Stressors and expected performance of soccer athletes: The role of sport confidence and cognitive appraisal

1 Citar este trabalho Morais, C., Simães, C., Gomes, A.R, & Gonçalves, B.M. (2025). Stressors and expected performance of soccer athletes: The role of sport confidence and cognitive appraisal. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 19(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.20220046. 2 Stressors and expected performance of soccer athletes: The role of sport confidence and cognitive appraisal Short title: Cognitive Appraisal in Soccer Athletes Authors 1. Catarina Morais (corresponding author) Research Centre for Human Development, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Universidade Católica Portuguesa. Porto, Portugal. [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9881-3514 2. Clara Simães 3. Clara Simães Health Sciences Research Unit: Nursing (UICISA: E), Nursing School of Coimbra (ESEnfC). Coimbra, Portugal. [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9856-2295 3. A. Rui Gomes Psychology Research Centre. School of Psychology. University of Minho. Braga. Portugal. [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6390-9866 4. Beatriz Martins Gonçalves Psychology Research Centre. School of Psychology. University of Minho. Braga. Portugal. [email protected] Funding This study was conducted at two different research centres: Research Centre for Human Development (supported by the Foundation for Science and Technology, ref. UIDB/04872/2020) and by the Psychology Research Centre (CIPsi/UM) School of Psychology, University of Minho (supported by the Foundation for Science and Technology, ref. UIDB/01662/2020). 3 Abstract This study aimed to provide a framework for how athletes evaluate stress before a competition and how stress relates to cognitive appraisal, sport confidence, and expectations of performance. Participants were 327 youth male athletes, aged 15–19 years (M= 16.90; SD = 1.00), who competed in the Portuguese National Football League and completed a questionnaire 24–48 hours before their match, using the critical incident methodology. Results revealed that opponents were the main source of stress for athletes and that the more athletes stress about their opponents, the more they tend to perceive the situation as threatening (and less challenging), the lower their perceptions of coping and sport confidence which, in turn, predicted lower expectations of individual and collective performance. In sum, perceiving the stressful situation as either a challenge or a threat predicts young athletes’ sport confidence and, consequently, expected performance when dealing Q2 Q1 with stressful competitive situations. Keywords: Challenge perception; Threat perception; Control perception; Coping perception; Football; Stress. 4 Stressors and expected performance of soccer athletes: The role of sport confidence and cognitive appraisal Youth sport is frequently presented as an opportunity for athletes to develop a healthy lifestyle and different skills (Ronkainen et al., 2020). However, this is not always the case, and sports participation can also have a negative impact on young players' development (Holt & Neely, 2011). For example, excessive pressure to win and obtain higher levels of performance can contribute to athletes' negative sports experiences (Gustafsson et al., 2017; Wong et al., 2015). These negative experiences may arise due to the wide number of factors that athletes face when competing, namely the possibility of a bad performance, expectations of others, pressures from opponents, injuries, among others (Doron & Bourbousson 2017; Gustafsson, et al., 2017). The stress experience can also increase if athletes perceive their personal and social resources as insufficient to deal with the competition demands, thus leading to a perceived lack of control over the situation (Simães & Gomes, 2019). To understand how athletes adapt to competition stress, we must consider their perceptions of physical, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive stressors and what coping responses they use to manage them (cf. Tamminen et al., 2016). In this study, we aimed to provide an understanding of how athletes perceive competitive stressors immediately before a competition, as well as how competitive stressors relates to cognitive appraisal, sport confidence, and expectations of performance. The patterns of relations tested in our study followed Lazarus’ (1991, 1999) transactional stress model which assumes that stress arises when individuals perceive their resources to be insufficient to deal with the demands of the situation (Lazarus, 1991). Therefore, stress should be understood as an appraisal process resulting from a discrepancy between the requirements of the situation and one's personal resources for managing them (cf. Lazarus, 1991). Specifically, when athletes perceive sports as too demanding for their personal resources, negative reactions tend to occur (Gomes, 2014). The pivotal factor that explains positive or negative reactions to stress relates to the cognitive appraisal processes that are responsible for the interpretation and coping of stressful situations (cf. Lazarus, 1991; see also Gomes et al., 2017). According to Lazarus' transactional model (1991), cognitive appraisal indicates how the person evaluate the transactions with the environment, resulting in two dimensions: primary cognitive appraisal (which refers to the meaning of the stressful situation to the individual wellbeing, being influenced by goals, values, and beliefs of each person), and secondary 5 cognitive appraisal (which refers to the individual judgment regarding the acquired resources to deal with the situation). Primary cognitive appraisal can assume three forms: irrelevant appraisals (situations are not considered threatening or harmful nor has having any benefit to the individual); benign-positive appraisals (situations are considered to enhance well-being of the individual), and stressful appraisals (situations are considered to have a significant threat to the individual’s well-being). The situations that are evaluated as stressful generally results in three forms of primary appraisal: threat (i.e., individuals anticipate difficult demands and negative consequences that has not yet taken place but may be imminent); harm (i.e., individuals are already experiencing psychological damage), and challenge (i.e., individuals face difficult demands but they feel confident due to the possibility of effectively mobilizing and deploying coping resources) (Lazarus, 1993). Secondary cognitive appraisal relates to the individual evaluation of what can be done to cope with the stressful situation (focusing in solving the problem or focusing in managing the emotions) (Lazarus, 1991, 1999). In sum, the transactional model proposes that adaptation to stress depends of primary cognitive appraisal (threat and challenge perceptions are central components) and secondary cognitive appraisal (coping is a central component). The interactive model of adaptation to stress (Gomes, 2014) follows the same line of reasoning as Lazarus’ framework, by proposing three types of primary cognitive appraisal: (a) importance perception (indicates if the person evaluates the stressful event as significant and relevant for the personal wellbeing); (b) threat perception (indicates if the person evaluates the stressful event as disturbing and negative for the personal well-being); and (c) challenge perception (indicates if the person evaluates the stressful event as stimulating and exciting for the personal well-being); and two types of secondary cognitive appraisal: (d) coping perception (indicates if the person evaluates to possess personal resources to cope with the demands of the stressful event); and (e) control perception (indicates if the person evaluates to possess control over the processes of decision making of the work activity). In sum, the interactive model proposes that adaptation to stress depends of primary cognitive appraisal (importance, threat, and challenge perceptions are central components) and secondary cognitive appraisal (coping and control are the central components). Both models served as background for this study, namely the concepts of primary and secondary appraisals. The interactive model was helpful in this study because it sustained that the interaction between person and events starts with importance perception and this concept should be used as “cut-off” criteria to study this phenomenon. 6 Specifically, Gomes (2014) argues that the adaptation to stress process only begins if the individual attributes a personal meaning to the stressful situation. Adding this assumption means that if athletes do not evaluate the situation as important, they will not perceive neither the situation as stressful nor as potentially threatening or challenging to their wellbeing. This phase of adaptation to stress is particularly important because previous findings have indicated that the same stressor can illicit different reactions (cf. Kaiseler et al., 2013; Scanlan et al., 1991), suggesting important individual differences concerning cognitive appraisal. Also important, secondary cognitive appraisal from the interactive model allows not “only” to evaluate coping resources (as proposed in the transactional model) but also allows to evaluate the control of the individual over the stressful event. Nevertheless, this study relies on the assumption that adaptation to stress depends fundamentally of processes of cognitive appraisal. Sports literature has highlighted that in order to fully understand athletes’ psychological adaptation to a stressful situation (e.g., competition), it is important to consider not only the relationship between the stressors and the consequent reactions (outcomes), but also how athletes interpret the situation and their resources to deal with it (i.e., their cognitive appraisal) (e.g., Bartholomew et al., 2017; Gomes, 2014; McGreary et al., 2020). As stated by Tenenbaum et al. (2015), athletes’ adapation is a function of the difference of how they evaluate a specific task (e.g., challenging, threatening) and how they interpret and evaluate their ability/capacity to cope with the demands (see also Samuel et al., 2023). However, it is very difficult to gather the whole process of human adaptation to stress in a single study because stress adaptation involves several dimensions that occur simultaneously in dynamic situations (Gomes, 2014; Lazarus, 1999), making it very difficult for a single study to capture the different dimensions. In our study, we tried to overcome these challenges by adopting a type of critical incident methodology (Hettlage & Steinlin, 2006) in which we asked athletes to report their levels of competitive stress, cognitive appraisal, sport confidence, and expected performance before engaging in a match. This allowed us to observe how competitive stressors, cognitive appraisal, sport confidence, and expected performance relate to each other in a very realistic context. Moreover, it allowed us to test the theoretical assumptions of the interactive model of adaptation to stress, which suggests that the combination of these variables explains athletes' adaptation to competition (i.e., the realization of a match). This test of relations was done in two different phases (and, consequently, two different models), determined by theory on adaptation to stress. 7 The first model tested direct relations from competitive stressors and cognitive appraisal to sport confidence and expected performance. The order of the variables in this direct model considers the literature on adaptation to stress that focused on direct relations between psychological variables involved in the way athletes appraise and cope with sports demands (see Figure 1). Specifically, research indicates that evaluating a stressful situation as a challenge is associated with satisfactory performance, and evaluating it as a threat can negatively impact performance (Dixon et al., 2020; Freeman & Rees, 2009; Hase et al., 2019; McGreary et al., 2020; Skinner & Brewer, 2002). More recently, Hase and colleagues (2019) conducted a systematic review to analyze whether challenge or threat states were associated with superior performance and concluded that the performance of athletes benefit from being in a challenge state rather than a threat state. Considering these indications of literature and the conceptual background of analyzing human adaptation to stress (Arnold & Fletcher, 2012; Doron & Bourbousson, 2017; Gomes, 2014; Lazarus, 1991), we established the first hypothesis of this study. H1. Athletes' perception of competitive stressors and athletes' processes of cognitive appraisal predict athletes' sport confidence and expected performance. Specifically, it is expected that competitive stressors are negatively related to sport confidence and expected performance; threat appraisal is negatively related to sport confidence and expected performance; and challenge perception, coping perception, and control perception are positively related to sport confidence and expected performance. 8 Figure 1 The Direct Model (H1) Although it is important to analyze the relationships between antecedent factors (many times represented by stress and coping) and consequent factors (which can include mental skills – such as self-confidence, but also expectations of performance), it is crucial to determine the mediating role of cognitive appraisal in the way athletes adapt to stress. This analysis implicates considering the process of adaptation to demanding circumstances from an integrative perspective by considering the relations between competitive stressors (antecedent variables), cognitive appraisal (mediating variable), and 9 reactions to stress (consequent variables). Specifically, in the second step of data analysis, we tested the relations between competitive stressors (antecedent variables), cognitive appraisal (mediating variable), and reactions to stress (consequent variables). Adaption to stress in competitive settings has been widely studied in the literature (e.g., Cumming et al., 2017; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2011), and authors seem to agree that cognitive appraisal is a pivotal variable in understanding the phenomenon (Bartholomew et al., 2017; Gomes, 2014; Martinent & Ferrand, 2015). However, less is known about how adaptation to stress occurs, putting together the sources of stress, the cognitive appraisal dimensions, and the potential consequences to the individual (in our case, measured by sport confidence and performance). And most important, less evidence exists about the theoretical assumption that cognitive appraisal mediates the relationship between stress (as an antecedent variable) and reactions to stress (as a consequent variable). We select as consequent variables the athletes' sport confidence and expected performance, supposing that the former represents a key facilitator of the latter, as suggested by literature (e.g., Hays et al., 2009). Sport confidence refers to athletes' degree of certainty in achieving success (Vealey, 1986), influencing the responses to sports situations (Vealey, 2009) and potential success in sports competitions (cf. Plakona et al., 2014). Previous research suggests a positive contribution of sport confidence in order to cope effectively with stress and pressure of sports competition (e.g., Gucciardi et al., 2011), leading to higher sports achievement (cf. Hays et al., 2009). However, only a very small amount of research has attempted to establish a relationship between stress, cognitive appraisal, sport confidence, and performance (e.g., van Rens et al., 2019) and, consequently, the relationship between these variables has been mostly overlooked. Considering the literature in this area, it is not only expected that athletes' sport confidence to positively influence their perceptions of performance but also that their sport confidence is influenced by how they interpret the stressful situation. In practical terms, we propose that, when facing a particularly competitive stressor, athletes' predisposition to believe that they can be successful (state of sport confidence) will also be affected by how they interpret that particular situation. That is, if they perceive the situation as a challenge (rather than a threat) and perceive themselves as having the necessary control and resources to cope with the situation, this would positively influence their sport confidence and, consequently, their expected performance. 16 Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among all Variables (n = 373). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Competive stressors 1. C. readiness 1.94(0.80) 2. Performance .644** 2.33(0.75) 3. Errors .662** .703** 2.25(0.85) 4. Social expect. .615** .582** .645** 1.84(0.89) 5. Opponents .447** .307** .432** .613** 1.05(0.79) 6. Injuries .630** .544** .521** .473** .337** 1.70(0.84) Cognitive appraisal 7. Threat .209** .156** .245** .257** .316** .194** 1.35(1.30) 8. Challenge .080 .122* .118* .021 .005 .027 -.107* 4.88(1.22) 9. Coping -.109* .064 -.133* -.184** -.253** -.105* -.264** .286** 5.08(0.83) 10. Control -.128* -.018 -.109* -.112* -.022 -.091 -.046 .150** .420** 4.07(1.10) Sport Confidence 11. Sport confi. -.122* .027 -.109* -.136** -.219** -.109* -.209** .232** .484** .263** 3.45(0.55) Expectations of performance 12. Individual -.031 .055 -.047 -.093 -.188** .003 -.136* .254** .397** .263** .595** 3.93(0.82) 13. Collective -.021 .021 .001 -.053 -.127* .020 -.130* .239** .222** .120* .423** .526** 4.09(0.85) Note: *p < .05; ** p < .01 17 Prediction of Sport confidence and Expected Performance Hypothesis 1 stated that competitive stressors and threat appraisal are negatively related to sport confidence and expected performance, whilst challenge perception, coping perception, and control perception are positively related to those variables. The path analysis showed that the model did not present an adequate fit to the data:  2(26) = 159.30, p < .001; CFI = .917, RMSEA = .125 (90% C.I. [.107; .144], pclose < .001); SRMR = .091; AIC = 289.30, BCC = 295.13, BIC = 535.65. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was partially supported. Nonetheless, a closer look at the regression weights (cf. Table 2) showed that opponents are an important source of stress and that they negatively predict athletes' sport confidence and expected individual performance. Also important, challenge perceptions positively predicted sport confidence (marginally significant) and expected performance (individual and collective). More positive perceptions of control and coping perceptions also predicted higher sport confidence in expected individual performance. 18 Table 2 Regression Weights for the Direct Model b SE β p Competitive stressors -> Perceived sport confidence Competitive readiness -0.04 0.05 -.06 .426 Performance 0.02 0.05 .04 .631 Errors 0.02 0.04 .03 .663 Social expectations < 0.01 0.04 -.01 .993 Opponents -0.08 0.04 -.11 .043 Injuries -0.01 0.04 -.01 .944 Competitive stressors -> Expectations of individual performance Competitive readiness 0.05 0.07 .05 .518 Performance -0.04 0.08 -.04 .562 Errors 0.03 0.07 .03 .682 Social expectations 0.01 0.07 .01 .907 Opponents -0.16 0.06 -.17 .007 Injuries 0.09 0.06 .10 .116 Competitive stressors -> Expectations of collective performance Competitive readiness -0.04 0.09 -.04 .680 Performance -0.01 0.09 -.01 .959 Errors 0.19 0.08 .10 .246 Social expectations -0.04 0.08 -.04 .659 Opponents -0.09 0.07 -.08 .236 Injuries 0.09 0.06 .10 .177 Cognitive appraisal -> Perceived sport confidence Threat perception -0.02 0.02 -.04 .448 Challenge perception 0.04 0.02 .09 .074 Coping perception 0.29 0.04 .45 <.001 Perception of control 0.05 0.02 .10 .043 Cognitive appraisal -> Expectations of individual performance Threat perception 0.03 0.03 .05 .289 Challenge perception 0.10 0.04 .13 .008 Coping perception 0.39 0.06 .40 <.001 Perception of control 0.11 0.04 .15 .003 Cognitive appraisal -> Expectations of collective performance Threat perception -0.04 0.04 -.07 .252 Challenge perception 0.15 0.04 .20 <.001 Coping perception 0.09 0.07 .09 .188 Perception of control 0.02 0.04 .02 .686 Note: Statistically significant relationships are represented in bold. Mediation of Cognitive Appraisal Hypothesis 2 stated that cognitive appraisal mediates the relationship between perceived competitive stressors (antecedent variable) and athletes' sport confidence and expected performance (consequent variables). Path analysis was used to test this hypothesis. The results showed an adequate fit of the proposed model to the data,  2(34) = 118.30, p < .001; CFI = .948, RMSEA = .087 (90% C.I. [.070; .105], pclose < .001); SRMR = .060; AIC = 232.30; BCC = 237.342. The model explained 11% of the variance of threat perception, 2% of challenge 19 perception, 5% of perception of control, 16% of coping perception, 32% of sport confidence, 32% of expected individual performance, and 15% of expected collective performance. All direct and indirect effects are displayed in Supplementary Material 1. The results (cf. Figure 3) showed that the increases in athletes' stress about their opponents corresponded to decreases in sport confidence and lower expectations of individual and collective performance. Also, the relationship between opponents and expectations of individual and collective performance was mediated by threat perception, coping perception, and sport confidence. Specifically, the increase of stress about opponents was positively related to perceiving the situation as a threat and as having less coping perception and sport confidence, leading to lower expectations of individual and collective performance. Moreover, the influence of opponents on expected individual performance was mediated by challenge perception, coping perception, and sport confidence. Specifically, the higher the stress about opponents, the less they perceive the situation as a challenge, and the lower the perceptions regarding coping perception and sport confidence, leading to a lower expectation of individual performance. Thus, H2 was supported in what concerns the competitive stressor of opponents. Figure 3 Path Analysis for the Mediation Model (H2; n = 327) Note: Rectangles represent observed variables, arrows the significant direct paths, dash arrows refer to marginally significant direct paths, and e represents the measurement error. The six competitive stressors were correlated with each other. Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. All direct and indirect effects can be found in Supplementary Material 1. The proposed model (H2) was compared against alternative models, namely the direct model postulated on H1 and the total mediation model. Table 3 summarizes the results. A chi- 20 square test shows that there are statistically significant differences between the proposed model (H2) and the direct model (H1): Δ  2(8) = 41.00, p < .001, but there are no statistically significant differences between the proposed model and the total mediation model: Δ  2(6) = 8.55, p = .201. Nevertheless, even though the AIC and BIC values of the proposed model are slightly higher than the ones from the total mediation model, the proposed model is more parsimonious and presents higher values of CFI and better SRMR values. When no differences in fit are found, a parsimonious model should be favored (see Kuha, 2004; Lin et al., 2017 for a review on comparison criteria). Therefore, it can be concluded that the proposed model assumed the best fit for the data. Table 3 Model Fit Parameters for the Proposed and Alternative Models Direct model (H1) Proposed model (partial mediation model; H2) Total mediation model 2(df) 159.30(26) 118.30(34) 126.85(40) p <.001 <.001 <.001 RMSEA 0.13 0.87 .082 p-close <.001 <.001 .001 SRMR .091 .060 .068 CFI .917 .948 .946 AIC 289.30 232.30 228.85 BCC 295.13 237.42 233.42 BIC 535.65 448.33 422.14 Note: chi-square statistics (  2); root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA); standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR); confirmatory fit index (CFI); Akaike Information Criteria (AIC); Browne-Cudeck criterion (BCC); and Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC). Discussion Understanding adaptation to stress within contexts in which individuals have to successfully respond to highly demanding tasks, such as sports, is crucial to avoid negative effects resulting from stress, particularly when working with young athletes. This study aimed to provide a framework for how athletes evaluate different competitive stressors before the competition and, more specifically, how they interpret those stressors (cognitive appraisal) and how it relates to sport confidence and their expectations of performance. Specifically, it was 21 expected that athletes' competitive stressors relate to cognitive appraisal and, more important, that athletes' cognitive appraisal mediates their sport confidence and, consequently, their expected individual and collective performance. The first important result refers to the fact that opponents emerged as the main competitive stressor for athletes when evaluating their experience prior to a sports competition. Specifically, results indicate that the more athletes were concerned about their opponents, the more threatening they perceived the upcoming match to be, and the less they felt to possess the necessary coping strategies to deal with the competition situation which, in turn, lowered their sport confidence and their expectations to individually and collectively succeed. These results partially supported H1. When it comes to youth sports, opponents would be, ideally, the least important source of stress. In fact, athletes’ average response regarding sources of stress indicates that even though the competition is important to them, they do not seem particularly worried with their (lack) of competitive readiness, social expectations, opponents or injuries, as the higher sources of stress seem to be more related to worrying about making mistakes or potentially having a bad performance (cf. Table 1). Nevertheless, when examining the relationship between sources of stress and the remaining variables of the adaptation process, young athletes from our sample seem to give a particular relevance to opponents 24 to 48 hours before a game. Specifically, the results indicated that opponents were a crucial and an inherent part of athletes' competitive experience, as suggested by other research (e.g., Mellalieu et al., 2009). Results from “opponents” source of stress are somewhat complex of understanding. In fact, this competitive stressor was perceived by athletes as the lowest one when compared with the other five dimensions of Questionnaire of Competitive Stressors in Sport. This can be considered positive due the age range of athletes and the fact that they should be competing for learning and improving sports skills, not having “beating opponents” as the main purpose of playing soccer. Using the words of Côté and Hay (2002), athletes like the ones included in our study are in a transition period deciding between investing more in the sport activity (i.e., learning the strategic, competitive, and skills of each sport activity) or deciding to practice sports for recreational purpose (i.e., practicing sports without aspiring to reach an elite level of performance). However, this stressor was also the only one with negative significant correlations with expectations of performance and was the only one that made a unique contribution to the predication of threat perceptions and sport confidence in the model. In simple words, opponents did not seem to be “strong” stressor for athletes but it seem relevant to the way athletes perceive the sport activity and performance. This can be explained by the methodological approach used in the study (critical incident), as athletes were asked to complete 22 the measures 24h to 48h prior to a game. In this time frame, opponents are assumed to be a crucial aspect of athletes' preparation for the game and, even though they are not presented as the “most important” source of stress, opponents seem to be key in how athletes interpret the upcoming game and, therefore, having a stronger relationship with cognitive appraisal when compared to the remaining sources of stress. When analyzing the Pearson correlations between sources of stress and cognitive appraisal, opponents are, indeed, more strongly correlated with threat and coping perceptions than the remaining sources of stress. Moreover, the results also indicate that athletes' cognitive appraisal of the stressful situation, as either a challenge (positive) or a threat (negative), relates to their perceived performance (H2). Previous research has already established that negative patterns of cognitive appraisal have a debilitating effect on athletes' expected performance, while positive patterns are related to increases in expected performance (e.g., Dixon et al., 2020; Hase et al., 2019). In sum, and according to H2, by evaluating a situation as a challenge, athletes can face the source of stress as a positive force, which contributes to a beneficial emotional orientation towards the situation, increasing their self-confidence in sport, meaning that they believe that the outcome of the interaction with the stressor will be favorable (cf. Palmwood & McBride, 2017), which explains the higher expectations related to their performance. The topic of adaptation to stressors related to sports competitions is not new, and neither is the pivotal role played by cognitive appraisal (e.g., Bartholomew et al., 2017; Cumming et al., 2017; Gomes, 2014; Samuel et al., 2023). However, little empirical evidence has focused on the mediating role of cognitive appraisal between antecedent and consequent variables of stress. Our study extends previous literature by considering this mediating role but by also including sport confidence, which has been established as a facilitator of performance and success in sport (e.g., Hays et al., 2009; Plakona et al., 2014), as well as a contributor to coping with competitive stressors and pressure in sport settings (cf. Gucciardi et al., 2011). Our study also provides a step forward by showing that the relationship between competitive stressors, cognitive appraisal, and performance is fully mediated by athletes' sport confidence. In other words, the more athletes perceive the source of stress as a challenge, the more they feel they have the personal resources to deal with the competitive stressors; these positive perceptions, in turn, increase athletes' sport confidence in their ability to be successful, influencing their expectations of individual and collective performance. Taking together, the results highlight (1) the importance of focusing on how athletes interpret competitive stressors instead of focusing on the stressors themselves; (2) athletes' interpretation of competitive stressors (cognitive appraisal) influences their expectations of 23 success (performance) via self-confidence, which can be argued to be increased when athletes perceive they have the necessary resources to cope with the stressful situation. Therefore, these results have important practical implications. Limitations, Practical Implications and Future Research This study attempted to provide a comprehensive framework to the process of adaptation to stress. Even though ensuring the competition was important and sufficiently stressful to athletes by using a critical incident approach, the study comprises some limitations. First of all, we did not have full control for the “difficulty” of the upcoming game/the level of the opponents – this is important especially because opponents seem to be the most important source of stress when it comes to athletes’ appraisal of the competition. Thus, it might be quite different whether athletes perceive opponents to be “better” or “worse” than them, which may influence their interpretation of the upcoming game. Regardless, we did ensure that the evaluated upcoming sport event corresponded to the “typical” stressful competitions of the season where it was decided the final championships positions. Second, this cross-sectional correlational design does not allow to conclude causal relationships among variables. There is a strong theoretical rationale that supports the order of variables included in the proposed model, allowing path analysis to test theoretical assumptions, but no causal inferences can be drawn. Moreover, a repeated-measures design would also allow us to test whether these relationships are stable over time. Nevertheless, results of our study not only provide support to the literature related to human adaptation to stress (e.g., Goh et al., 2010; Gomes et al., 2017; Lazarus, 1999) but also have important implications for coaches and sports psychologists working with young athletes. In fact, questioning and restructuring cognitive appraisal of competition may be an effective tool to help athletes identify and use alternative and more adaptive thoughts when facing a critical and stressful situation (Simães & Gomes, 2019). For example, it is important to promote positive and challenging perspectives of competition (e.g., how to cope with stressful games, how to evaluate sports performance by setting controllable goals, how to increase feelings of competitive readiness, among others) and how to prevent negative threatening perspectives of competition (e.g., how to deal with errors, social expectations, and pressures from opponents). By intervening in cognitive appraisal, athletes can increase coping and control perceptions that may be critical aspects of youth sports practice. It would also be important to look at different contexts and athletes, testing if the same patterns arise with female athletes and with other sports. More importantly, the critical incident 24 methodology appeared as an important strategy to analyze how athletes perceive competition and the related stressor factors. In fact, this approach can be used in order to collect data during the sports season because we can expect fluctuations in psychological factors when athletes are confronted with multiple demands throughout their sports career. Declaration of interest The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. References Arbuckle, J. L. (2008). AMOS 17 User’s Guide. SPSS. Arnold, R. S., & Fletcher, D. (2012). A research synthesis and taxonomic classification of the organizational stressors encountered by sport performers. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 34(3), 397–429. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.34.3.397 Bartholomew, K. J., Arnold, R., Hampson, R. J., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Organizational stressors and basic psychological needs: The mediating role of athletes' appraisal mechanisms. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 27, 2127–2139. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12851 Côté, J., & Hay, J. (2002). Children’s involvement in sport: A developmental perspective. In J. M. Silva & D. E. Stevens (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 484-502). Allyn and Bacon. Cumming, S. J. D., Turner, M. J., & Jones, M. (2017). Longitudinal changes in elite rowers' challenge and threat appraisals of pressure situations: A season-long observational study. The Sport Psychologist, 31(3), 217-226. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2016-0087 Dixon, J. G., Jones, M. V., & Turner, M. J. (2020). The benefits of a challenge approach on match day: Investigating cardiovascular reactivity in professional academy soccer players. European Journal of Sport Science, 20(3), 375-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2019.1629179 Doron, J., & Bourbousson, J. (2017). How stressors are dynamically appraised within a team during a game: An exploratory study in basketball. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 27(12), 2080-2090. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12796. Freeman, P., & Rees, T. (2009). How does perceived support lead to better performance? An examination of potential mechanisms. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(4), 429441. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200903222913 25 Goh, Y. W., Swang, S., & Oei, T. P. S. (2010). The revised Transactional Model (RTM) of Occupational Stress and Coping: An improved process approach. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Organisational Psychology, 3, 13-20. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajop.3.1.13 Gomes, A. R. (2014). Positive human functioning in stress situations: An interactive proposal. In A. R. Gomes, R. Resende, & A. Albuquerque (Eds.), Positive human functioning from a multidimensional perspective: Promoting stress adaptation (Vol. 1, pp. 165-194). Nova Science. Gomes, A. R., Almeida, A., & Resende, R. (2019). Athletes' perception of leadership according to their perceptions of goal achievement and sport results. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 127(2) 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512519892384 Gomes, A. R., Faria, S., & Vilela, C. (2017). Anxiety and burnout in young athletes: The mediating role of cognitive appraisal. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 27(12), 2116-2126. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12841 Gomes, A.R., Simães, C., Morais, C., & Cunha, R. (2022). Adaptation to stress in football athletes: The importance of cognitive appraisal. Frontiers in Psychology, 13:939840. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.939840 Gomes, A. R., & Teixeira, P. (2016). Stress, cognitive appraisal, and psychological health: Testing instruments for health professionals. Stress and Health, 32(2), 167-172. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2583 Gucciardi, D. F., Jackson, B., Coulter, T. J., & Mallett, C. J. (2011). The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Dimensionality and age-related measurement invariance with Australian cricketers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(4), 423-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.02.005 Gustafsson, H., Sagar, S. S., & Stenling, A. (2017). Fear of failure, psychological stress, and burnout among adolescent athletes competing in high level sport. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 27(12), 2091-2102. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12797. Hase, A., O'Brien, J., Moore, L. J., & Freeman, P. (2019). The relationship between challenge and threat states and performance: A systematic review. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 8(2), 123-144. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000132 Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Galanis, E., & Theodorakis, Y. (2011). Self-talk and sports performance: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(4), 348-356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611413136