Elizabeth
Anne Murphy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The purpose of this study was to examine shifts of mood following the implementation of false feedback in a competitive virtual reality environment. The study systematically replicated that of Turnbull & Wolfson (2002), which hypothesized participants engaging in a competitive cognitive task would exhibit increased positive mood states if they exercised during the task and subsequently given positive false feedback on their performance. Turnbull & Wolfson (2002) also predicted that if given negative feedback, the exercise group would react with more tension, depression, anger, fatigue, and confusion relative to the control group of non-exercisers. Thus, it was predicted the current study would establish similar results when positive and negative false feedback is given to participants in a competitive virtual reality setting. The study assessed differences in tension, depression, anger, fatigue, confusion and vigor utilizing pre and post-test POMS questionnaires. Results indicated an overall change in POMS scores pre to post, yet only significant between-group differences in tension. Further analysis suggested the positive feedback group (N=13) accounted for the most change, as depression, fatigue, and total mood disturbance decreased significantly while vigor increased. Contrary to the hypothesis, the negative feedback group (N=10) only experienced a moderately significant decrease in fatigue following feedback. In addition, it was predicted that because the administrator had control over participants effort and hertz output, competitive individuals would attribute their performance to unstable, external factors. Results were marginally consistent with the hypothesis, as 10 participants strongly agreed they could have beaten the virtual competitor if the examiner did not make them control their workload.
Keywords: mood, mood state, athlete, competitiveness, attributional style, athletic performance
According
to Smith, Nolen-Hoeksema, Frederickson & Loftus (2003), emotion is
a complex, multicomponent episode that creates a readiness to act.
Emotions have been classified with six components, including cognitive
appraisal, subjective experience of the emotion, thought and action tendencies,
an autonomic nervous system response, facial expressions, and responses
to emotions. Proposed by Buck (1984), the General Model of Emotion
states when one encounters stimuli that elicit an external affective stimulus,
the external stimulus becomes internal if it encompasses significant meaning
to the person. The internal affective stimulus is comprised of relevant
learning and primes. In essence, the degree to which one will become
aroused to an external stimulus greatly depends on the meaning of the stimulus
to the individual. Stimuli that evoke emotion in one person may not
have the same emotional effect in another. Therefore, in order to
provoke emotion, one must interpret the stimulus as being either beneficial
or harmful to his or her goals. Responses to affective stimuli can
also be conditioned. For example, one who has previously had a negative
experience of high places may then experience a fear of heights or flying.
Buck
(1984) believed affective stimuli are filtered by relevant learning stimuli
so as to determine both cognitive and emotional impact. Adaptive
and homeostatic mechanisms are activated, as well as spontaneous expressive
tendencies and one’s subjective experience. One’s subjective experience
is in part determined by physiological responses such as feedback from
visceral and skeletal muscle systems, the activation of neurochemical systems,
and a variety of facial expressions. Cognitively, one may then label
his or her emotional state from past emotional experiences or the current
situation itself. Once the stimulus has been labeled, one can then
elicit goal-directed behavior and derive coping methods to control negative
feelings. Self-reports may be utilized to describe subjective response.
Consequently, the labeled emotional state may become an internal affective
stimulus itself, eliciting another cycle of emotional response, while spontaneous
expressive tendencies may be influenced by display rules. That is,
the individual only responds in a way conducive to the situation instead
of how he or she truly feels.
In contrast with emotion,
moods are free-floating and diffuse affective states (Smith, Nolen-Hoeksema,
Frederickson & Loftus, 2003). While an emotion is typically brief,
lasting a relatively short period of time, moods endure for longer time
periods, and are often salient only at the level of subjective experience.
Emotions are often conceptualized as varying along discrete categories,
such as happiness, fear, and anger. However, moods vary along dimensions
of arousal and pleasantness (Smith, Nolen-Hoeksema, Frederickson &
Loftus, 2003).
In 1884,
William James derived the notion that emotion is associated with coarse
feelings that elicit physiological changes within the body, namely anger
and fear (Pluchik, 1994). Thus, emotion entails recognition of these
changes, as the perception of bodily changes is the subjective experience
of emotion. This idea is called the “commonsense viewpoint.”
However, after rethinking his initial argument, James hypothesized one’s
perception of a stimulus gives rise to the feeling of an emotion, leading
to physiological changes. Therefore, emotions follow one’s perception
of a given situation. “....we feel sorry because we cry, angry because
we strike, afraid because we tremble...” (James, 1890). Essentially,
the subjective feeling of an emotion arises from the perception of situations
that produce physiological changes (Plutchik, 1994).
Walter
Cannon (1927) strongly criticized the James-Lange theory of emotion. His
rationale was grounded in three main criticisms. First, Cannon revisited
Charles Sherrington’s experiment in which he cut the spinal cord of the
vague nerves of dogs so that no sensory impulse could reach the brain from
various organs. Likewise, he also removed the sympathetic portions
of the autonomic nervous system in cats. Surprisingly, both sets
of animals displayed emotional reactions such as anger, fear, and pleasure
while interacting with other animals and being handled. The James-Lange
theory was contradicted, as there were no visceral changes in the animals.
Internal organs are not supplied with an abundance of nerves, so internal
changes occur too slowly to inflict emotion (Plutchik, 1994).
Next, Cannon acknowledged
the fact that stressful situations provoke the same kind of physiological
response, such as increased heart rate, pupil dilation, and erection of
body hair. However, it is difficult to distinguish between strong
emotions and nonemotional factors that create physiological arousal such
as exercise (Plutchik, 1994). In addition, two completely different
emotions can elicit the same physiological response in that body.
For example, anger makes the heart beat faster, as does the sight of a
loved one (Smith, Nolen-Hoeksema, Frederickson & Loftus, 2003).
Finally, Cannon recognized
when injected with epinephrine, individuals experienced physiological bodily
changes such as increased heart rate, tightness in chest and throat, trembling,
chills, dry mouth, and weakness. However, the implementation of adrenaline
did not instill fear or any other emotion in participants. At most,
the injection produced “as if” emotions, such as “I feel as if I am angry.”
Therefore, Cannon believed that visceral changes do not encompass a significant
role in emotion (Plutchik, 1994). Instead, the Cannon-Bard theory
proposes one’s perception of a stimulus is first registered in the thalamus.
Thalamic discharge is then released into sub-cortical structures that activate
the autonomic nervous system and the cortex, evaluating the incoming stimulus.
This theory also explains how the same physiological response can occur
with more than one emotion. Lastly, the Cannon-Bard theory suggests
that one’s interpretations of physiological response of a stimulus can
be influenced by cognitive interpretations, while both cognitive and physiological
aspects can influence our emotions and how we experience them (Plutchik,
1994).
In 1962,
Schacter & Singer established monumental research concerning the effects
of the environment on affective states. The two-factor theory states
emotions are the product of both an unexplained arousal plus a cognitive
explanation for that arousal. Thus, a study was conducted in which
participants were induced to be in a state of autonomic arousal.
The investigators hypothesized these individuals would react in ways dependent
on the situation in which they were placed. In their study,
Schachter & Singer (1962) divided participants into two groups.
The experimental group was given an injection of epinephrine, a substance
that induces autonomic arousal, whereas the control group did not receive
an injection. While some of the participants in the experimental
group were correctly informed about the consequences of the injection,
others were given no such information on the drug’s effect. It was
predicted those participants uninformed of the drug effect would display
emotions similar to the situational context. For example, if a participant
was left in the waiting room with a confederate appearing seemingly happy,
it was predicted he would demonstrate similar emotions. However,
if the confederate appeared angry, it was predicted he would display anger
as well.
The
results of Shachter & Singer’s (1962) study were complementary to their
hypothesis. Findings illustrated uninformed individuals injected
with epinephrine rated their emotions more intensely compared to informed
participants. In addition, the participants who received a physiological
explanation for their emotions were less influenced by the situation compared
to the control group. In essence, increased ratings of arousal for
uninformed participants were due not simply from the drug alone, but from
the context of the situation as well.
Schachter & Singer’s
(1962) renowned study has led to a cascade of cognitive appraisal research
in recent years, including attributional style. Zillman & Bryant
(1974) derived the misattribution of arousal theory, which states that
lingering physiological arousal can be mistakenly attributed to subsequent
circumstances, and intensify our emotional reactions to those circumstances.
For example, in Zillman & Bryant’s (1974) study, participants engaged
in rigorous exercise, and were then provoked by a confederate. Findings
suggested participants who had engaged in prior physical activity responded
to the provocation with more anger compared to those who had not exercised.
Therefore, when previous physiological arousal is paired with a provocation
by a confederate, responses are typically more exaggerated and hostile.
In Zillman’s
(1974) study, participants misattributed their emotions, as they believed
their anger was the result of simply the provocation, whereas previous
physiological arousal from rigorous exercise led to increased anger.
This concept was later coined “excitation transfer,” in which residual
arousal following exercise can be misattributed to a subsequent environmental
stimulus, resulting in the intensification of mood (Zillman, 1974).
Therefore, when considering aspects of emotion, it is imperative to not
only acknowledge physiological aspects and situational context, but also
how an individual perceives the situation that elicited the emotion.
The Attributional theory suggests that individuals attempt to understand,
explain, and predict events based upon their perceptions of the event (Cox,
2002). Derived from the theories of Fritz Heider (1958) and Bernard
Weiner (1972), attributional style is composed of both locus of control
and stability. In 1958, Heider formulated the notion that behavioral
outcome was the result of personal force in conjunction with environmental
force. Later, Weiner (1972) constructed two main dimensions to describe
achievement situations that he referred to as locus of control and stability
(Cox, 2002).
Weiner
(1972) suggested one’s outcome was the product of either internal or external
forces, along with stable or unstable attributes. When individuals
attribute an outcome internally, they recognize it is the product of their
own actions. Thus, when people attribute a situation internally,
they essentially believe their behaviors and actions influence their outcomes.
Conversely, when people recognize the idea that outcomes are based solely
on luck or chance, and that they have no input on the result, these individuals
are said to exhibit external control (Weiner, 1972). In other words,
results are the product of the environment instead of the individual.
Along with locus of control, stability is the second factor Weiner (1972)
developed to classify attributional style. Unstable individuals,
he believed, acknowledge the idea their performance is often fleeting,
and if given another chance they may perform differently. In contrast,
individuals who demonstrate stable characteristics believe that outcomes
are fixed, and will not change, despite effort (Weiner, 1972).
In the
athletic environment, Cox (2002) believes it is better to attribute causation
as internal and unstable, as athletes should view themselves in control
of the situation, regardless of the outcome. In contrast with the
less-motivated athlete, the highly competitive individual is more likely
to attribute behaviors internally, as outcome is the result of one’s actions,
not simply due to outside forces such as fate or luck (Cox, 2002).
Unlike
Cox (2002), Frederick (2000) discovered a high correlation between competitiveness
and external locus of control. 53 men and 84 women completed a packet
of surveys containing a measure of competitiveness, a locus of control
scale, and a demographic questionnaire. Thus, results suggested that
rather than attributing outcomes to their own behavior, participants were
more likely to attribute success or failure to external factors, such as
chance, luck, or powerful other. The study also found that men are
more apt then women to score higher on competitiveness scales, making them
more susceptible to negative attributional styles, such as decreased internal
control (Frederick, 2000).
To expand upon the effects
of disappointment on competitive performance, Davis & Zaichkowsky IV
(1998) studied the explanatory styles of elite hockey players. While
David & Pargman (1990) utilized the Profile of Moods States questionnaire
to evaluate the effects of disappointment in athletes after a competitive
event, Davis & Zaichkowsky IV (1998) presented hypothetical yet realistic
disappointments to hockey players, consequently distinguishing between
“mentally tough” players with those who were not. In contrast with
Peterson & Seligman (1984), the study hypothesized those who exhibited
a “mentally tough” attitude would have an optimistic explanatory style
when speculating the cause of negative events. Mental toughness
was defined as displaying resistance to adverse situations and showing
minimal performance decrements (Davis & Zaichkowsky IV, 1998).
Criteria for mental toughness includes adversity response, over-achievement,
effort, enthusiasm, and skill. However, Peterson & Seligman (1984)
proposed those who exhibit an internal, stable, and global cause for negative
events are at a greater risk for depression. Surprisingly, results
of this study suggested those who exhibited mental toughness were more
inclined to demonstrate pessimistic explanatory styles compared to those
who did not. Therefore, the findings appear consistent with that
of Peterson & Seligman (1984), although the athletes did not exhibit
depressive symptoms.
Zillman’s
(1974) study of the misattribution of arousal, has greatly increased interest
pertaining to the effects of deception in the athletic environment, along
with how individuals account for their performance. A vast amount
of research has been performed in the past twelve years studying the effects
of false feedback in the athletic environment. (e.g., Silva, Cornelius,
& Finch, 1992; Taylor & Demick, 1994; Fitzsimmons, Landers, Thomas,
& van der Mars, 1991; Turnbull & Wolfson, 2002).
First, in 1992, Silva, Cornelius, & Finch examined the effects of false
feedback on psychological momentum. Taylor & Demick (1994) defined
psychological momentum as a positive or negative change in cognition, affect,
physiology, and behavior caused by an event or series of events that will
result in a commensurate shift in performance and competitive outcome.
Thus, Silva, Cornelius & Finch (1992) had 116 participants compete
in a novel motor task, after which they were given false feedback on the
outcome of the task. Results suggested those given positive feedback
acknowledged a high frequency of positive psychological momentum, while
those who were given negative feedback reported a high frequency of negative
psychological momentum. More importantly, false feedback was implemented
in research by Fitzsimmons, Landers, Thomas, & van der Mars (1991),
in which they determined whether self-efficacy predicted performance in
experienced weightlifters. 36 male weightlifters completed six performance
sessions, comprised of a one-repetition-maximum bench press. Prior
to the competition, participants stated the amount of weight they were
100%, 75%, and 50% confident they could lift. Feedback was
given under three conditions: accurate performance feedback, false feedback
that they lifted more then they actually did, and false feedback stating
they lifted less than they actually did. Results reaffirmed pre-existing
research that when given false-positive feedback, participants increased
their future bench press abilities.
Likewise,
an influential study by Turnbull & Wolfson (2002) determined whether
participants experienced a shift of mood, or intensity of mood depending
on the type of feedback they were administered following a competitive
event. It was hypothesized that participants given a cognitive task
in conjunction with exercise would exhibit intensified elatedness if given
positive feedback relative to those that had not exercised. Conversely,
when given negative feedback, it was predicted the exercisers would report
more negative affective states than those who had not exercised during
the course of the task.
Turnbull
and Wolfson’s (2002) study consisted of 26 female and 28 male undergraduate
students. After completing the POMS-BI questionnaire, each participant
was given a 20-minute cognitive task. Half the participants performed
the task in conjunction with exercise on an aerobic step while half did
not perform such physical activity. Cognitive tasks similar to those
found on the WAIS-R were utilized, namely the digit span scale. Once
the task was completed, participants rested for five minutes in order to
decrease residual arousal and the chance for excitation transfer.
Results revealed that participants who exercised during the rehearsal of
the cognitive task and then given positive feedback displayed higher mood
scores compared to those who did not exercise. Conversely, as predicted,
those who exercised and given negative feedback experienced a significant
mood decrease compared to those who did not. Also, exercisers who
received neutral feedback tended to sustain heightened mood compared to
others. Thus, participants who exercised reacted more intensely
to either positive or negative feedback relative to the control group of
non-exercisers.
Rationale
Turnbull
& Wolfson’s (2002) study was a variation of Zillman’s (1974) experiment,
as the pairing of previous physiological arousal with false feedback elicits
greater intensity of emotion compared to the normative sample. Thus,
Turnbull & Wolfson (2002) suggested the type of feedback given to an
individual following periods of increased physiological arousal in a competitive
environment elicit stronger reactions compared to those who did not exercise
in conjunction with performing a competitive cognitive task. In addition,
those who received positive and neutral false feedback reported less negative
affective states with increased vigor. Conversely, those who were
administered negative false feedback reported increased tension, depression,
anger, fatigue, and confusion compared to those that did not exercise.
Therefore, emphasis is placed on whether false feedback would have the
same effect on those who have just completed a race in a virtual reality
environment.
The
current study was a systematic replication of the research conducted by
Turnbull & Wolfson (2002). It was predicted that if individuals
were administered positive feedback following a competitive virtual race,
they would experience decreased states of tension, depression, anger, fatigue,
confusion, and total mood disturbance, with increased vigor. Likewise,
if given negative feedback it was predicted they would report decreased
vigor and increased negative affective states. Finally, it was also
hypothesized participants’ perceived interpersonal competitiveness, determined
by a 5 point Likert-type competitiveness questionnaire derived by Griffin-Pierson
(1990), would correlate with how they attribute the outcome of the race
in the virtual world. That is, did they believe their performance
on the track was under their control, or under that of the administrator?
If the administrator did not control their effort and hertz output throughout
the course of the study would they still believe they could beat the competitor?
Since the administrator made participants keep their effort and hertz output
within a certain range, the study predicted results similar to that of
Frederick (2000), as competitive athletes will attribute the outcome of
the race as external and unstable in the given situation, independent of
their control.
Participants
Eighteen
student athletes (8 male, 15 female) from a small Catholic liberal arts
college in New England were used in the current study. More specifically,
there were 6 seniors, 3 juniors, 10 sophomores, and 4 freshmen. 17
out of the 23 subjects reported participating in a varsity sport in the
past year, while 14 and 16 reported engaging in intramural or other exercise
activities, respectively. Each subject participated in a one-hour
monitoring session in the Virtual Reality laboratory at Saint Anselm College.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive either positive or negative
feedback. Each participant was protected under the APA code of ethics
and was approved by the institution’s International Review Board.
Materials
The
Profile of Mood States (McNair, Lorr & Droppelman, 1971) is a 65 item,
Likert-type questionnaire ranging from not at all to extremely. Subscales
of the POMS include depression, anger, tension, fatigue, vigor, confusion,
and total mood disturbance. The internal consistency of the
POMS ranges from .84 to .95 while test-retest reliability coefficients
range from .65 to .74 (Hansen, Stevens & Coast, 2001).
The Competitiveness Questionnaire,
derived by Griffin-Pierson (1990) measures both interpersonal and goal
competitiveness. For the purpose of the current study, only the interpersonal
competitiveness scale was utilized as participants competed against a virtual
runner. The reliability of the interpersonal competitiveness scale
was .76, while the validity was .62.
Apparatus
In order
to obtain an accurate reading of heart rate, a Polarâ Heart Rate
Monitor was utilized in the current study. Model A-1 allows users
to track heart rate and workout time continuously. It also provides
users with their average heart rate at the end of their workout session.
The
Vivometrics Lifeshirtâ was implemented to record physiological responses,
such as respiration during the course of the study. The Lifeshirtâ
allowed investigators to pinpoint physiological responses at a given point
during the study, such as when a competitor came into view. A useful
tool, the Lifeshirtâ combined with Vivologicâ software was
used in an ongoing study at Saint Anselm College pertaining to arousal.
The
Scifitâ elliptical trainer was combined with the 5DT head mounted
display in order to simulate a real word environment. The SXT7000
elliptical machine was purchased May 6, 2003 from Precision Fitness Equipment
in Natick, Massachusetts. The machine allows users to monitor their
heart rate while shifting between 5 and 2000 watts of resistance.
The use of bi-directional resistance allows for reverse walking, along
with isokinetic resistance, ensuring the user does not go beyond a certain
RPM during advanced workouts. Handrails may also be used to ensure
proper body positioning and comfort while on the machine. There is
no minimum RPM as it is beneficial for rehabilitated patients and deconditioned
users.
The
5DT head-mounted display 800 system allows users to configure their own
immersion environment while providing high resolution (800x600x3 pixels-Full
SVGA)
and superior sound
quality. The 5DT HMD 800 includes adjustable top/back ratchets, a
mounting base for head trackers, and a flip-up mode for reality checks.
The optical field of view is approximately 28 inches in height x 21 degrees.
The frequency response is 16Hz-22Hz (3dB), while the sound pressure level
is 120dB (1KHz).
Finally,
a Dellâ computer system equipped with 1024 MB, a Quadro4XGL 64MB
video card, and a 16x DVD ROM drive was utilized to project the DVD of
the virtual runner onto the 5DT head-mounted display. The computer
system was purchased in April, 2002 from 5DT, Inc.
Procedure
Initially,
subjects entered the virtual reality laboratory and filled out a consent
agreement as well as an informational form of one’s medical history.
The experimenter administered a demographic questionnaire, the Profile
of Mood States, and Griffin-Pierson’s (1990) competitiveness questionnaire
to participants. The Polarâ Heart Rate monitor (Model A-1)
was utilized to derive 60-70% of their max heart rate. The participants
were fitted to the Vivometrics Lifeshirt®, measuring physiological
responses such as heart rate and respiration. They were then calibrated
to the Lifeshirt® using a breathing calibration bag and nose clip,
and were asked to take seven breaths in rapid succession while both sitting
and standing.
The
Scifit® SXT7000 elliptical trainer in conjunction with the 5DT
800 head-mounted display was implemented to simulate a real-world environment.
Participants warmed up for ten minutes on the elliptical until they
reached 60-70% of their max heart rate, and continued to practice their
standard hertz output at this rate for four minutes. When their heart
rate reached 60-70% max, the screen on the head-mounted display was turned
on, displaying a virtual track at a local high school. Participants
were notified that if their workload was modified from 65-70% max heart
rate, a competitor would appear on the 1600-meter track (mild deception).
If a competitor was to appear, they were given strict instruction not to
increase their wattage and workload. Since some people may become
dizzy in the midst of a virtual environment, participants were told to
notify the investigator if that should occur, and the study would be terminated
for that participant.
Once
participants completed 1600 meters on the virtual track, a preprogrammed
athlete appeared within competitive view. Both before and after the
athlete appeared within view, participants were given questions regarding
comfort, anxiety, and effort, which were then recorded on the Lifeshirtâ
diary. The competitor remained approximately 400 yards in front of
the participant regardless of workload, then dropped back and moved ahead
once again. A track coach remained stationed at the finish line (visible
during the final 100 meters) indicating laps remaining. Once completed,
there was a four-minute cool-down period. During the cool-down, the
investigator pretended to print out the results of the race, and went into
an adjacent room to obtain them. Whether the participant beat the
competitor or was defeated was determined by a flip of a coin prior to
the study. In order to have an even number of participants in each
group, the coin was flipped and then yoked for the next subject.
False feedback was given, as participants either beat the virtual reality
runner by 0:06 seconds or lost to the VR runner by the aforementioned time.
Once
the printout was received by the subject, the investigator presented the
Profile of Mood States once again in order to determine whether they
displayed a shift in mood or intensity of mood following the administration
false information. They were also interviewed regarding reactions to being
passed, how they viewed the competitor and situation, and if they experienced
anxiety while being passed or if it had little effect on them. Finally,
participants were given a debriefing form and a request to follow up if
necessary.
The dependent
variables in this study included tension, depression, anger, fatigue, confusion,
vigor, and total mood disturbance. A paired-samples t-test was implemented
to determine whether there was an overall change in the dependent measures
based on the type of feedback administered to participants. The test
suggested an overall marginal significance for tension, while vigor, depression,
fatigue, confusion, and total mood disturbance all revealed overall significant
interactions. Please refer to Table 1 for
the mean scores.
An independent-samples t-test
was utilized to analyze differences in positive and negative feedback groups.
Results suggest significance in tension scores, t(21)=2.34, p=.029, while
the other dependent measures (i.e.depression, anger, fatigue, confusion,
vigor, tmd) did not display significant changes. Please see Table
2.
In order to account for the
directionality and strength for the overall change in pre to post subscale
scores, a paired-samples t-test was implemented. Results of the test
suggest the positive feedback group experienced the greatest amount of
mood state change throughout the course of the study. In essence,
scores in depression, fatigue, and total mood disturbance decreased significantly,
while vigor increased as predicted. Please refer to Table
3.
Finally, an independent-samples
t-test was conducted between groups based on participants’ level of competitiveness
and locus of control. Results indicated a marginally significant
difference between highly interpersonal competitive individuals and external
locus of control, based on their perceived performance in the virtual environment,
t(14)= -1.819, p=.090. Another independent-samples t-test was conducted
to measure level of competitiveness and locus of control in real-life competitive
environments, t(18)= -2.511, p= .022. In this instance, results illustrated
that in real-life competition, participants generally perceived their performance
to be highly internal, under their control instead of under the influence
of an external force.
The current investigation attempted
to systematically replicate Turnbull & Wolfson’s (2002) study and to
illustrate similar results when immersed in a competitive virtual reality
environment. It was predicted that two feedback groups would display
different POMS subscale scores following a competitive VR race. More
specifically, it was predicted individuals in the positive feedback group
would report less intense negative affective states, namely tension, depression,
anger, fatigue, and confusion. The reduction of negative POMS subscale
scores would thus decrease total mood disturbance in these individuals.
In contrast, individuals who received negative feedback were predicted
to report decreased vigor, along with increased tension, depression, anger,
fatigue, and confusion, promoting a higher total mood disturbance score.
Results were not consistent with the hypothesis, as there were no significant
changes pre to post with the implementation of negative feedback.
Instead, there was only marginal significance for fatigue subscale scores;
however, not in the predicted direction. After the competitive event,
individuals in the negative feedback group reported less fatigue compared
to their initial pretest. Thus, the hypothesis was supported in the
positive feedback group, but not for the negative.
With positive and negative
groups combined, there was an overall change pretest to posttest.
The change was accounted for by the positive feedback group, as depression,
anger, and total mood disturbance significantly decreased while vigor increased.
These results are consistent with Turnbull & Wolfson’s (2002) study
as participants who were given positive false feedback generally reported
increased vigor subscale scores along with decreased negative affective
subscale scores. Along with Turnbull & Wolfson (2002), other
studies have demonstrated how exercise can have a significant positive
impact on mood states. For example, Steptoe, Kimball
& Basford (1998) studied the effects of exercise on the experiences
and appraisal of daily stressors. In their study, investigators administered
diaries of exercise, mood, and the experience of daily stressors to 38
men and 34 women over a period twelve consecutive days. Findings
showed participants reported positive moods more frequently along with
decreased depression on days they exercised compared with non-exercise
days. Also, results gathered from the State-Trait Anxiety Scale illustrated
that individuals low in trait anxiety reported fewer stressful events on
the days they exercised compared with days they did not exercise.
Lichtman & Poser’s (1983) investigation
is another study that displayed the beneficial aspects of exercise on mood
states. In their study, researchers administered the Nowlis Mood
Scale, the Profile of Mood States and the Stroop Color-Word test to 64
participants aged between 16 and 54 years. Participants were randomly
assigned to either vigorous exercise or a hobby class. In essence,
those who engaged in the vigorous exercise activity reported less fatigue
and depression, along with increased elatedness compared to the non-exercise,
hobby group. This study supported the notion that physical activity
is related to incremental positive changes in mood states.
Combining the positive and
negative feedback groups in order to illustrate average individual subscale
scores showed that between groups, only tension decreased significantly.
The reason for the significant decreases in tension is not clear, however,
apprehension concerning the instrumentation and procedure of the study
may have contributed to initial uneasiness that decreased throughout the
course of the study.
As predicted, there was evidence
for a decrease in negative affective states with increased vigor in the
positive feedback group. There are many possibilities as to why this
may have occurred. From a physiological standpoint, there is a possibility
exercise increases endorphin and serotonin synthesis and metabolism (e.g.,
Yeung, 1996; Chaouloff, 1997; Wiley, 2000). More specifically, physical
activity increases the entry of tryptophan, the precursor to 5-HT synthesis,
into the brain (Chaouloff, 1997). It can also be argued that for
the competitive athlete, a win promotes increased vigor, along with decreased
negative affective states, as shown by the “iceberg profile.” Proposed
by Morgan (1979), the profile argues competitive athletes exhibit a mood
profile that is lower in negative moods and higher in vigor scores compared
to the normative psychological sample.
Since 1979, many studies have been conducted
to test the validity of the iceberg profile in competitive athletes.
Fuchs & Zaichkowsky (1983) investigated whether the iceberg profile
was relevant to male and female bodybuilders. 31 competitive bodybuilders
were given both the Profile of Mood States along with the Eysenck Personality
Inventory to determine whether their mood characteristics resembled Morgan’s
(1979) profile. In essence, results indicated that both male and
female bodybuilders had a similar iceberg profile compared with competitive
runners, wrestlers, and oarsmen. Also, Gat & McWhirter (1998)
examined competitive and recreational cyclists vs. non-athletes in terms
of their mood profile. Surprisingly, both the competitive and recreational
cyclist exhibited mood profiles similar to Morgan’s (1979) iceberg profile.
Therefore, there is a possibility that regardless of the feedback administered
and the relative competitiveness of the athlete, athletes will exhibit
a more positive mood compared to non-athletes. Finally, another reason
for the overall decrease in negative affective states is that participants
may have simply been happy to complete the study and receive course credit.
Along with depression, fatigue
decreased significantly in the positive feedback group. This appears
viable, as vigor increased significantly for that particular group as well.
Again, this may be due to the nature of the competitive athlete.
Another possibility relates to studies performed with chronic fatigue patients,
in which moderate exercise is a valid treatment option. Freidberg
(2002) conducted a case study on a 52-yr-old man suffering from chronic
fatigue syndrome, and found the implementation of a 26-step graded activity
program increase walk time from 0 to 155 minutes a week. Follow-up
assessments revealed a heightened global mood rating and substantial increases
in walk time. Therefore, evidence exists that exercise may reduce
fatigue rather than exacerbate it.
Vigor and total mood disturbance significantly
increased in the positive feedback group, thus supporting the hypothesis.
Reasons for the increase are most likely due to the type of feedback administered
and the effect of exercise as previously stated. Tension, anger,
and confusion did not result in significant changes pre to post, for reasons
that are unclear. Possible explanations include the small sample
size of the group and a lack of threat posed by the virtual runner, to
be discussed later.
Another possibility pertains
to Lane & Terry’s (2000) conceptual model, which explains the relationship
between precompetitive mood and performance. Lane & Terry (2000)
believed that in the absence of depression, tension and anger have a curvilinear
effect on performance. Because there was a significant decrease in
depression yet no significant changes in tension or anger during the course
of the study, possibilities exist that if the participants were optimally
aroused, their performance may have actually been facilitated by the presence
of tension and anger. Still, there is no evidence that the feedback
administered should not have a significant effect on tension, anger, or
confusion.
Unlike the positive feedback group, the
negative group showed only marginal decreases in fatigue. Although
there were decreases in negative affective states and an increase in vigor,
the results for these subscales were not significant. Thus, the hypothesis
was not supported for the negative feedback group. Because there
were only ten participants in this group, a strong possibility exists the
sample size was not large enough, as a group of ten participants cannot
easily represent a given population. Because many of the participants
were selected from the same sports psychology class and appeared at different
dates and times, it is possible there was a violation of confidentiality,
despite debriefing.
Another possibility for the
lack of significance in the negative feedback group pertains to the legitimacy
of the virtual competition. That is, there were concerns as to whether
participants believed their performance against the VR competitor was actually
monitored and recorded by the computer. Testimonial evidence at the
time of debriefing confirmed that some participants knew the print out
of their results did not apply to their overall performance on the track.
In some cases, the virtual runner on the track appeared too slow and out
of breath, prompting participants to believe they were in better shape
than the virtual runner. Although it was not consistent with anger
subscale scores, verbal evidence of frustration arose when the seemingly
exhausted virtual runner beat certain participants. Nevertheless,
there was not enough change pre to post to make anger increase significantly
for the negative feedback group.
Finally, the hypothesis that
highly competitive individuals would exhibit characteristics of an unstable
attributional style and external locus of control, exhibited by Frederick
(2000) was marginally significant. Therefore, the hypothesis was
supported, as 10 participants strongly agreed and 6 participants agreed
their performance was not under their control, and instead was influenced
by the administrator. They generally believed that if the administrator
did not have them control their workload, they could have beaten the virtual
runner. However, consistent with Cox (2002), in real-life competitive
situations, participants demonstrated an internal locus of control, as
they strongly believed themselves to be in control of their performance
and success. Because of these differences, the participants in the
current study exhibited an unstable attributional style, recognizing their
performance has the ability to change given the context of the situation.
Therefore, it is possible participants in the negative feedback group did
not report significant decreases in negative affective states because they
believed their performance was totally controlled by the administrator,
and not due to their own effort and abilities.
There are many ways in which
this study could have been improved. First, the sample size should
have been greater, as 23 of participants cannot easily represent a population.
Since there was no significance in the negative feedback group, better
results may have been obtained if there were thirteen participants instead
of only ten, making the groups even in number. Also, the study
may have been more believable if participants were matched with a virtual
runner based on their running experience and capabilities. Based
on the level of exertion the virtual runner exhibited, negative feedback
did not seem valid to some participants. Therefore, at least four
other films (two male and two female) should have been utilized for novice,
intermediate, and advanced runners. Finally, since virtual environments
may provoke sickness, nausea and dizziness were a problem for at least
four people in the study. Despite the fact some are predisposed to
motion sickness, there is a possibility it could have been alleviated given
more suitable technology. For instance, the video recorder was attached
to a confederate’s head as she rode a bicycle around the track. Thus,
the recording was not steady, as the picture bounced up and down and side
to side. Therefore, a computer program with a simulated track may
not induce as much dizziness, however costly.
The current investigation
was a part of a larger ongoing experiment investigating physiological arousal
when a competitor comes into view. Since some participants
became dizzy and ill during the course of the study, future research may
focus upon characteristics of individuals who have a tendency to suffer
from motion sickness compared to those who do not. It would also
be interesting to compare adults to children to determine whether there
is an age difference in how individuals rate their mood after a competitive
event.
Buck, R. (1984). The Communication of Emotion. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 63-66.
Chaouloff, F. (1997). Effects of Acute Physical
Exercise on Central Serotonergic Systems. Medicine & Science
in
Sports & Exercise.
Vol. 29, Issue 1.
Cox, R. (2002). Sports Psychology Concepts and Applications. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Davis IV, H. & Zaichkowsky, L. (1998).
Explanatory Style Among Elite Ice Hockey Athletes. Journal of
Perceptual
and Motor Skills.
Vol. 87.
Davis, K. & Pargman, D. Emotional Responses
Following a Disappointing Competitive Sport in High Level Athletes.
Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology.
Frederick, C. (2000). Competitiveness: Relations
with GPA, Locus of Control, Sex, and Athletic Status. Journal
of
Perceptual and Motor
Skills. Vol. 90.
Friedberg, F. (2002). Does Graded Activity
Increase Activity? A Case Study of chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Journal
of
Behavior Therapy
& Experimental Psychiatry. Vol. 33, Issue 3-4.
Fuchs, C. & Zaichkowsky, L. (1983).
Psychological Characteristics of Male and Female Bodybuilders: The Iceberg
Profile. Journal
of Sport Behavior. Vol. 6, Issue 3.
Gat, I. & McWhirter, B. (1998). Personality
Characteristics of Competitive and Recreational Cyclists. Journal
of Sport
Behavior. Vol.
21, Issue 4.
Griffin-Pierson, S. (1990). The Competitiveness
Questionnaire: A Measure of two Components of Competitiveness.
Measurement and Evaluation
in Counseling and Development. Vol. 23, Issue 3.
Hale, B. (1993). Explanatory Style as a
Predictor of Academic and Athletic Achievement in College Athletes. Journal
of
Sport Behavior.
Vol. 16, Issue 2.
Hansen, C., Stevens, L., & Coast, J.
(2001). Exercise Duration and Mood State: How Much is Enough to Feel
Better?
Health Psychology.
Vol. 20, Issue 4. 267-275.
Heider, F. (1944). Social Perception and Phenomenal Causality. Psychological Review. Vol. 51.
Lichtman, S. & Poser, E. (1983). The
Effects of Exercise on Mood and Cognitive Functioning. Journal
of
Psychosomatic Research.
Vol, 27, Issue 1.
McNair, D., Lorr, M. & Droppelman, L. (1971).
Manual for the Profile of Moods States. San Diego: Education and
Industrial Testing Service.
Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. (1984).
Causal Explanations as a Risk Factor for Depression: Theory and Evidence.
Psychological Review.
Vol. 91, Issue 3.
Plutchik, R. (1994). The Psychology and Biology of Emotion. New York, NY : Harper Collins College Publishers.
Schacter, S. & Singer, J. (1962). Cognitive,
Social, and Physiological Determinants of Emotional State. Psychological
Review. Vol.
69.
Smith, E., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Frederickson,
B., & Loftus, G. (2003) Atkinson & Hilgard’s Introduction
to
Psychology. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Publishing.
Steptoe, A., Kimball, J, & Basford, P. (1998).
Exercise and the Experience and Appraisal of Daily Stressors: A
Naturalistic Study.
Journal
of Behavioral Medicine. Vol, 21, Issue 4.
Taylor, J. & Demick, A. (1994). A Multidimensional
Model of Momentum in Sports. Journal of Applied Sports
Psychology. Vol.
6.
Turnbull, M. & Wolfson, S. (2002). Effects
of Exercise and Outcome Feedback on Mood: Evidence for Missattribution.
Journal of Sport
Behavior. Vol. 25, Issue 4.
Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of Motivation: From Mechanism to Cognition. Chicago: Rand McNally Publishers.
Yeung, R. (1996). The Acute Effects of Exercise on Mood State. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. Vol. 40, Issue 2.
Zillman, D. & Bryant, J. Effect of Residual
Excitation on the Emotional Response to Provocation and Delayed
Aggressive Behavior.
Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 30.
Table 1
_____________________________________________________
Pre
Post
t
p
Tension
6.43
4.96
1.79
.088
Depression 4.13
1.61
2.83
.010**
Anger
3.04
2.35
0.65
.521
Fatigue
7.26
3.70
3.72
.001**
Confusion 5.17
3.78
2.08
.050*
Vigor
13.78
16.09
-1.90
.070
TMD
12.26
0.04
3.73
.001**
_____________________________________________________
Note *p .05 **p .01
Table 1 represents overall means for POMS scores
pre to post and displays significant overall differences in depression,
fatigue, confusion, and total mood disturbance.
Table 2
__________________________________________________________________
Positive Feedback
Negative Feedback
t
p
POMS
Post Score
Tension
6.08(2.8)
3.50(2.4)
2.39 .027*
Depression 1.77(3.0)
1.40(1.9)
.36 .723
Anger
2.23(2.2)
2.50(4.7)
-.168 .87
Fatigue
3.62(4.0)
3.80(3.0)
-.127 .900
Confusion
3.69(2.1)
3.90(3.1)
-.181 .859
Vigor
17.00(4.9)
14.90(6.4)
.858 .403
TMD
.31(11.7)
-.30(11.4)
.125 .952
___________________________________________________________________
Note *p .05
Table 2 represents between-group POMS means for
the positive and negative feedback groups, with tension as significant.
Table 3
_____________________________________________
Group
Pre Post
t
p
Positive
Tension
7.62 6.08
1.126 .282
Depression 4.69
1.77 2.526
.027*
Anger
3.62 2.23
1.091 .297
Fatigue
8.00 3.62
3.167 .008**
Confusion 4.62
3.69 1.171
.264
Vigor
13.46 17.00
-2.684 .020*
TMD
15.08 .31
3.448 .005**
Negative
Tension
4.90 3.50
1.801 .105
Depression 3.40
1.40 1.384
.200
Anger
2.30 2.50
-.108 .916
Fatigue
6.30 3.80
1.959 .082
Confusion 5.90
3.90 1.704
.123
Vigor
14.20 14.90
-.322 .754
TMD
8.60 -.30
1.741 .116
_____________________________________________
Note *p .05 **p .01
Table 3 represents mean subscale scores pre to
post in both the positive and negative feedback groups. Notice the
positive feedback group accounted for the most change pre to post, as depression,
fatigue, and total mood disturbance significantly decreased as vigor significantly
increased.
Appendix A
Consent to Participate
This study investigates the relationship
of mood to physiological functioning (heart rate, respiratory functioning,
and skin conductance) within the context of the activity of running in
a virtual environment. You may discontinue participation at any time during
this study. In this study you will complete demographic information, questionnaires
related to mood and exercise, and participate in a run in a virtual environment.
Some subjects may be invited to participate in an additional study that
will investigate the ability to manage the relationship of mood to activity
in the virtual environment.
Your completion of this study is
fully voluntary. Participation in this study is not mandatory. Should
you decide not to participate at any time, please let your evaluator know
and the procedure will be discontinued. As part of participation
in this study, we will videotape the activity component for analysis.
Once analyses are completed the video will be erased. Please initial here
to indicate consent to videotape you during the activity component of this
study.
( ) yes videotape (
) no don’t videotape Initial here _____.If you have questions about
this study, please feel free to speak to the researcher. After reading
this description/ informed consent form, I (sign here) _________________________________agree
to participate in this study. Date ___/___/___. Please print
your name________________________________ Date of Birth:
____/____/____
I am at least 18 years old and am
my own legal guardian ___yes
no
Please print your name______________________________
Again, should you have any questions
about this study or would like to learn more about this area of research,
please contact
Paul Finn, PhD
Kathy FlanneryPaul Finn, PhD
Kathy Flannery, PhD
Department of Psychology
Department of Psychology
Saint Anselm College
Saint Anselm College
(603) 641-7131
(603) 641-7254
Paulfinn@anselm.edu
Kflanner@anselm.edu
Appendix B
Id _____
Demographic Questionnaire
Age: _______ Date of Birth: ___/___/______ Sex: ( ) male ( ) female
Year: ( ) Freshman ( ) Sophomore ( ) Junior ( ) Senior
G.P.A. (Freshmen leave blank): _______
Major:___________________
During this past year did you/are you participating in a sport as a student athlete? _______
If so, which sport(s)? ________________________________
During this past year did you/are you participating in an intramural sport? ________
If so, which sport(s)? ________________________________
During this past year did you/are you participating in exercise activities on your own? ___
If so, which activities(s)? ________________________________
During the last 3 months on average,
how many times a week did you run? _______On average, how long (time) for
each
run?_________ How many miles
did you typically run each time? _______
During the last week, how many times did you run? _______ On average, how long (time) for each run?_________ How many miles did you typically run each time? _______
How many times a week do you ride a bike? ________ Swim? ______ Other aerobic activity_______ (please specify)? ____________________________________
Did you work out today ()yes
()no If yes, what did you do_________how long______
What intensity (rate from 0=none
4=highest _____
Do you smoke cigarettes? ( ) yes ( ) no
Have you consumed alcoholic beverage(s) in today? ( ) yes ( ) no if yes, what type____________ about how many ounces__________
Have you consumed alcoholic beverage(s) in the last 24 hours? ( ) yes ( ) no if yes, what type____________ about how many ounces__________
Have you consumed acaffeinated beverage(s) in today? ( ) yes ( ) no if yes, what type____________ about how many ounces__________
Have you consumed caffeinated beverage(s) in the last 24 hours? ( ) yes ( ) no if yes, what type____________ about how many ounces__________
Are you currently taking prescriptive
medications (today)? ( ) yes
( ) no
If so, what type? ___________________________________________
Do you take over the counter medications
(today)? ( ) yes (
) no
If so, specify type __________________________________
Has a health care provider placed you on exercise restrictions that could limit your participation in this study? ()yes ()no If you are not sure, please ask.
Current height ______
Current weight ______
Appendix C
Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
1. I would want to get first place because that is the best place a runner can get.
1 2 3 4 5
2. I perform better when I am competing against someone rather than when I am the only one striving for a goal.
1 2 3 4 5
3. I do not care to be the best that I can be.
1 2 3 4 5
4. If I receive a sports reward it is because I did well, and not because others weren’t as good as me.
1 2 3 4 5
5. I do not feel that winning is important in both practice and competition.
1 2 3 4 5
6. When I win an award or race it means that I am the best compared to everyone else that was running. It is only fair that the best person win the race.
1 2 3 4 5
7. I always like to be the first one to finish a workout.
1 2 3 4 5
8. I am not disappointed if I do not reach a goal that I have set for myself.
1 2 3 4 5
9. I have always wanted to be better than others.
1 2 3 4 5
10. Achieving excellence is not important to me.
1 2 3
4 5
11. If I win an award it is because
I did better than everyone else.
1 2 3 4 5
12. I would want to win a race because that means I did better than other people.
1 2 3 4 5
13. I would rather play a sport I could excel at than one which was more fun but I was average at.
1 2 3 4 5
14. Because it is important that a winner be decided, I do not like to leave a race unfinished.
1 2 3 4 5
15. I would rather run a difficult course and excel than run an easier course and excel.
1 2 3
4 5
Appendix D
ID#_______
Post Eliptical/VR Interview
How competitive did you feel during
the run you just completed
Not at all competitive
1 2 3
4 5 very highly competitive
I would rather compete in a difficult
event and win than win and excel in an event that is easier
Strongly Disagree
1 2 3
4 5 Strongly Agree
My competitive performance and success
in competition is mostly under my control
Strongly Disagree
1 2 3
4 5 Strongly Agree
When running in an event at goal
pace, if during the middle of the race I come upon a competitor,
the presence of the competitor would:
have no effect on me
1 2 3
4 5
motivate me to push harder
1 2 3
4 5
discourage me – slow down
1 2 3
4 5
When running in an event at goal
pace, if during the middle of the race a competitor passes me, the
presence of the competitor would:
have no effect on me
1 2 3
4 5
motivate me to push harder
1 2 3
4 5
discourage me – slow down
1 2 3
4 5
During the study I just completed
– The main goal of this study was to
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
The level of workout intensity during this exercise was (please rate from 0=none to 4=highest)_______
If the examiner did not have me voluntarily
control my level of activity by having me control my work load I could
have passed the competitor when first seen on the track (circle one)
Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
Why or why not? _______________________________
If the examiner did not have me voluntarily
control my level of activity by having me control my work load I could
have passed the competitor when first seen on the track (circle one)
Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree
Why or why not? _______________________________
Appendix E
Identification #_____
Debriefing Participants
Thank you for
your participation in the current study. This study investigated
competitive anxiety in sport for both goal oriented and competitive runners.
Measures of goal orientation and competitiveness were given in order to
place participants into groups. While running on the elliptical machine
in the virtual reality dome, eye movement and bodily functions, such as
heart rate, respiratory rate and skin conductance, were measured to determine
how the bodies of competitive and goal oriented athletes react to being
passed by a competitor. The competitor passing you was not another subject
in the study, this was videotaped to happen at a predetermined time, completely
independent of you. The information acquired will be held confidential.
Individual results will not be available to you; however, group results
of the research will be accessible to you as participants.
Also, if you
participated in the second component of this study, you received a “Mental
Trainng Package” that was used to assess ability to reduce arousal among
those participants who report sympathetic arousal as impeding competitive
performance
Please sign the
debriefing form to indicate your knowledge and understanding of this study.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Today’s Date: ___/___/___
Signature ____________________
Witness:
Signature ____________________
Today’s Date: ___/___/___
Again, should you have any
questions about this study or would like to learn more about this area
of research, please contact
Paul Finn, PhD Kathy Flannery
Paul Finn, PhD
Kathy Flannery, PhD
Department of Psychology
Department of Psychology
Saint Anselm College
Saint Anselm College
(603) 641-7131
(603) 641-7254
Paulfinn@anselm.edu
Kflanner@anselm.edu