Drive Theory

Psychologists believe that there are both positive and negative effects on performance of athletes depends on the levels of arousal and anxiety. Arousal is a positive state of physiological and psychological activation of the body, and it normally contributes to optimal performance but an excessive amount could have a negative effect on performance. Anxiety on the other hand, is a negatively interpreted arousal experience. In other words, it is a negative emotional state with feelings of nervousness and worry. Anxiety is categorized into three types, involving cognitive, somatic, and state anxiety. It is believed that athletes’ pre-competition arousal/anxiety level influences future performance, and it is often the ability of the athletes

It can have both physical and mental symptoms of arousal, affecting the athletes’ performance both positively and negatively. To apprehend this phenomenon, this theory refers the sports arousal to “drive”, indicating the physiological readiness to perform. The theory establishes a linear relationship between arousal and performance, meaning that when drive is low performance is poor, and when increased, athletes display well-learned or practiced behaviors, known as the “dominant response”. Therefore, the theory states that the more learnt a skill is, the more likely it is that high arousal produces good performances. There are several factors that influence the effectiveness of the theories, including personal and physical traits of the athletes, task complexity, the audiences, etc. To prove the accuracy of the theory, Hull carried an experiment in 1943, by counting the number of mistakes rats made running through a maze to locate a reward of food. It has been proved that arousal has helped the speed of learning when already conditioned with strong habit strengths, which causes a dominant response. Hull also found that on complex tasks the bonds were stimulus responses, meaning high arousal interfered with learning. In conclusion, Hull suggests that high arousal activates incorrect stimulus response compete with the correct responses. However, his study is too

It is rare that any sports athletes have never been anxious sports competition. This theory argues that as long as there are lower thoughts of anxiety, performance will be best at a medium level of physical arousal. It discusses that cognitive anxiety plays a key role in determining whether somatic anxiety may lead to bad performance. The theory also explain that an increase in anxiety and arousal leads to a dramatic drop in performance level, because an increased level of arousal indicates that the athletes are worried about their performance. This performance levels only drop when cognitive anxiety is combined with vastly high levels of arousal. The theory, however, does not argue that cognitive anxiety is thoroughly negative; a certain degree of anxiety can be superior to good performances as it keeps you more alert and aware of small details. Hardy and Parfitt (1991) tested the model’s predictions with eight female basketball players who completed free throws one day before an important competition, to produce a high level of cognitive anxiety, and a day later to produce a low level of cognitive anxiety. Their arousal was manipulated by asking them to complete shuttle runs before performing the free throws. As a result, the athletes were more anxious on the day before than following competition, meaning that at high, but not low, levels of cognitive anxiety, performance has the