from 1 (very little) to 5 (very much).
Maximum and minimum scores of subject would be 5 and 25,
respectively. Psychometric properties of MCAQ have been
examined and confirmed (Besharat, 2009). Based on prelimi-
nary findings in a sample of 133 athletes from different levels
and fields of sport, calculated Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for
the three subscales were .90, .83, and .89, respectively. This is
indicative of adequate internal consistency of the questionnaire.
Content validity of the MCAQ was examined according to
judgment of 10 experts in psychology and physical education
and calculated Kendall’s tau-t coefficients for every subscale of
the questionnaire were .79, .81, and .82, respectively. Conver-
gent and discriminant validity of the MCAQ was calculated and
confirmed through simultaneous application of measures of
positive perfectionism, negative perfectionism, sport achieve-
ment, and mental health indices for the participants (Besharat,
2009). For the present study, internal consistency coefficients
of .93, .87, and .91 were obtained for cognitive anxiety, somatic
anxiety and self-confidence, respectively.
Sport Self-Efficacy Scale (SSES). This is a 10-item scale and
measures sport self-efficacy from 0 to 100. Higher score is
indicative of higher level of self-efficacy and skills related to
this construct. This scale has been developed based on theo-
retical model of self-efficacy and questionnaires related to this
construct (e.g., Bandura, 1997, 2001, 2006; Llewellyn, Sanchez,
Asghar, & Jones, 2008) for measuring specific sport self-effi-
cacy (Besharat, 2008). Psychometric properties of the SSES
have been examined and confirmed (Besharat, 2008). Based on
preliminary findings in a sample of 236 athletes from different
levels and fields of sport, calculated Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-
cient for this scale was .93. Test-retest correlation coefficients
among the scores of 111 participants were calculated in two
occasions with a time duration of 2 - 4 weeks. It was .78 and
confirmed test-retest reliability of the SSES at p < .001. Con-
tent validity of the SSES was examined and confirmed accord-
ing to judgments of 6 experts in psychology and physical edu-
cation with calculated Kendall’s tau-t coefficient of .87. Con-
vergent and discriminant validity of the SSES calculated and
was confirmed through simultaneous application of measures of
sport achievement, self-esteem, and mental health indices for
the participants (Besharat, 2008). The results of exploratory
factor analysis also confirmed a single factor of sport self-effi-
cacy for this scale (Besharat, 2008). For the present study, in-
ternal consistency coefficients of .94 was obtained for the
SSES.
Sport Achievement Scale (SAS). This is a 16-item instrument
which measures the sport achievement based on a five-point
Likert-type scale from 1 (very little) to 5 (very much). The
results of content validity, based on the judgments of sport
coaches and judges have shown Kendall’s tau-t coefficients
of .54 and .44 for coaches and judges, respectively. Chi-square
results for testing significance of above coefficients revealed
that calculated correlations for coaches (χ2 = 163.18, df = 15, p
< .001) and for judges (χ2 = 106.64, df = 15, p < .001) was sta-
tistically significant (Besharat, Abbasi, & Sadreldin, 2002).
Calculated Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the SAS in a sam-
ple of wrestlers and football players (Besharat, et al., 2002) for
coaches’ and judges’ scores were .97 and .98, respectively. This
confirms a high internal consistency for the SAS.

M. A. BESHARAT ET AL. 762
Results
Mean scores and standard deviations for all scales are pre-
sented for males, females, and the total sample in Table 1.
Results of Pearson correlations showed that there are signifi-
cant correlations between competitive anxiety, self-confidence,
and sport self-efficacy with sport achievement scores (see Table
2).
Then, a series of two steps regression analyses were con-
ducted in order to examine the moderating effect of self-confi-
dence on the association of cognitive and somatic anxiety with
sport performance. The results of these analyses are shown in
Table 3. These results revealed that with entering self-con-
fidence as a moderating variable in regression equation, the β
coefficient for cognitive anxiety decreased from –.32 to –.18.
The Sobel test showed that this rate of variation is significant (t
= 2.79, p < .006) and cognitive anxiety also remained signifi-
cant (t = –2.33, p < .021). The results also revealed that with
entering self-confidence as a moderating variable in regression
equation, the β coefficient for somatic anxiety decreased from
–.30 to –.17. The Sobel test showed that this rate of variation is
significant (t = 3.47, p < .001) and somatic anxiety also re-
mained significant (t = –2.38, p < .018). These results reveal
that self-confidence could affect the relationship between com-
petitive anxiety and sport performance partially.
A series of two steps regression analyses were also con-
ducted in order to examine the moderating effect of sport
self-efficacy on the association of cognitive and somatic anxi-
ety with sport performance. The results of these analyses are
shown in Table 4. These results revealed that with entering
sport self-efficacy as a moderating variable in regression equa-
tion, the β coefficient for cognitive anxiety decreased from –.32
to –.06. The Sobel test showed that this rate of variation is sig-
nificant (t = 15.92, p < .001) whereas cognitive anxiety lost its
Table 1.
Mean scores and standard deviations on each scale of the competitive
anxiety, self-confidence, sport self-efficacy, and sport achievement vari-
abl es for males, females, and the to ta l sa m p le .
Variable/Scale Males M (SD) Females M (SD) Total M (SD)
Cognitive Anxiety 12.16 (3.00) 13.41 (2.92) 12.65 (3.03)
Somatic Anxiety 15.17 (3.09) 16.42 (2.61) 15.66 (2.96)
Self-Confidence 18.86 (3.50) 17.75 (3.86) 18.42 (3.68)
Sport Self-Efficacy 719.59 (107.98) 695.25 (121.72) 719.00 (113.98)
Sport Achievement 65.79 (7.18) 64.20 (8.18) 65.16 (7.61)
Table 2.
Pearson product moment correlations between measures of competitive
anxiety, self-confidence, sport self-efficacy, and sport achievem ent.
Measures 1 2 3 4 5
1. Cognitive Anxiety -
2. Somatic Anxiety .54 -
3. Self-Confidence –.67 –.54 -
4. Sport Self-Efficacy –.37 –.31 .40 -
5. Sport Achievement –.32 –.30 .34 .74 -
All p values < .001.
Table 3.
Summary of regression analysis for moderation effect of self-confidence
between competitive anxiety and sport performa nce.
Variable B SEB β t P
Step 1
ognitive Anxiety (R2 = .10) –.823 .152 –.328 –5.42.001
Step 2
Cognitive Anxiety –.462 .198 –.184 –2.33.021
Self-Confidence
(R2 = .14, ∆R2 = .03) .457 .163 .221 2.79 .006
Step 1
Somatic Anxiety (R2 = .09) –.784 .156 –.306 –5.01.001
Step 2
Somatic Anxiety –.435 .183 –.170 –2.38.018
Self-Confidence
(R2 = .14, ∆R2 = .04) .512 .148 .248 3.47 .001
Table 4.
Summary of regression analysis for moderation effect of sport self-
efficacy between competitive anxiety and sport performance.
Variable B SEB β t P
Step 1
Cognitive Anxiety
(R2 = .10) –.823 .152 –.328 –5.42.001
Step 2
Cognitive Anxiety –.150 .115 –.060 –1.30.193
Sport Self-Efficacy
(R2 = .56, ∆R2 = .46) .049 .003 .726 15.92.001
Step 1
Somatic Anxiety (R2 = .09)–.784 .156 –.306 –5.01.001
Step 2
Somatic Anxiety –.212 .114 –.083 –1.86.064
Sport Self-Efficacy
(R2 = .57, ∆R2 = .47) .048 .003 .723 16.27.001
significance (t = –1.30, p < .193). These results also revealed
that with entering sport self-efficacy as a moderating variable in
regression equation, the β coefficient for somatic anxiety de-
creased from –.30 to –.08. The Sobel test showed that this rate
of variation is significant (t = 16.27, p < .001) whereas somatic
anxiety lost its significance (t = –1.86, p < .064). These results
reveal that sport self-efficacy could effect the relationship be-
tween competitive anxiety and sport performance fully.
Discussion
The present study was undertaken to gain a better insight into
the relationship between competitive anxiety and sport per-
formance in a sample of Iranian athletes. In particular, this
study examined the moderating effects of self-confidence and
sport self-efficacy on the relationship between competitive

M. A. BESHARAT ET AL. 763
anxiety and sport performance. Results of the present study
showed that self-confidence had a significant negative correla-
tion with cognitive and somatic dimensions of competitive
anxiety and a significant positive correlation with sport ach-
ievement. The results of the present study also revealed that
self-confidence had a moderating effect on the association of
competitive anxiety with sport performance. Statistical analysis
of the data indicated that high levels of self-confidence can
decrease the negative association of cognitive and somatic
anxiety with sport performance. These findings are in line with
the results obtained in previous studies (e.g., Craft et al., 2003;
Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Hanton et al., 2003; Hardy,
1996; Hardy et al., 2004; Jones & Hanton, 2001; Robazza &
Bortoli, 2007) and are explained based on the following possi-
bilities.
Self-confidence, means individuals’ belief in ability to con-
trol environment and themselves (Burton, 1998; Martens et al.,
1990; Woodman & Hardy, 2001), reinforces athlete’s perceived
ability to manage stress and anxiety during sport competition
and leads athlete to be less under the effect of competitive
anxiety. In addition to control and reduce negative emotions,
this sense of capability helps athlete to do his/her sport tasks
with more success and has a better performance. This explana-
tion is consistent with evidence that has confirmed the associa-
tion of self-confidence with perceived ability in athletes (e.g.,
Martens et al., 1990; Robazza & Bortoli, 2007). Craft et al.
(2003) has also shown that self-confidence before and during
the match determines low competitive anxiety and often corre-
lates with better performance.
Research findings have revealed that self-confidence acti-
vates coping resources in order to encounter competitive anxi-
ety (Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Jones & Hanton, 2001;
Robazza & Bortoli, 2007). Based on this, one can explain that
self-confidence helps athlete with appropriate usage of coping
strategies to manage and control competitive anxiety and
through this improve his/her sport performance. Based on
Carver and Scheier’s (1988) control process theory on stress
and coping, and consistent with findings related to facilitative
and debilitative anxiety (Jones, 1995) it is possible that self-
confidence through positive appraisal and interpretation of
symptoms related to player’s experienced anxiety, helps athlete
to perceive this anxiety as facilitative and cope with it in a bet-
ter way (Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Hanton et al., 2003;
Ntoumanis & Jones, 1998; Jones, 1995; Jones & Hanton, 2001).
This explanation is consistent with the idea of “positive coping
expectancy” in the cognitive activation theory of stress. Ursine
and Eriksen (2004) believe that athlete’s positive coping ex-
pectancy means the feeling of ability to control situation with
existing coping resources, reduce the likelihood of sport anxi-
ety.
Research findings have also revealed that athlete’s self-con-
fidence moderates negative experienced emotions in sport com-
petition and helps continuity of managing and controlling situa-
tion during the match (Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Robazza
& Bortoli, 2007). The ability to moderate negative emotions
and control situation during the match helps athlete to rule over
the game with more relaxation and effective management, puts
into action his/her sport skills, and gains more desirable conse-
quences. This is also in line with the butterfly catastrophe
model (Hardy, 1996; Hardy et al., 2004).
The results dealing with association of sport self-efficacy
with competitive anxiety and sport performance showed that
sport self-efficacy had a significant negative correlation with
cognitive and somatic dimensions of anxiety and a significant
positive correlation with sport achievement. The results of the
present study also revealed that sport self-efficacy had a mod-
erating effect on the association of competitive anxiety with
sport performance. Statistical analysis of the data indicated that
increasing levels of sport self-efficacy decreases negative asso-
ciation of cognitive and somatic anxiety with sport performance.
These are in line with previous empirical evidence concerning
domain-specific influence of self-efficacy (Compeau & Higgins,
1995; Hsu & Chiu, 2004; Papastergiou, 2010; Torkzadeh et al.,
2006).
Sport self-efficacy, means athlete’s belief in ability to per-
form his/her sport tasks and specific skills, effects athlete’s
emotional and behavioral reactions in stressful and anxious
situations of the match. Bandura (1997, 2001) compared two
groups with high self-efficacy and low self-efficacy and
showed that the first group was less vulnerable and expressed
more adaptive behaviors. One possible reason for the moderat-
ing effect of sport self-efficacy on the association of competi-
tive anxiety with sport performance is that sport self-efficacy
can help athlete to be less under the effect of competitive anxi-
ety during the match and has a better performance.
Like self-confidence, sport self-efficacy prepares athlete for
active encountering with competitive anxiety through reinforc-
ing efficient coping strategies. Using efficient coping strategies
for competitive anxiety helps athlete to control and manage
stressful situation better and through this improve his/her sport
performance. Association of self-efficacy with coping strategies
has also been confirmed in other studies (e.g. Lombardo, Tan,
Jensen, & Andeson, 2005; Bandura, 1997, 2001; Nicholas,
2007; Turk & Okifuji, 2002; Turner, Ersek, & Kemp, 2005).
Positive appraisal and interpretation of symptoms related to
anxiety is another explanation that can be stated based on con-
trol process theory (Carver & Schiere, 1988) and anxiety direc-
tion theory (Jones, 1995). Sport self-efficacy through positive
appraisal of symptoms related to player’s anxiety, helps athlete
to perceive that anxiety as facilitative, and cope with it better
(Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Hanton et al., 2003; Jones,
1995; Jones & Hanton, 2001; Ntoumanis & Jones, 1998). This
explanation is also in agreement with the idea of “positive cop-
ing expectancy” in cognitive activation theory of stress (Ursin
& Eriksen, 2004). Ursin and Eriksen (2004) argue that athlete’s
positive coping expectancy reduces the likelihood of sport
anxiety. Sport self-efficacy with high probability has the power
to increase positive coping expectancy in athlete; the probabil-
ity which has been confirmed in the present study.
The effect of self-efficacy on control and decrease negative
emotions has been confirmed in different studies (e.g. Bandura,
1997, 2001; Lombardo et al., 2005; Turk & Okifuji, 2002).
Based on this, one possibility is that sport self-efficacy helps
athlete to control and decrease negative emotions specific to
sport competition like competitive anxiety. This capability re-
inforces athlete’s sense of dominance and merit during the
match and improves his/her sport performance. Self-efficacy
also through reinforcing stamina (Turk & Okifuji, 2002) helps
to maintenance of control and management of stressful condi-
tion of the match. As a result of such strength, negative emo-
tions including competitive anxiety would be decreased. This
situation increase better performance and sport achievement.
Results of the present study showed that sport self-efficacy
effects the relationship between competitive anxiety and sport
performance fully, whereas self-confidence effects this rela-
tionship partially. One of the possible reasons for this differ-
ence can be stated in this way that self-confidence expresses
individual’s belief in his/her general ability to control condi-

M. A. BESHARAT ET AL. 764
tions and situations, but sport self-efficacy expresses athlete’s
belief in his/her ability to perform specific sport tasks and skills.
This means that belief in just general ability might have a weak
effect on control and decrement of stress and negative emotions
in particular situation (sport competition), whereas belief in
specific ability would have a decisive effect on that particular
behavior. One can conclude from this probable explanation that
although self-confidence and self-efficacy are in the same di-
rection (Hardy, 1996; Hardy et al., 2004), they are different in
the intensity of their effects. Self-efficacy in a specific field
cause to a decisive effect on behaviors related to that specific
field and its accompaniment and coordination with self-con-
fidence reinforces this effect. Based on this, it can be said that
athlete’s self-confidence provides general framework for con-
trol and management of stress and sport self-efficacy particu-
larly helps athlete in specific field related to management and
control of sport stresses, better performance, and sport achie-
vement. In other words, self-confidence is a general construct
and self-efficacy is a specific construct.
The present findings may have important theoretical and
practical implications. At the practical level, research findings
can suggest the importance and necessity for noticing to mod-
erating variables such as self-confidence and sport self-efficacy
as effective factors on competitive anxiety-sport performance in
athletes. Understanding these psychological constructs as mod-
erating variables in athletes can be considered as an effective
step in preventing undesirable consequences of sport competi-
tion. Formulating training and intervention programs in order to
increase self-confidence and sport self-efficacy, particularly in
national and international competitions, is another action that
can be applied to moderate levels of competitive anxiety and
improve sport performance. At the theoretical level, the results
of the present study can be at the service of theories related to
emotions, emotion regulation, coping strategies and stress
management particularly in the field of sport psychology.
The findings of this study have several limitations. The
cross-sectional design of this study does not allow us to draw
conclusions about the directions of causality between variables
investigated. These data were based upon a sample of volunteer
athletes. This further undermines the generalizability of the
results. It must be pointed out that self-confidence and sport
self-efficacy might have different effects through their interac-
tions with other variables, such as type of sport (e.g., individ-
ual-team, contact-noncontact), to produce positive or negative
consequences. Future research needs to address this issue.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bandura, A. (2006). Guid for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F.
Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp.
307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Besharat, M. A. (2008). Reliability and Validity of the Sport Self-Effi-
cacy Scale. Tehran: University of Tehran. Unpublished.
Besharat, M. A. (2009). Devalopment and validation of the multidi-
mensional competitive anxiety questionnaire. Tehran: University of
Tehran. Unpublished.
Besharat, M. A., Abbasi, Q. R., & Shojaoldin, S (2002). An investiga-
tion of the relationship between self-esteem and sport achievement
among footbalers and wrestlers. Harakat, 12, 31-44.
Burton, D. (1998). Measuring competitive state anxiety. In J. L. Duda
(Ed.), Advances in sport and exrecise psychology measurement (pp.
129-148). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1988). A control-process perspective
on anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1, 17-22.
doi:10.1080/10615808808248217
Compeau, D., & Higgins, C. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Develop-
ment of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19, 189-211.
doi:10.2307/249688
Craft, L. L., Magyar, T. M., Becker, B. J., & Feltz, D. L. (2003). The
relationship between the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 and
sport performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 25, 44-65.
Hanin, Y. L. (1986). State-trait anxiety research on sport in the USSR.
In C. D. Spielberger, & R. Diaz-Guerrero (Eds.), Cross-cultural
anxiety (Vol. 2, pp. 45-64). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publish-
ing.
Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). Perceived control of anxiety
and its relationship with self-confidence performance: A qualitative
explanation. Resear c h Q u a r t e r l y f o r Exercise and Sport, 73, 87-97.
Hanton, S., Neil, R., & Mellalieu, S. D., (2008). Recent developments
in competitive anxiety direction and competition stress research. In-
ternational Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 45-57.
Hanton, S., O’Brien, M., & Mellalieu, S. D., (2003). Individual differ-
ences, perceived control and competitive trait anxiety. Journal of
Sport Behavior, 26, 39-55.
Hardy, L. (1990). A catastrophe model of anxiety and performance. In J.
G. Jones, & L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and performance in sport (pp.
81-106). Chichester: Wiley.
Hardy, L. (1996). A test of catastrophe models of anxiety and sport
performance against multidimensional theory models using the
method of dynamic differences. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An In-
ternational Journal, 9, 69-86.
Hardy, L., Woodman, T., & Carrington, S. (2004). Is self-confidence a
bias factor in higher-order catastrophe models? An exploratory
analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 359-368.
Hsu, M., & Chiu, C. (2004). Internet self-efficacy and electronic ser-
vice acceptance. Decision Support Systems, 38, 369-381.
doi:10.1016/j.dss.2003.08.001
Jones, G. (1995). More than just a game: Research developments and
issues in competitive anxiety in sport. British Journal of Psychology,
86, 449-478. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1995.tb02565.x
Jones, G., & Hanton, S. (2001). Pre-competitive feeling states and
directional anxiety interpretation. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19,
385-395. doi:10.1080/026404101300149348
Jones, G., & Swain, A. B. J. (1992). Intensity and direction dimensions
of competitive state anxiety and relationships with competitiveness.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 467-472.
doi:10.1080/02640419308730023
Jones, G., Swain, A. B. J., & Hardy, L. (1993). Intensity and direction
dimensions of competitive state anxiety and relationship with per-
formance. Journal of Sport Sciences, 11, 533-542.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. London:
Free Association.
Lazarus, R. S. (2000). How emotions influence performance in com-
petitive sports. The Sp or t Psychologist, 14, 229-252.
Llewellyn, D. J., Sanchez, X., Asghar, A., & Jones, G. (2008). Self-
efficacy, risk taking and performance in rock climbing. Personality
and Individual Differe n ces, 45, 75-81.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.001
Lombardo, E. R., Tan, G., Jensen, M. P., & Anderson, K. O. (2005).
Anger management style and association with self-efficacy and pain
in male veterans. The Journal of Pain, 6, 765-770.
doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2005.07.003
Martens, R., Vealey, R. S., & Burton, D. (1990). Competitive anxiety in
sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Mellalieu, S. D., Hanton, S., & Fletcher, D (2006). A competitive anxi-
ety review: Recent directions in sport psychology research. In S.
Hanton and S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport psy-
chology (pp. 1-45). Hauppage, NY: Nova Science.
Nicholas, M. K. (2007). The pain self-efficacy questionnaire: Taking
pain into account. European Journal of Pain, 11, 153-163.
doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.12.008
Ntoumanis, N., & Jones, G. (1998). Interpretations of competitive trait
anxiety symptoms as a function of locus of control beliefs. Interna-

M. A. BESHARAT ET AL. 765
tional Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 99-114.
Papastergiou, M. (2010). Enhancing physical education and sport sci-
ence students’ self-efficacy and attitudes regarding information and
communication technologies through a computer literacy course.
Computers and Education, 54, 298-308.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.015
Raglin, J., & Hanin, Y. (2000). Competitive anxiety and athletic per-
formance. In Y. L. Hanin (Ed.), Emotions in sport (pp. 93-112).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Robazza, C., & Bortoli, L. (2007). Perceived impact of anger and anxi-
ety on performance in rugby players. Psychology of Sport and Exer-
cise, 8, 875-890. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.07.005
Swain, A. B. J., & Jones, G. (1993). Intensity and frequency dimen-
sions of competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sports Sciences, 11,
533-542. doi:10.1080/02640419308730024
Torkzadeh, G., Chang, J., & Demirhan, D. (2006). A contingency
model of computer and internet self-efficacy. Information and Man-
agement, 43, 541-550. doi:10.1016/j.im.2006.02.001
Turk, D. C., & Okifuji, A. (2002). Psychilogical factors in chronic pain:
Evolution and Revolution. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 70, 678-690. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.70.3.678
Turner, J. A., Ersek, M., & Kemp, C. (2005). Self-efficacy for manag-
ing pain is associated with disability, depression, and pain coping
among retirement community residents with chronic pain. Journal of
Pain, 6, 471-479. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2005.02.011
Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2004). The cognitive activation theory of
stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29, 567-592.
doi:10.1016/S0306-4530(03)00091-X
Woodman, T., & Hardy, L. (2001). Stress and anxiety. In R. Singer, H.
A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of research on
sport psychology (pp. 290-318). New York: Wiley.