Attachment, reactions to stress, and coping in sport

There are numerous stressors that can arise from sport and exercise participation. These may include dealing with experiences of failure, injury, trauma and pain, the psychological demands of competition, a lack of confidence, and coach stress (e.g. Dale, 2000; Gould et al., 1993; Holt & Hogg, 2002; Nicholls & Polman, 2007). Nicholls and Polman (2007) have suggested that if athletes are unable to cope effectively in the face of such stressors then it is likely that (a) certain elements of performance will suffer (Lazarus, 2000), and (b) that levels of satisfaction, motivation, and commitment will be detrimentally affected (e.g. Holt & Dunn, 2004; Klint & Weiss, 1986; Smith, 1986). In the sport literature coping with stress has been thought about on a

number of levels. First, researchers have discussed trait and process conceptualisations. According to the trait approach, individuals are suggested to possess relatively stable ‘styles of coping’ that they ‘bring with them’ into various stressful situations and which remain influential in dictating coping responses across time and conditions (Carver et al., 1989). Alternatively, process models (e.g. Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) of coping have viewed coping with stress as a dynamic process dependent upon individuals’ attempts to manage constantly changing perceptions of situational demands in light of whether or not they are appraised to strain or exceed perceptions of available internal resources (i.e. beliefs about the self ’s capabilities to deal with a given stressor). Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) model of appraisal has received significant attention in the sport psychology literature. Lazarus (1999) suggested that cognitive appraisal is an important variable

associated with coping with stress and has conceptualised both primary and secondary appraisal processes. Primary appraisal is suggested to involve a cognitive evaluation related to whether current environmental circumstances and stressors are perceived to be of importance in relation to the individual’s valued goals, intentions, and thoughts about the self. For example, Lazarus (1999) suggested that if individuals perceive a given situation to be of little consequence with regard to these issues then there is likely to be nothing ‘at stake’ to provoke a stress response in the first place. However, when

appraisal leads to the conclusion that current circumstances are of significance to the individual and threaten an aspect of their well-being, Lazarus (1999) outlined a number of possible appraisal outcomes: (a) there is a sense of harm or loss because damage has already been incurred, (b) there is a sense of threat about anticipated harm, loss, or damage in the future, (c) there is a sense of challenge about a looming struggle with the environmental stressor, or (d) there is a perceived benefit to the looming encounter. Secondary appraisal is suggested to reflect individuals’ evaluations of the resources (internal and external) that are available to them in order to cope with the stressors encountered and Nicholls and Polman (2007) outline that this is especially important when primary appraisal has indicated that threat is imminent. The sporting literature has suggested that how athletes appraise potentially threatening situations is a significant factor in dictating the manner in which they attempt to cope on a behavioural level (e.g. Anshel & Delany, 2001; Anshel et al., 2001). For example, Anshel and Delany (2001) identified that athletes who made more negative appraisals of stressful sporting events (i.e. they perceived them as harmful and did not believe they had the resources to cope with them effectively) were more likely to rely on negative, avoidance-style coping mechanisms. Positive appraisals were linked to positive, approach-type coping techniques. Nicholls and Polman (2007) have highlighted that there are various cate-

gories of coping strategies that have been employed by the sporting literature to help organise the different ways individuals go about coping with stressful situations. Clearly there are numerous mechanisms that individuals might employ in their attempts to cope with stressors encountered in sport. For example, positive coping strategies might include communicating with and seeking support from others, emotional regulation, relaxation, and active problem solving, whereas negative strategies might include anger, blaming others, and mechanisms of avoidance (Ayers et al., 1996; Fanshawe & Burnett, 1991). Nicholls and Polman (2007) have outlined problem-(i.e. strategies intended to change the external situation) and emotion-(i.e. strategies intended to deal with the emotional response the situation provokes in individuals) focused, avoidance (i.e. behavioural [physical self-removal] and cognitive [psychological distancing] efforts to disengage from the situation), and approach (i.e. confronting the stressor head-on and trying to reduce its effects) coping mechanisms as macro level descriptions of coping strategies. Beyond this, a micro level categorisation has also emerged, with researchers creating subcategories of coping strategies within macro level categories. For example, problem-focused coping has been subdivided into strategies such as (a) assertive confrontation, (b) planning and goal setting, and (c) information seeking. Generally, the ability to cope with stressors encountered during sport has

been highlighted as an integral part of successful performance (e.g. Hardy et al., 1996). Researchers have implicated coping mechanisms as predictors of (a) objective performance outcomes under experimentally induced stressful

conditions (e.g. Anshel & Anderson, 2002; Krohne & Hindel, 1988), (b) selfreports of performance-related constructs such as personal goal attainment (e.g. Gaudreau & Blondin, 2004), and (c) affective responses to sporting experiences (e.g. Crocker & Graham, 1995; Gaudreau & Blondin, 2004; Ntoumanis et al., 1999). For example, Gaudreau and Blondin (2004) examined athletes’ self-reported profiles of what they labelled task-oriented (i.e. relaxation, support seeking, thought control, effort expenditure), distractionoriented (i.e. distancing, mental distraction), and disengagement-oriented (i.e. disengagement, resignation, venting of unpleasant emotions) coping dimensions using the Inventaire des Stratégies de Coping en Competition Sportive (ISCCS; Gaudreau & Blondin, 2002). Results suggested that athletes who endorsed a coping profile that was high in task-oriented coping mechanisms (and low in the other categories) reported significantly higher levels of goal attainment, experience of control, positive affective states, and lower anger/ dejection than athletes high in disengagement-oriented coping mechanisms (and low in the other categories). Attachment theory offers useful conceptual avenues in relation to coping

and dealing with stress that merit further exploration from sport psychologists. In the sections that follow I seek to discuss the links between attachment and coping and to briefly reflect upon the significance of such ideas for sport research. I begin with a conceptual and empirical discussion of how attachment has been related to coping and cognitive and emotional responses to threat, and discuss what this might mean in the context of sport. Following this, I have devoted attention to a body of research in the attachment literature suggesting that attachment may be a critical vulnerability factor in initial responses to the threat of pain. Subsequently, I use this body of literature to suggest parallels with athlete responses to the stresses that often surround athletic injury.