1
Ci a es e abalho
Mo ais, C., Simães, C., Gomes, A.R, & Gonçal es, B.M. (2025). S esso s and expec ed
pe o mance o socce a hle es: The ole o spo con idence and cogni i e app aisal.
Jou nal o Clinical Spo Psychology, 19(1), 1-21. h ps://doi.o g/10.1123/jcsp.2022-
0046.
2
S esso s and expec ed pe o mance o socce a hle es: The ole o spo
con idence and cogni i e app aisal
Sho i le: Cogni i e App aisal in Socce A hle es
Au ho s
1. Ca a ina Mo ais (co esponding au ho )
Resea ch Cen e o Human De elopmen , Facul y o Educa ion and Psychology,
Uni e sidade Ca ólica Po uguesa. Po o, Po ugal.
[email p o ec ed]
h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-9881-3514
2. Cla a Simães
3. Cla a Simães
Heal h Sciences Resea ch Uni : Nu sing (UICISA: E), Nu sing School o Coimb a
(ESEn C). Coimb a, Po ugal.
[email protected]
h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0001-9856-2295
3. A. Rui Gomes
Psychology Resea ch Cen e. School o Psychology. Uni e si y o Minho. B aga.
Po ugal.
[email p o ec ed]
h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-6390-9866
4. Bea iz Ma ins Gonçal es
Psychology Resea ch Cen e. School o Psychology. Uni e si y o Minho. B aga.
Po ugal.
[email p o ec ed]
Funding
This s udy was conduc ed a wo di e en esea ch cen es: Resea ch Cen e o Human
De elopmen (suppo ed by he Founda ion o Science and Technology, e .
UIDB/04872/2020) and by he Psychology Resea ch Cen e (CIPsi/UM) School o
Psychology, Uni e si y o Minho (suppo ed by he Founda ion o Science and
Technology, e . UIDB/01662/2020).
3
Abs ac
This s udy aimed o p o ide a amewo k o how a hle es e alua e s ess be o e a
compe i ion and how s ess ela es o cogni i e app aisal, spo con idence, and
expec a ions o pe o mance. Pa icipan s we e 327 you h male a hle es, aged 15–19 yea s
(M= 16.90; SD = 1.00), who compe ed in he Po uguese Na ional Foo ball League and
comple ed a ques ionnai e 24–48 hou s be o e hei ma ch, using he c i ical inciden
me hodology. Resul s e ealed ha opponen s we e he main sou ce o s ess o a hle es
and ha he mo e a hle es s ess abou hei opponen s, he mo e hey end o pe cei e he
si ua ion as h ea ening (and less challenging), he lowe hei pe cep ions o coping and
spo con idence which, in u n, p edic ed lowe expec a ions o indi idual and collec i e
pe o mance. In sum, pe cei ing he s ess ul si ua ion as ei he a challenge o a h ea
p edic s young a hle es’ spo con idence and, consequen ly, expec ed pe o mance when
dealing Q2 Q1 wi h s ess ul compe i i e si ua ions.
Keywo ds: Challenge pe cep ion; Th ea pe cep ion; Con ol pe cep ion; Coping
pe cep ion; Foo ball; S ess.
4
S esso s and expec ed pe o mance o socce a hle es: The ole o spo
con idence and cogni i e app aisal
You h spo is equen ly p esen ed as an oppo uni y o a hle es o de elop a
heal hy li es yle and di e en skills (Ronkainen e al., 2020). Howe e , his is no always
he case, and spo s pa icipa ion can also ha e a nega i e impac on young playe s'
de elopmen (Hol & Neely, 2011). Fo example, excessi e p essu e o win and ob ain
highe le els o pe o mance can con ibu e o a hle es' nega i e spo s expe iences
(Gus a sson e al., 2017; Wong e al., 2015). These nega i e expe iences may a ise due
o he wide numbe o ac o s ha a hle es ace when compe ing, namely he possibili y
o a bad pe o mance, expec a ions o o he s, p essu es om opponen s, inju ies, among
o he s (Do on & Bou bousson 2017; Gus a sson, e al., 2017). The s ess expe ience can
also inc ease i a hle es pe cei e hei pe sonal and social esou ces as insu icien o deal
wi h he compe i ion demands, hus leading o a pe cei ed lack o con ol o e he
si ua ion (Simães & Gomes, 2019). To unde s and how a hle es adap o compe i ion
s ess, we mus conside hei pe cep ions o physical, emo ional, beha io al, and
cogni i e s esso s and wha coping esponses hey use o manage hem (c . Tamminen e
al., 2016).
In his s udy, we aimed o p o ide an unde s anding o how a hle es pe cei e
compe i i e s esso s immedia ely be o e a compe i ion, as well as how compe i i e
s esso s ela es o cogni i e app aisal, spo con idence, and expec a ions o
pe o mance. The pa e ns o ela ions es ed in ou s udy ollowed Laza us’ (1991, 1999)
ansac ional s ess model which assumes ha s ess a ises when indi iduals pe cei e
hei esou ces o be insu icien o deal wi h he demands o he si ua ion (Laza us, 1991).
The e o e, s ess should be unde s ood as an app aisal p ocess esul ing om a
disc epancy be ween he equi emen s o he si ua ion and one's pe sonal esou ces o
managing hem (c . Laza us, 1991). Speci ically, when a hle es pe cei e spo s as oo
demanding o hei pe sonal esou ces, nega i e eac ions end o occu (Gomes, 2014).
The pi o al ac o ha explains posi i e o nega i e eac ions o s ess ela es o he
cogni i e app aisal p ocesses ha a e esponsible o he in e p e a ion and coping o
s ess ul si ua ions (c . Laza us, 1991; see also Gomes e al., 2017). Acco ding o Laza us'
ansac ional model (1991), cogni i e app aisal indica es how he pe son e alua e he
ansac ions wi h he en i onmen , esul ing in wo dimensions: p ima y cogni i e
app aisal (which e e s o he meaning o he s ess ul si ua ion o he indi idual
wellbeing, being in luenced by goals, alues, and belie s o each pe son), and seconda y
5
cogni i e app aisal (which e e s o he indi idual judgmen ega ding he acqui ed
esou ces o deal wi h he si ua ion). P ima y cogni i e app aisal can assume h ee o ms:
i ele an app aisals (si ua ions a e no conside ed h ea ening o ha m ul no has ha ing
any bene i o he indi idual); benign-posi i e app aisals (si ua ions a e conside ed o
enhance well-being o he indi idual), and s ess ul app aisals (si ua ions a e conside ed
o ha e a signi ican h ea o he indi idual’s well-being). The si ua ions ha a e
e alua ed as s ess ul gene ally esul s in h ee o ms o p ima y app aisal: h ea (i.e.,
indi iduals an icipa e di icul demands and nega i e consequences ha has no ye aken
place bu may be imminen ); ha m (i.e., indi iduals a e al eady expe iencing
psychological damage), and challenge (i.e., indi iduals ace di icul demands bu hey
eel con iden due o he possibili y o e ec i ely mobilizing and deploying coping
esou ces) (Laza us, 1993). Seconda y cogni i e app aisal ela es o he indi idual
e alua ion o wha can be done o cope wi h he s ess ul si ua ion ( ocusing in sol ing
he p oblem o ocusing in managing he emo ions) (Laza us, 1991, 1999). In sum, he
ansac ional model p oposes ha adap a ion o s ess depends o p ima y cogni i e
app aisal ( h ea and challenge pe cep ions a e cen al componen s) and seconda y
cogni i e app aisal (coping is a cen al componen ). The in e ac i e model o adap a ion
o s ess (Gomes, 2014) ollows he same line o easoning as Laza us’ amewo k, by
p oposing h ee ypes o p ima y cogni i e app aisal: (a) impo ance pe cep ion (indica es
i he pe son e alua es he s ess ul e en as signi ican and ele an o he pe sonal well-
being); (b) h ea pe cep ion (indica es i he pe son e alua es he s ess ul e en as
dis u bing and nega i e o he pe sonal well-being); and (c) challenge pe cep ion
(indica es i he pe son e alua es he s ess ul e en as s imula ing and exci ing o he
pe sonal well-being); and wo ypes o seconda y cogni i e app aisal: (d) coping
pe cep ion (indica es i he pe son e alua es o possess pe sonal esou ces o cope wi h
he demands o he s ess ul e en ); and (e) con ol pe cep ion (indica es i he pe son
e alua es o possess con ol o e he p ocesses o decision making o he wo k ac i i y).
In sum, he in e ac i e model p oposes ha adap a ion o s ess depends o p ima y
cogni i e app aisal (impo ance, h ea , and challenge pe cep ions a e cen al
componen s) and seconda y cogni i e app aisal (coping and con ol a e he cen al
componen s). Bo h models se ed as backg ound o his s udy, namely he concep s o
p ima y and seconda y app aisals. The in e ac i e model was help ul in his s udy because
i sus ained ha he in e ac ion be ween pe son and e en s s a s wi h impo ance
pe cep ion and his concep should be used as “cu -o ” c i e ia o s udy his phenomenon.
6
Speci ically, Gomes (2014) a gues ha he adap a ion o s ess p ocess only begins i he
indi idual a ibu es a pe sonal meaning o he s ess ul si ua ion. Adding his assump ion
means ha i a hle es do no e alua e he si ua ion as impo an , hey will no pe cei e
nei he he si ua ion as s ess ul no as po en ially h ea ening o challenging o hei
wellbeing. This phase o adap a ion o s ess is pa icula ly impo an because p e ious
indings ha e indica ed ha he same s esso can illici di e en eac ions (c . Kaisele
e al., 2013; Scanlan e al., 1991), sugges ing impo an indi idual di e ences conce ning
cogni i e app aisal. Also impo an , seconda y cogni i e app aisal om he in e ac i e
model allows no “only” o e alua e coping esou ces (as p oposed in he ansac ional
model) bu also allows o e alua e he con ol o he indi idual o e he s ess ul e en .
Ne e heless, his s udy elies on he assump ion ha adap a ion o s ess depends
undamen ally o p ocesses o cogni i e app aisal.
Spo s li e a u e has highligh ed ha in o de o ully unde s and a hle es’
psychological adap a ion o a s ess ul si ua ion (e.g., compe i ion), i is impo an o
conside no only he ela ionship be ween he s esso s and he consequen eac ions
(ou comes), bu also how a hle es in e p e he si ua ion and hei esou ces o deal wi h
i (i.e., hei cogni i e app aisal) (e.g., Ba holomew e al., 2017; Gomes, 2014; McG ea y
e al., 2020). As s a ed by Tenenbaum e al. (2015), a hle es’ adapa ion is a unc ion o
he di e ence o how hey e alua e a speci ic ask (e.g., challenging, h ea ening) and
how hey in e p e and e alua e hei abili y/capaci y o cope wi h he demands (see also
Samuel e al., 2023). Howe e , i is e y di icul o ga he he whole p ocess o human
adap a ion o s ess in a single s udy because s ess adap a ion in ol es se e al
dimensions ha occu simul aneously in dynamic si ua ions (Gomes, 2014; Laza us,
1999), making i e y di icul o a single s udy o cap u e he di e en dimensions. In
ou s udy, we ied o o e come hese challenges by adop ing a ype o c i ical inciden
me hodology (He lage & S einlin, 2006) in which we asked a hle es o epo hei le els
o compe i i e s ess, cogni i e app aisal, spo con idence, and expec ed pe o mance
be o e engaging in a ma ch. This allowed us o obse e how compe i i e s esso s,
cogni i e app aisal, spo con idence, and expec ed pe o mance ela e o each o he in a
e y ealis ic con ex . Mo eo e , i allowed us o es he heo e ical assump ions o he
in e ac i e model o adap a ion o s ess, which sugges s ha he combina ion o hese
a iables explains a hle es' adap a ion o compe i ion (i.e., he ealiza ion o a ma ch).
This es o ela ions was done in wo di e en phases (and, consequen ly, wo di e en
models), de e mined by heo y on adap a ion o s ess.
7
The i s model es ed di ec ela ions om compe i i e s esso s and cogni i e
app aisal o spo con idence and expec ed pe o mance. The o de o he a iables in his
di ec model conside s he li e a u e on adap a ion o s ess ha ocused on di ec ela ions
be ween psychological a iables in ol ed in he way a hle es app aise and cope wi h
spo s demands (see Figu e 1). Speci ically, esea ch indica es ha e alua ing a s ess ul
si ua ion as a challenge is associa ed wi h sa is ac o y pe o mance, and e alua ing i as
a h ea can nega i ely impac pe o mance (Dixon e al., 2020; F eeman & Rees, 2009;
Hase e al., 2019; McG ea y e al., 2020; Skinne & B ewe , 2002). Mo e ecen ly, Hase
and colleagues (2019) conduc ed a sys ema ic e iew o analyze whe he challenge o
h ea s a es we e associa ed wi h supe io pe o mance and concluded ha he
pe o mance o a hle es bene i om being in a challenge s a e a he han a h ea s a e.
Conside ing hese indica ions o li e a u e and he concep ual backg ound o analyzing
human adap a ion o s ess (A nold & Fle che , 2012; Do on & Bou bousson, 2017;
Gomes, 2014; Laza us, 1991), we es ablished he i s hypo hesis o his s udy.
H1. A hle es' pe cep ion o compe i i e s esso s and a hle es' p ocesses o
cogni i e app aisal p edic a hle es' spo con idence and expec ed
pe o mance. Speci ically, i is expec ed ha compe i i e s esso s a e
nega i ely ela ed o spo con idence and expec ed pe o mance; h ea
app aisal is nega i ely ela ed o spo con idence and expec ed
pe o mance; and challenge pe cep ion, coping pe cep ion, and con ol
pe cep ion a e posi i ely ela ed o spo con idence and expec ed
pe o mance.
8
Figu e 1
The Di ec Model (H1)
Al hough i is impo an o analyze he ela ionships be ween an eceden ac o s
(many imes ep esen ed by s ess and coping) and consequen ac o s (which can include
men al skills – such as sel -con idence, bu also expec a ions o pe o mance), i is c ucial
o de e mine he media ing ole o cogni i e app aisal in he way a hle es adap o s ess.
This analysis implica es conside ing he p ocess o adap a ion o demanding
ci cums ances om an in eg a i e pe spec i e by conside ing he ela ions be ween
compe i i e s esso s (an eceden a iables), cogni i e app aisal (media ing a iable), and
9
eac ions o s ess (consequen a iables). Speci ically, in he second s ep o da a analysis,
we es ed he ela ions be ween compe i i e s esso s (an eceden a iables), cogni i e
app aisal (media ing a iable), and eac ions o s ess (consequen a iables). Adap ion
o s ess in compe i i e se ings has been widely s udied in he li e a u e (e.g., Cumming
e al., 2017; Ha zigeo giadis e al., 2011), and au ho s seem o ag ee ha cogni i e
app aisal is a pi o al a iable in unde s anding he phenomenon (Ba holomew e al.,
2017; Gomes, 2014; Ma inen & Fe and, 2015). Howe e , less is known abou how
adap a ion o s ess occu s, pu ing oge he he sou ces o s ess, he cogni i e app aisal
dimensions, and he po en ial consequences o he indi idual (in ou case, measu ed by
spo con idence and pe o mance). And mos impo an , less e idence exis s abou he
heo e ical assump ion ha cogni i e app aisal media es he ela ionship be ween s ess
(as an an eceden a iable) and eac ions o s ess (as a consequen a iable). We selec
as consequen a iables he a hle es' spo con idence and expec ed pe o mance,
supposing ha he o me ep esen s a key acili a o o he la e , as sugges ed by
li e a u e (e.g., Hays e al., 2009). Spo con idence e e s o a hle es' deg ee o ce ain y
in achie ing success (Vealey, 1986), in luencing he esponses o spo s si ua ions
(Vealey, 2009) and po en ial success in spo s compe i ions (c . Plakona e al., 2014).
P e ious esea ch sugges s a posi i e con ibu ion o spo con idence in o de o cope
e ec i ely wi h s ess and p essu e o spo s compe i ion (e.g., Guccia di e al., 2011),
leading o highe spo s achie emen (c . Hays e al., 2009). Howe e , only a e y small
amoun o esea ch has a emp ed o es ablish a ela ionship be ween s ess, cogni i e
app aisal, spo con idence, and pe o mance (e.g., an Rens e al., 2019) and,
consequen ly, he ela ionship be ween hese a iables has been mos ly o e looked.
Conside ing he li e a u e in his a ea, i is no only expec ed ha a hle es' spo con idence
o posi i ely in luence hei pe cep ions o pe o mance bu also ha hei spo
con idence is in luenced by how hey in e p e he s ess ul si ua ion. In p ac ical e ms,
we p opose ha , when acing a pa icula ly compe i i e s esso , a hle es' p edisposi ion
o belie e ha hey can be success ul (s a e o spo con idence) will also be a ec ed by
how hey in e p e ha pa icula si ua ion. Tha is, i hey pe cei e he si ua ion as a
challenge ( a he han a h ea ) and pe cei e hemsel es as ha ing he necessa y con ol
and esou ces o cope wi h he si ua ion, his would posi i ely in luence hei spo
con idence and, consequen ly, hei expec ed pe o mance.
16
Table 1
Means, S anda d De ia ions, and Co ela ions Among all Va iables (n = 373).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Compe i e s esso s
1. C. eadiness
1.94(0.80)
2. Pe o mance
.644**
2.33(0.75)
3. E o s
.662**
.703**
2.25(0.85)
4. Social expec .
.615**
.582**
.645**
1.84(0.89)
5. Opponen s
.447**
.307**
.432**
.613**
1.05(0.79)
6. Inju ies
.630**
.544**
.521**
.473**
.337**
1.70(0.84)
Cogni i e app aisal
7. Th ea
.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. Con ol
-.128*
-.018
-.109*
-.112*
-.022
-.091
-.046
.150**
.420**
4.07(1.10)
Spo Con idence
11. Spo con i.
-.122*
.027
-.109*
-.136**
-.219**
-.109*
-.209**
.232**
.484**
.263**
3.45(0.55)
Expec a ions o pe o mance
12. Indi idual
-.031
.055
-.047
-.093
-.188**
.003
-.136*
.254**
.397**
.263**
.595**
3.93(0.82)
13. Collec i e
-.021
.021
.001
-.053
-.127*
.020
-.130*
.239**
.222**
.120*
.423**
.526**
4.09(0.85)
No e: *p < .05; ** p < .01
17
P edic ion o Spo con idence and Expec ed Pe o mance
Hypo hesis 1 s a ed ha compe i i e s esso s and h ea app aisal a e nega i ely ela ed
o spo con idence and expec ed pe o mance, whils challenge pe cep ion, coping pe cep ion,
and con ol pe cep ion a e posi i ely ela ed o hose a iables. The pa h analysis showed ha
he model did no p esen an adequa e i o he da a:
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, Hypo hesis 1 was pa ially suppo ed. None heless, a close look a he
eg ession weigh s (c . Table 2) showed ha opponen s a e an impo an sou ce o s ess and
ha hey nega i ely p edic a hle es' spo con idence and expec ed indi idual pe o mance.
Also impo an , challenge pe cep ions posi i ely p edic ed spo con idence (ma ginally
signi ican ) and expec ed pe o mance (indi idual and collec i e). Mo e posi i e pe cep ions
o con ol and coping pe cep ions also p edic ed highe spo con idence in expec ed indi idual
pe o mance.
18
Table 2
Reg ession Weigh s o he Di ec Model
b
SE
β
p
Compe i i e s esso s -> Pe cei ed spo con idence
Compe i i e eadiness
-0.04
0.05
-.06
.426
Pe o mance
0.02
0.05
.04
.631
E o s
0.02
0.04
.03
.663
Social expec a ions
< 0.01
0.04
-.01
.993
Opponen s
-0.08
0.04
-.11
.043
Inju ies
-0.01
0.04
-.01
.944
Compe i i e s esso s -> Expec a ions o indi idual pe o mance
Compe i i e eadiness
0.05
0.07
.05
.518
Pe o mance
-0.04
0.08
-.04
.562
E o s
0.03
0.07
.03
.682
Social expec a ions
0.01
0.07
.01
.907
Opponen s
-0.16
0.06
-.17
.007
Inju ies
0.09
0.06
.10
.116
Compe i i e s esso s -> Expec a ions o collec i e pe o mance
Compe i i e eadiness
-0.04
0.09
-.04
.680
Pe o mance
-0.01
0.09
-.01
.959
E o s
0.19
0.08
.10
.246
Social expec a ions
-0.04
0.08
-.04
.659
Opponen s
-0.09
0.07
-.08
.236
Inju ies
0.09
0.06
.10
.177
Cogni i e app aisal -> Pe cei ed spo con idence
Th ea pe cep ion
-0.02
0.02
-.04
.448
Challenge pe cep ion
0.04
0.02
.09
.074
Coping pe cep ion
0.29
0.04
.45
<.001
Pe cep ion o con ol
0.05
0.02
.10
.043
Cogni i e app aisal -> Expec a ions o indi idual pe o mance
Th ea pe cep ion
0.03
0.03
.05
.289
Challenge pe cep ion
0.10
0.04
.13
.008
Coping pe cep ion
0.39
0.06
.40
<.001
Pe cep ion o con ol
0.11
0.04
.15
.003
Cogni i e app aisal -> Expec a ions o collec i e pe o mance
Th ea pe cep ion
-0.04
0.04
-.07
.252
Challenge pe cep ion
0.15
0.04
.20
<.001
Coping pe cep ion
0.09
0.07
.09
.188
Pe cep ion o con ol
0.02
0.04
.02
.686
No e: S a is ically signi ican ela ionships a e ep esen ed in bold.
Media ion o Cogni i e App aisal
Hypo hesis 2 s a ed ha cogni i e app aisal media es he ela ionship be ween pe cei ed
compe i i e s esso s (an eceden a iable) and a hle es' spo con idence and expec ed
pe o mance (consequen a iables). Pa h analysis was used o es his hypo hesis. The esul s
showed an adequa e i o he p oposed model o he da a,
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% o he a iance o h ea pe cep ion, 2% o challenge
19
pe cep ion, 5% o pe cep ion o con ol, 16% o coping pe cep ion, 32% o spo con idence,
32% o expec ed indi idual pe o mance, and 15% o expec ed collec i e pe o mance. All
di ec and indi ec e ec s a e displayed in Supplemen a y Ma e ial 1.
The esul s (c . Figu e 3) showed ha he inc eases in a hle es' s ess abou hei
opponen s co esponded o dec eases in spo con idence and lowe expec a ions o indi idual
and collec i e pe o mance. Also, he ela ionship be ween opponen s and expec a ions o
indi idual and collec i e pe o mance was media ed by h ea pe cep ion, coping pe cep ion,
and spo con idence. Speci ically, he inc ease o s ess abou opponen s was posi i ely ela ed
o pe cei ing he si ua ion as a h ea and as ha ing less coping pe cep ion and spo con idence,
leading o lowe expec a ions o indi idual and collec i e pe o mance. Mo eo e , he in luence
o opponen s on expec ed indi idual pe o mance was media ed by challenge pe cep ion,
coping pe cep ion, and spo con idence. Speci ically, he highe he s ess abou opponen s,
he less hey pe cei e he si ua ion as a challenge, and he lowe he pe cep ions ega ding
coping pe cep ion and spo con idence, leading o a lowe expec a ion o indi idual
pe o mance. Thus, H2 was suppo ed in wha conce ns he compe i i e s esso o opponen s.
Figu e 3
Pa h Analysis o he Media ion Model (H2; n = 327)
No e: Rec angles ep esen obse ed a iables, a ows he signi ican di ec pa hs, dash a ows e e o
ma ginally signi ican di ec pa hs, and e ep esen s he measu emen e o . The six compe i i e
s esso s we e co ela ed wi h each o he . No e: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. All di ec and
indi ec e ec s can be ound in Supplemen a y Ma e ial 1.
The p oposed model (H2) was compa ed agains al e na i e models, namely he di ec
model pos ula ed on H1 and he o al media ion model. Table 3 summa izes he esul s. A chi-
20
squa e es shows ha he e a e s a is ically signi ican di e ences be ween he p oposed model
(H2) and he di ec model (H1): Δ
2(8) = 41.00, p < .001, bu he e a e no s a is ically signi ican
di e ences be ween he p oposed model and he o al media ion model: Δ
2(6) = 8.55, p = .201.
Ne e heless, e en hough he AIC and BIC alues o he p oposed model a e sligh ly highe
han he ones om he o al media ion model, he p oposed model is mo e pa simonious and
p esen s highe alues o CFI and be e SRMR alues. When no di e ences in i a e ound, a
pa simonious model should be a o ed (see Kuha, 2004; Lin e al., 2017 o a e iew on
compa ison c i e ia). The e o e, i can be concluded ha he p oposed model assumed he bes
i o he da a.
Table 3
Model Fi Pa ame e s o he P oposed and Al e na i e Models
Di ec model
(H1)
P oposed model (pa ial
media ion model; H2)
To al media ion
model
2(d )
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
No e: chi-squa e s a is ics (
2); oo -mean-squa e e o o app oxima ion (RMSEA);
s anda dized oo -mean-squa e esidual (SRMR); con i ma o y i index (CFI); Akaike
In o ma ion C i e ia (AIC); B owne-Cudeck c i e ion (BCC); and Bayesian In o ma ion
C i e ia (BIC).
Discussion
Unde s anding adap a ion o s ess wi hin con ex s in which indi iduals ha e o
success ully espond o highly demanding asks, such as spo s, is c ucial o a oid nega i e
e ec s esul ing om s ess, pa icula ly when wo king wi h young a hle es. This s udy aimed
o p o ide a amewo k o how a hle es e alua e di e en compe i i e s esso s be o e he
compe i ion and, mo e speci ically, how hey in e p e hose s esso s (cogni i e app aisal) and
how i ela es o spo con idence and hei expec a ions o pe o mance. Speci ically, i was
21
expec ed ha a hle es' compe i i e s esso s ela e o cogni i e app aisal and, mo e impo an ,
ha a hle es' cogni i e app aisal media es hei spo con idence and, consequen ly, hei
expec ed indi idual and collec i e pe o mance. The i s impo an esul e e s o he ac ha
opponen s eme ged as he main compe i i e s esso o a hle es when e alua ing hei
expe ience p io o a spo s compe i ion. Speci ically, esul s indica e ha he mo e a hle es
we e conce ned abou hei opponen s, he mo e h ea ening hey pe cei ed he upcoming ma ch
o be, and he less hey el o possess he necessa y coping s a egies o deal wi h he
compe i ion si ua ion which, in u n, lowe ed hei spo con idence and hei expec a ions o
indi idually and collec i ely succeed. These esul s pa ially suppo ed H1.
When i comes o you h spo s, opponen s would be, ideally, he leas impo an sou ce
o s ess. In ac , a hle es’ a e age esponse ega ding sou ces o s ess indica es ha e en
hough he compe i ion is impo an o hem, hey do no seem pa icula ly wo ied wi h hei
(lack) o compe i i e eadiness, social expec a ions, opponen s o inju ies, as he highe sou ces
o s ess seem o be mo e ela ed o wo ying abou making mis akes o po en ially ha ing a
bad pe o mance (c . Table 1). Ne e heless, when examining he ela ionship be ween sou ces
o s ess and he emaining a iables o he adap a ion p ocess, young a hle es om ou sample
seem o gi e a pa icula ele ance o opponen s 24 o 48 hou s be o e a game. Speci ically, he
esul s indica ed ha opponen s we e a c ucial and an inhe en pa o a hle es' compe i i e
expe ience, as sugges ed by o he esea ch (e.g., Mellalieu e al., 2009). Resul s om
“opponen s” sou ce o s ess a e somewha complex o unde s anding. In ac , his compe i i e
s esso was pe cei ed by a hle es as he lowes one when compa ed wi h he o he i e
dimensions o Ques ionnai e o Compe i i e S esso s in Spo . This can be conside ed posi i e
due he age ange o a hle es and he ac ha hey should be compe ing o lea ning and
imp o ing spo s skills, no ha ing “bea ing opponen s” as he main pu pose o playing socce .
Using he wo ds o Cô é and Hay (2002), a hle es like he ones included in ou s udy a e in a
ansi ion pe iod deciding be ween in es ing mo e in he spo ac i i y (i.e., lea ning he
s a egic, compe i i e, and skills o each spo ac i i y) o deciding o p ac ice spo s o
ec ea ional pu pose (i.e., p ac icing spo s wi hou aspi ing o each an eli e le el o
pe o mance). Howe e , his s esso was also he only one wi h nega i e signi ican
co ela ions wi h expec a ions o pe o mance and was he only one ha made a unique
con ibu ion o he p edica ion o h ea pe cep ions and spo con idence in he model. In
simple wo ds, opponen s did no seem o be “s ong” s esso o a hle es bu i seem ele an
o he way a hle es pe cei e he spo ac i i y and pe o mance. This can be explained by he
me hodological app oach used in he s udy (c i ical inciden ), as a hle es we e asked o comple e
22
he measu es 24h o 48h p io o a game. In his ime ame, opponen s a e assumed o be a
c ucial aspec o a hle es' p epa a ion o he game and, e en hough hey a e no p esen ed as
he “mos impo an ” sou ce o s ess, opponen s seem o be key in how a hle es in e p e he
upcoming game and, he e o e, ha ing a s onge ela ionship wi h cogni i e app aisal when
compa ed o he emaining sou ces o s ess. When analyzing he Pea son co ela ions be ween
sou ces o s ess and cogni i e app aisal, opponen s a e, indeed, mo e s ongly co ela ed wi h
h ea and coping pe cep ions han he emaining sou ces o s ess.
Mo eo e , he esul s also indica e ha a hle es' cogni i e app aisal o he s ess ul
si ua ion, as ei he a challenge (posi i e) o a h ea (nega i e), ela es o hei pe cei ed
pe o mance (H2). P e ious esea ch has al eady es ablished ha nega i e pa e ns o cogni i e
app aisal ha e a debili a ing e ec on a hle es' expec ed pe o mance, while posi i e pa e ns
a e ela ed o inc eases in expec ed pe o mance (e.g., Dixon e al., 2020; Hase e al., 2019). In
sum, and acco ding o H2, by e alua ing a si ua ion as a challenge, a hle es can ace he sou ce
o s ess as a posi i e o ce, which con ibu es o a bene icial emo ional o ien a ion owa ds he
si ua ion, inc easing hei sel -con idence in spo , meaning ha hey belie e ha he ou come
o he in e ac ion wi h he s esso will be a o able (c . Palmwood & McB ide, 2017), which
explains he highe expec a ions ela ed o hei pe o mance.
The opic o adap a ion o s esso s ela ed o spo s compe i ions is no new, and nei he
is he pi o al ole played by cogni i e app aisal (e.g., Ba holomew e al., 2017; Cumming e
al., 2017; Gomes, 2014; Samuel e al., 2023). Howe e , li le empi ical e idence has ocused
on he media ing ole o cogni i e app aisal be ween an eceden and consequen a iables o
s ess. Ou s udy ex ends p e ious li e a u e by conside ing his media ing ole bu by also
including spo con idence, which has been es ablished as a acili a o o pe o mance and
success in spo (e.g., Hays e al., 2009; Plakona e al., 2014), as well as a con ibu o o coping
wi h compe i i e s esso s and p essu e in spo se ings (c . Guccia di e al., 2011). Ou s udy
also p o ides a s ep o wa d by showing ha he ela ionship be ween compe i i e s esso s,
cogni i e app aisal, and pe o mance is ully media ed by a hle es' spo con idence. In o he
wo ds, he mo e a hle es pe cei e he sou ce o s ess as a challenge, he mo e hey eel hey
ha e he pe sonal esou ces o deal wi h he compe i i e s esso s; hese posi i e pe cep ions,
in u n, inc ease a hle es' spo con idence in hei abili y o be success ul, in luencing hei
expec a ions o indi idual and collec i e pe o mance.
Taking oge he , he esul s highligh (1) he impo ance o ocusing on how a hle es
in e p e compe i i e s esso s ins ead o ocusing on he s esso s hemsel es; (2) a hle es'
in e p e a ion o compe i i e s esso s (cogni i e app aisal) in luences hei expec a ions o
23
success (pe o mance) ia sel -con idence, which can be a gued o be inc eased when a hle es
pe cei e hey ha e he necessa y esou ces o cope wi h he s ess ul si ua ion. The e o e, hese
esul s ha e impo an p ac ical implica ions.
Limi a ions, P ac ical Implica ions and Fu u e Resea ch
This s udy a emp ed o p o ide a comp ehensi e amewo k o he p ocess o adap a ion
o s ess. E en hough ensu ing he compe i ion was impo an and su icien ly s ess ul o
a hle es by using a c i ical inciden app oach, he s udy comp ises some limi a ions. Fi s o all,
we did no ha e ull con ol o he “di icul y” o he upcoming game/ he le el o he opponen s
– his is impo an especially because opponen s seem o be he mos impo an sou ce o s ess
when i comes o a hle es’ app aisal o he compe i ion. Thus, i migh be qui e di e en whe he
a hle es pe cei e opponen s o be “be e ” o “wo se” han hem, which may in luence hei
in e p e a ion o he upcoming game. Rega dless, we did ensu e ha he e alua ed upcoming
spo e en co esponded o he “ ypical” s ess ul compe i ions o he season whe e i was
decided he inal championships posi ions. Second, his c oss-sec ional co ela ional design
does no allow o conclude causal ela ionships among a iables. The e is a s ong heo e ical
a ionale ha suppo s he o de o a iables included in he p oposed model, allowing pa h
analysis o es heo e ical assump ions, bu no causal in e ences can be d awn. Mo eo e , a
epea ed-measu es design would also allow us o es whe he hese ela ionships a e s able o e
ime.
Ne e heless, esul s o ou s udy no only p o ide suppo o he li e a u e ela ed o
human adap a ion o s ess (e.g., Goh e al., 2010; Gomes e al., 2017; Laza us, 1999) bu also
ha e impo an implica ions o coaches and spo s psychologis s wo king wi h young a hle es.
In ac , ques ioning and es uc u ing cogni i e app aisal o compe i ion may be an e ec i e
ool o help a hle es iden i y and use al e na i e and mo e adap i e hough s when acing a
c i ical and s ess ul si ua ion (Simães & Gomes, 2019). Fo example, i is impo an o p omo e
posi i e and challenging pe spec i es o compe i ion (e.g., how o cope wi h s ess ul games,
how o e alua e spo s pe o mance by se ing con ollable goals, how o inc ease eelings o
compe i i e eadiness, among o he s) and how o p e en nega i e h ea ening pe spec i es o
compe i ion (e.g., how o deal wi h e o s, social expec a ions, and p essu es om opponen s).
By in e ening in cogni i e app aisal, a hle es can inc ease coping and con ol pe cep ions ha
may be c i ical aspec s o you h spo s p ac ice.
I would also be impo an o look a di e en con ex s and a hle es, es ing i he same
pa e ns a ise wi h emale a hle es and wi h o he spo s. Mo e impo an ly, he c i ical inciden
24
me hodology appea ed as an impo an s a egy o analyze how a hle es pe cei e compe i ion
and he ela ed s esso ac o s. In ac , his app oach can be used in o de o collec da a du ing
he spo s season because we can expec luc ua ions in psychological ac o s when a hle es a e
con on ed wi h mul iple demands h oughou hei spo s ca ee .
Decla a ion o in e es
The au ho s decla e ha he esea ch was conduc ed in he absence o any comme cial o
inancial ela ionships ha could be cons ued as a po en ial con lic o in e es .
Re e ences
A buckle, J. L. (2008). AMOS 17 Use ’s Guide. SPSS.
A nold, R. S., & Fle che , D. (2012). A esea ch syn hesis and axonomic classi ica ion o he
o ganiza ional s esso s encoun e ed by spo pe o me s. Jou nal o Spo and Exe cise
Psychology, 34(3), 397–429. h ps://doi.o g/10.1123/jsep.34.3.397
Ba holomew, K. J., A nold, R., Hampson, R. J., & Fle che , D. (2017). O ganiza ional s esso s
and basic psychological needs: The media ing ole o a hle es' app aisal mechanisms.
Scandina ian Jou nal o Medicine & Science in Spo s, 27, 2127–2139.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/sms.12851
Cô é, J., & Hay, J. (2002). Child en’s in ol emen in spo : A de elopmen al pe spec i e. In J.
M. Sil a & D. E. S e ens (Eds.), Psychological ounda ions o spo (pp. 484-502). Allyn
and Bacon.
Cumming, S. J. D., Tu ne , M. J., & Jones, M. (2017). Longi udinal changes in eli e owe s'
challenge and h ea app aisals o p essu e si ua ions: A season-long obse a ional s udy.
The Spo Psychologis , 31(3), 217-226. h ps://doi.o g/10.1123/ sp.2016-0087
Dixon, J. G., Jones, M. V., & Tu ne , M. J. (2020). The bene i s o a challenge app oach on
ma ch day: In es iga ing ca dio ascula eac i i y in p o essional academy socce
playe s. Eu opean Jou nal o Spo Science, 20(3), 375-385.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/17461391.2019.1629179
Do on, J., & Bou bousson, J. (2017). How s esso s a e dynamically app aised wi hin a eam
du ing a game: An explo a o y s udy in baske ball. Scandina ian Jou nal o Medicine &
Science in Spo s, 27(12), 2080-2090. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/sms.12796.
F eeman, P., & Rees, T. (2009). How does pe cei ed suppo lead o be e pe o mance? An
examina ion o po en ial mechanisms. Jou nal o Applied Spo Psychology, 21(4), 429-
441. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/10413200903222913
25
Goh, Y. W., Swang, S., & Oei, T. P. S. (2010). The e ised T ansac ional Model (RTM) o
Occupa ional S ess and Coping: An imp o ed p ocess app oach. The Aus alian and New
Zealand Jou nal o O ganisa ional Psychology, 3, 13-20.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1375/ajop.3.1.13
Gomes, A. R. (2014). Posi i e human unc ioning in s ess si ua ions: An in e ac i e p oposal.
In A. R. Gomes, R. Resende, & A. Albuque que (Eds.), Posi i e human unc ioning om
a mul idimensional pe spec i e: P omo ing s ess adap a ion (Vol. 1, pp. 165-194). No a
Science.
Gomes, A. R., Almeida, A., & Resende, R. (2019). A hle es' pe cep ion o leade ship acco ding
o hei pe cep ions o goal achie emen and spo esul s. Pe cep ual and Mo o Skills,
127(2) 415–431. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0031512519892384
Gomes, A. R., Fa ia, S., & Vilela, C. (2017). Anxie y and bu nou in young a hle es: The
media ing ole o cogni i e app aisal. Scandina ian Jou nal o Medicine & Science in
Spo s, 27(12), 2116-2126. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/sms.12841
Gomes, A.R., Simães, C., Mo ais, C., & Cunha, R. (2022). Adap a ion o s ess in oo ball
a hle es: The impo ance o cogni i e app aisal. F on ie s in Psychology, 13:939840.
h ps://doi.o g/10.3389/ psyg.2022.939840
Gomes, A. R., & Teixei a, P. (2016). S ess, cogni i e app aisal, and psychological heal h:
Tes ing ins umen s o heal h p o essionals. S ess and Heal h, 32(2), 167-172.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/smi.2583
Guccia di, D. F., Jackson, B., Coul e , T. J., & Malle , C. J. (2011). The Conno -Da idson
Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Dimensionali y and age- ela ed measu emen in a iance
wi h Aus alian c icke e s. Psychology o Spo and Exe cise, 12(4), 423-433.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.psychspo .2011.02.005
Gus a sson, H., Saga , S. S., & S enling, A. (2017). Fea o ailu e, psychological s ess, and
bu nou among adolescen a hle es compe ing in high le el spo . Scandina ian Jou nal
o Medicine & Science in Spo s, 27(12), 2091-2102. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/sms.12797.
Hase, A., O'B ien, J., Moo e, L. J., & F eeman, P. (2019). The ela ionship be ween challenge
and h ea s a es and pe o mance: A sys ema ic e iew. Spo , Exe cise, and
Pe o mance Psychology, 8(2), 123-144. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/spy0000132
Ha zigeo giadis, A., Zou banos, N., Galanis, E., & Theodo akis, Y. (2011). Sel - alk and spo s
pe o mance: A me a-analysis. Pe spec i es on Psychological Science, 6(4), 348-356.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1745691611413136
