Citation
The Effects of anxiety on swimming performance

Material Information

Title:
The Effects of anxiety on swimming performance
Creator:
Swoap, Robert Andrew, 1965-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vi, 139 leaves : ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Academic achievement ( jstor )
Anxiety ( jstor )
Cognitive psychology ( jstor )
Flumes ( jstor )
Heart rate ( jstor )
Psychological assessment ( jstor )
Self esteem ( jstor )
Sports ( jstor )
Sports psychology ( jstor )
Swimming ( jstor )
Anxiety ( mesh )
Department of Clinical and Health Psychology thesis Ph.D ( mesh )
Dissertations, Academic -- College of Health Related Professions -- Department of Clinical and Health Psychology -- UF ( mesh )
Psychomotor Performance ( mesh )
Research ( mesh )
Stress, Psychological ( mesh )
Swimming -- psychology ( mesh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 1992.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 119-132.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Robert Andrew Swoap.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
001751945 ( ALEPH )
27961538 ( OCLC )
AJG4884 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text













THE EFFECTS OF ANXIETY ON SWIMMING PERFORMANCE


By

ROBERT ANDREW SWOAP





















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1992













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I express my appreciation to the staff of United

States Swimming who provided me with the facilities and

technical support to conduct this study. I would also

like to thank Drs. Shane Murphy, Jay Kearney, and Sara

Smith of the United States Olympic Committee whose

endorsement, assistance and encouragement were vital to

its completion. A special thanks goes to Samantha Ortiz,

who spent many long hours at the video and computer

terminals coding the swimming data. At the University of

Florida, I had the assistance and expertise of five

outstanding committee members: Drs. Bruce Crosson,

Michael Geisser, Anthony Greene, James Johnson, and

Robert Singer. I thank them each for their advice and

instructive contributions to this dissertation. Deep

gratitude is especially given to my doctoral chairman,

Jim Johnson. Dr. Johnson's constant support, advisement

and enthusiasm were indispensable for the completion of

this project. Finally, I extend thanks and appreciation

to my dear friends and family who mean so much to me and

to whom I dedicate this work.















TABLE OF CONTENTS




ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .. ..................................... ii

ABSTRACT ............ .............. .................. v

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW .............................. 1
Statements of the Problem......................... 12
Brief Overview of Study ...................... oo .12
Hypotheses..................... ................. 13
Definitions of Terms....... ..................... 15
Assumptions......................................... 18
Limitations.................................... ... 19
Significance of the Study.......................... 20

REVIEW OF LITERATURE.................................... 22
Concepts and Definitions......................... 22
Anxiety and Stress.......................... 22
Arousal and Activation....................... 30
Summary of Concepts............................. 34
Relationship of Anxiety and Arousal to Performance. 35
Arousal................... ....... ...... ....... 36
Competitive Anxiety............................ 46
Problems with the Literature and Researchers'
Recommendations ........................... 58
Summary of Literature Review and Restatement
of Need for Current Study........................... 63

PROCEDURES... .................... ........ 67
Subjects........................ ...... .. ............ 67
Procedural Overview............................... 68
Measures............................ .. .. ..... .... .. 71
Methodology................ ....... .................. 79

RESULTS................ .......... ...... .... 85
Subjects...... ..... ... ........... ...... ... ....... 85
Effects of Anxiety Manipulations................... 86
Swimming Efficiency.............................. 90
Within-Subject Analyses........................... 93
Effects of Prior Flume Testing.................... 94
Separate Examination of Subjects New to the Flume.. 98


iii












DISCUSSION............................................ 102
Explanation of Findings............................ 102
Summary and Conclusions ............................. 111
Implications for Future Research................... 114

REFERENCES.................................................. 119

APPENDIX ...................... .... .......... .. ...... 133

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH....................................... 139









Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE EFFECTS OF ANXIETY ON SWIMMING PERFORMANCE

By

ROBERT ANDREW SWOAP

AUGUST, 1992

Chairman: James H. Johnson, Ph.D.
Major Department: Clinical and Health Psychology

It was the purpose of this study to examine the effects

of anxiety on skilled motor performance. More specifically,

assessed were the reactions of swimmers to an evaluative

competitive testing situation. It was hypothesized that

swimmers would demonstrate an increase in anxiety under a

stressful evaluative condition as compared to a baseline

assessment. It was also hypothesized that the swimmers'

propelling efficiency would decrease under increasing states

of anxiety.

High school swimmers (N=33) were matched for skill,

age, and competitive trait anxiety. They were tested in a

motorized flume (i.e., a "swimming treadmill") under two

trials. Prior to each trial, swimmers were given self-

report measures to assess their competitive state anxiety,

including cognitive and somatic anxiety, and had their heart

rate taken. During both trials, the subjects were

videotaped underwater to determine their swimming efficiency

using computer-aided biomechanical analyses. A baseline









efficiency measure was obtained during the first swim while

the swimmer was unaware of being filmed. The second trial

was conducted under one of three anxiety conditions (High,

Moderate, or Low anxiety). An attempt to create these

conditions experimentally was made through the use of

different instructions given to the swimmer prior to his or

her second trial.

The results of the study did not confirm a significant

relationship between anxiety and motor performance. This

was primarily due to the probability that the anxiety

manipulations were ineffective in raising the swimmers'

anxiety levels prior to the second testing trial. On the

contrary, the swimmers reported feeling less anxious and

more self-confident after performing their first flume swim.

Not surprisingly, their efficiency in the flume was slightly

improved during the second swim. This improvement appears

to be related to becoming accustomed to swimming in the

flume during the first trial. Thus, the original hypotheses

were not successfully tested. However, it was revealed that

swimmers who had never been tested in the flume reported

more anxiety and less self-confidence than those who had

been previously tested.













INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW


Both research and practice in the area of sport

psychology has increased during the last 10 years. This

is illustrated in the United States by a recent surge in

the formation of sport psychology-related organizations,

such as the Association for the Advancement of Applied

Sport Psychology and Division 47 of the American

Psychological Association (Exercise and Sport

Psychology), in addition to the North American Society

for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity. New

sport psychology journals are being published. These

include the Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, The

Sport Psychologist, and the Sport Psvchology Training

Bulletin, in addition to the Journal of Sport and

Exercise Psychology.

Further, it appears that sport psychology services

are being used more frequently in a variety of sectors.

For example, in the mid-1970s there was isolated

involvement of a few national governing bodies (NGBs)

with sport psychologists, but by 1987 over half of the

NGBs in the U.S. were provided with some sport psychology

services for athletes and coaches (Murphy, 1988). A

recent survey documented that 16 of the NGBs now have

formal sport psychology programs, and that all of these

1









programs are integrated within an overall sports science

program (Gould, Tammen, Murphy, & May, 1989). Silva

(1992) writes that there has been "meteoric growth of the

professionalization of sport psychology" (p. 2), within

collegiate, professional, and Olympic sports. According

to Singer (1992), sport psychology is emerging at a swift

rate all around the world, with interventions and

instructional programs being offered by sport

psychologists to athletes and coaches in increasing

numbers. Others concur that the growth of sport

psychology has been substantial in the last decade, but

express concern about what they see as a lack of identity

in the field (Rejeski & Brawley, 1988).

There has also been an increase in sport psychology

research. This can be partially attributed to a growing

recognition that an understanding of relevant

psychological factors is essential to bringing about

improved sports performance. Research in this area has

included the analysis of attentional factors (e.g.,

Singer et al., 1991), burnout (e.g., Dale & Weinberg,

1990), developmental issues (e.g., Brodkin & Weiss,

1990), gender issues (e.g., Allison, 1991), goals (e.g.,

Lewthwaite, 1990), imagery (e.g., Rodgers, Hall, &

Buckholz, 1991), injury (e.g., Brewer, Van Raalte, &

Linder, 1991), mental errors (e.g., Bird & Horn, 1990),

motivation (e.g., Davis, 1991), self-confidence and

efficacy (e.g., Martin & Gill, 1991), skill acquisition









(e.g., Singer, Flora, & Abourezk, 1989), and social

support (e.g., Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1990).

Another major topic which has received much

attention in the literature deals with the relationship

between the constructs of anxiety and arousal and sports

performance (e.g., Burton, 1988; Crocker, Alderman, &

Smith, 1988; Ebbeck & Weiss, 1988; Fenz, 1988; Jones &

Cale, 1989; Landers & Boutcher, 1986; Madden, Summers, &

Brown, 1990; Prapavessis & Grove, 1991; Rodrigo,

Lusiardo, & Pereira, 1990; Williams, Tonymon, & Andersen,

1991). The degree of attention given to this topic is

highlighted by a recent content analysis of 29 sport

psychology books for athletes (Vealey, 1988) which

revealed that anxiety/arousal control techniques were the

second most frequently discussed factors related to the

enhancement of mental skills in sport. (Attentional

control techniques were most frequent.) Furthermore,

Murphy (1988) and Ogilvie et al. (1979) have indicated

that precompetitive tension is the number one problem for

which athletes request assistance. Within applied sport

psychology in the U.S., it has been suggested that some

form of anxiety management is used in the majority of

interventions with athletes (Singer, 1989).

Within the general consensus regarding the negative

effects of "excess" anxiety or arousal on athletic

performance, techniques described as "anxiety management"

and "arousal control" are applied frequently by sport









psychologists with athletes. However, less is known

regarding the efficacy of these various interventions.

Obviously, from a layperson's perspective there is a

common occurrence of athletes "choking" under pressure.

Most sports fans can recite several incidents in which an

athlete or team has not performed as well as expected,

and which may be attributed to the athlete's inability to

cope effectively with a pressure situation (e.g., missing

a two-foot putt to win a major golf championship; false-

starting and disqualification in the finals of a swim

meet). Understanding these failures to perform is

interesting to sports fans and scientists alike. Such

understanding is especially important for the athlete who

is seeking his or her best performance.

If there exists, for example, a zone of anxiety or

arousal within which athletes achieve optimal competitive

performance (cf. Hanin, 1980, 1986) then this knowledge

has special relevance for athletes, coaches, and sport

psychologists. If, however, any increase in anxiety or

arousal is detrimental to performance (cf. Bird & Horn,

1990; Burton, 1988), this has different ramifications for

athletes and those working with them.

Despite the fact that competition-specific anxiety

is a major concern for many athletes, coaches, and sport

psychologists, the research literature dealing with this

topic like that related to other forms of anxiety, is

insufficient to explain the precise relationship between









competitive anxiety and sports performance. To date,

research in this area has been hampered by methodological

problems (e.g., Gould, Petlichkoff, Simons, & Vevera,

1987; McCauley, 1985), statistical problems (cf. Smith,

1989), the use of poor outcome measures (cf., Martens,

Vealey, & Burton, 1990) and definitional inconsistencies

(cf. Gould & Krane, in press; Weinberg, 1990). Clearly,

more methodologically sophisticated research in this area

is needed, as several current sources recommend (e.g.,

Gould & Krane, in press; Jones & Hardy, 1990; Martens,

Vealey, & Burton, 1990; Weinberg, 1990).

Some of the confusion in this area stems from

definitional problems. The terms anxiety, arousal,

somatic anxiety, and stress, for example, have often been

used interchangeably in the basic and applied research

literature (Gould & Krane, in press; Weinberg, 1990).

This has posed more than merely a semantic problem, in

that different constructs have been proposed to have

varying relationships to skilled motor performance. For

example, what is the difference between somatic anxiety

and arousal or between cognitive anxiety and arousal?

And, do they have different effects on sports

performance? Issues pertaining to the definition of

constructs such as anxiety and arousal will be addressed

in a later section.

Apart from strictly definitional problems, another

important issue has to do with the multidimensional









nature of sport-related anxiety, and how different

dimensions of anxiety may relate to skilled sports

performance. Focus on this topic has mainly resulted

from the development of a revised form of the Competitive

State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2; Martens, Burton, Vealey,

Bump, & Smith, 1983) which is designed to assess

cognitive and somatic competitive anxiety and self-

confidence. Since the development of the CSAI-2, it has

become a prominent instrument in the assessment of sports

related state anxiety. The authors cite 16 published

empirical studies from 1984-1988 which have included the

CSAI-2 (Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990) and there have

been at least this many studies utilizing the CSAI-2 in

the last four years.

In creating the CSAI-2, Martens et al., (1983) with

regard to previous research (e.g., Borkovek, 1976; Doctor

& Altman, 1969; Liebert & Morris, 1967; Morris, Davis, &

Hutchings, 1981) have suggested that the distinction

between cognitive and somatic state anxiety is both

conceptually and practically important in the assessment

of competitive anxiety. Likewise, Morris and his

colleagues (Morris, Brown, & Halbert, 1977; Morris,

Harris, & Rovins, 1981; Morris & Liebert, 1973) have

argued that cognitive and somatic anxiety can be elicited

independently by different antecedents and are separate,

albeit related, components. Martens and his colleagues

have applied these notions to sport psychology and have









suggested that these two anxiety components have

different effects on competitive performance. They

suggest that somatic state anxiety will reach its peak at

the onset of competition and will dissipate once the

contest starts. Thus, they argue, somatic anxiety

(unless very high and attentionally distracting) should

influence performance less than should cognitive anxiety.

Cognitive anxiety, consisting of negative expectations

about success in performing a task, appears to occur both

before and throughout a performance, and thus may be more

important to the outcome (Martens, Vealey, & Burton,

1990).

The principle question regarding anxiety and sports

performance is how athletes react (cognitively,

physiologically, emotionally, behaviorally) to

"stressful" situations (e.g., competing in a loud,

hostile stadium; competing against an opponent that the

athlete knows nothing about; adjusting to a different

climate and race course). Despite definitional,

methodological, and conceptual problems surrounding

athletes' reactions to anxiety, there exists sufficient

research to suggest that anxiety affects athletic

performance. Although this topic will be addressed fully

in the literature review, it is important to briefly

present information on what is known about the potential

effects of anxiety on performance directly, as well as on









physiological, cognitive, and other mediators of athletic

performance.

There is research to suggest that individuals in

competitive situations, including children (Beuter &

Duda, 1985; Lewthwaite, 1990), adolescents (Crocker,

Alderman, & Smith, 1988), adults (Rodrigo, Lusiardo, &

Pereira, 1990), and elite athletes (Scanlan, Stein, &

Ravizza, 1991), are susceptible to "evaluation stress" in

which the resultant anxiety may interfere with

performance. The anxiety reaction appears to be related

to a threat perception, and can be manifested in

behavioral, cognitive, and physiological responses.

It also appears that competitive state anxiety is

dependent upon the nature of the competition, upon the

athlete's tendency to experience anxiety in general (trait

anxiety), and upon the coping skills developed by the

athlete to deal with the anxiety-arousing competition

(Smith & Smoll, 1990). Thus, a major state championship

is potentially more anxiety-provoking than a weekly local

contest, and therefore may present the athlete with a

greater challenge of coping with "nerves" and

"butterflies" surrounding the competition. Similarly, an

athlete with a high amount of competitive trait anxiety

(and poor coping skills) would be more likely to

experience decrements in performance in an important

competition than an athlete who has less trait anxiety,

or than one who has developed effective coping strategies









for pressure-filled competitive situations (Lewthwaite,

1990; Smith & Smoll, 1990).

It also appears that anxiety primarily affects the

athlete in performance-degrading ways (e.g., Burton,

1988; McCann, Murphy, & Raedeke, in press) through

cognitive and attentional factors (e.g., "mental" errors)

(Albrecht & Feltz, 1987; Bird & Horn, 1990; Singer et

al., 1991), and through somatic effects (e.g., too

"pumped-up") (Powell & Verner, 1982; Smith & Smoll,

1990). Anxiety also appears to affect individuals

negatively in a competitive situation via altered motoric

reactions (e.g., Beuter & Duda, 1985; Weinberg, 1990).

As will be demonstrated in the literature review, it

is currently not clear which factors of competition

(e.g., intraindividual pressure, competitors, coaches)

and which mediating factors (e.g., attention,

physiological arousal, cognitive anxiety) are most

relevant to performance in regards to competition

anxiety. Sport psychologists who are evaluating athletes

and the athletes themselves would benefit from more

compelling information regarding how athletes react under

potentially "stressful" competitive situations. A more

precise understanding of the nature of athletes'

responses to stressful situations and how their

performances are affected is needed.

One specific example of a situation which may be

anxiety-producing to athletes, and which may represent an









ideal context within which to investigate many of the

issues discussed here, involves the examination of

swimming speed, efficiency, and stroke mechanics at the

United States Swimming International Center for Aquatic

Research. This facility is unique in providing state of

the art assessments of stroke technique, propelling

efficiency, and swimming economy, while swimmers perform

in a swimming flume (a kind of "swimming treadmill").

Swimmers from around the nation and world come for

testing at the flume at the Olympic Training Center in

Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Despite the excellent information that this facility

can provide to athletes and coaches, it seems likely that

some swimmers approach the somewhat novel procedure of

the flume experience with excessive anxiety and become

unable to reliably demonstrate their characteristic

strokes. The anxiety may derive from varied sources:

performance or evaluative anxiety (e.g., fear of

performing poorly in view of U.S. Swimming coaches or

researchers), anxiety related to the unfamiliarity of the

flume, or anxiety related to swimming in the confined

space of the flume. Thus, the assessment situation may

provide a significant source of anxiety for some

swimmers.

It is possible that the anxious swimmer may not

perform to the best of his or her ability as a result of

focusing on inappropriate cognitions and anxiety-









generating self-statements, and/or as a result of

excessive physiological arousal. Thus, the effects of

arousal and anxiety on swimming performance in the flume

may prevent the most accurate assessment of the swimmers'

techniques. Furthermore, if anxiety-responses could be

experimentally manipulated, then the flume might provide

an ideal setting to study the reactions of athletes to

competitive anxiety. (Data routinely obtained on those

assessed in the flume represent highly quantifiable

dependent measures.)

In the present investigation, the flume was used to

provide a potentially stressful testing situation for

swimmers where psychological, physiological, and

biomechanical variables could be carefully assessed.

Swimmers were chosen as subjects for two main reasons.

First, the flume provides a unique setting for a

controlled assessment of performance (i.e., one in which

an externally valid situation can simultaneously provide

precise performance measurement). Second, swimming is of

a primarily individual nature and allows for direct

assessment of intra-individual effects of anxiety. It

was felt that an investigation with swimmers assessed in

this sort of facility would be ideally suited to provide

useful information regarding the nature of the

relationship between anxiety and sports performance. A

secondary goal of the study was to examine an existing









assessment procedure (i.e., the flume) to determine its

effects on swimmers' anxiety and performance.


Statements of the Problem

There were three primary purposes for conducting

this investigation: (1) to examine and compare the

effects of the components of anxiety (i.e., somatic vs.

cognitive) on swimming performance; (2) to determine how

the swimming stroke (from a biomechanical perspective) is

affected by different levels of externally-induced

anxiety; and (3) to determine whether current assessment

procedures at the International Center for Aquatic

Research are affected by a swimmer's testing history in

the flume.

Brief Overview of Study

High school swimmers (N=33) were matched for skill,

age, and competitive trait anxiety. Each was tested on

two trials in the motorized flume (i.e., "swimming

treadmill"). Prior to each trial, swimmers were given

self-report measures to assess their competitive state

anxiety, including cognitive and somatic anxiety, and had

their heart rate taken. During both trials, the subjects

were videotaped underwater to determine their swimming

efficiency using computer-aided biomechanical analyses.

A baseline efficiency was obtained during the first swim

while the swimmer was unaware of being filmed. The

second trial was conducted under one of three anxiety









conditions (High, Moderate, or Low anxiety). An attempt

to create these conditions experimentally was made

through the use of different instructions given to the

swimmer prior to his or her second trial. Comparisons of

swimming efficiency were made between the two swims based

on group membership and on intra-individual changes in

self-report measures.


Hypotheses

The following research hypotheses were tested:

1. Competitive cognitive state anxiety will be

significantly and negatively related to freestyle

swimming performance (i.e., stroke efficiency). This

relationship is expected to manifest itself such that

swimming performance during the second swim becomes less

efficient as a function of group membership (determined

by repeated measures analyses of variance). That is,

swimmers in the high-anxiety group should show the

greatest decrement in swimming performance, followed by

those in the moderate-anxiety group, and then the low-

anxiety group (whose members are expected to show the

slightest performance decrement during the second

evaluated swim).

It is thus expected that any increase in cognitive

anxiety will have a negative effect on the biomechanical

efficiency of the swimmer. This hypothesis is based in

part on recent sport psychology research findings (e.g.,









Bird and Horn (1990) who found that cognitive anxiety was

positively related to mental errors, and Burton (1988)

who concluded that cognitive anxiety was negatively

related to swimming performance). Cognitive psychology

research (e.g., Wine, 1971, 1980) also lends support and

suggests that with increasing cognitive anxiety,

individuals become more preoccupied with self-evaluation

and possible failure thus disrupting performance.

2. Independent of the groups, performance

decrements will be most pronounced in those swimmers who

demonstrate the greatest increases in cognitive anxiety

from baseline to evaluated swims (determined by

correlational and regression analyses). For these

swimmers, an evaluated flume swim may seem more difficult

and be associated with a greater perceived threat, a more

negative anxiety reaction, and thus a greater decrement

in swimming efficiency (cf. Beuter & Duda, 1985; Brustad

& Weiss, 1987; Lewthwaite, 1990). Testing of this

hypothesis is supported by researchers who suggest that

intra-individual analyses in anxiety-performance research

is meaningful and needed (Gould & Krane, in press;

Sonstroem & Bernardo, 1982; Weinberg, 1990).

3. Cognitive state anxiety will have a more

profound negative effect on performance than somatic

state anxiety. As a result of previous research (Burton,

1988; Feltz, Landers, & Raeder, 1979; Gould et al., 1987;

Martens et al., 1983; Rosenthal, 1968; Sarason, 1975;









Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979), it was hypothesized

that somatic A-state would likely be greatest before the

swimmer entered the flume and then would dissipate as the

testing began, but that cognitive A-state (especially

anxiety related to evaluation) would likely continue into

the testing and be associated with measurable decrements

in swimming efficiency.

4. If decrements are found in the freestyle stroke,

the most likely stage will be during the "finish" phase

(see below in Definitions of Terms). The finish is the

most powerful stage of the freestyle stroke and is the

stage during which many young swimmers have difficulty

fully completing the armstroke. It is thought that if a

swimmer becomes affected by excessive anxiety he or she

may become less efficient and have to work harder. It

was hypothesized that the finish phase would be the most

affected by evaluative anxiety, in that the swimmer would

have to compensate for the decrease in efficiency using a

higher stroke turnover rate (and thus compromise the

finish phase). This will be assessed by examining

changes in efficiency of the finish phase as a function

of group membership (using a repeated measures ANOVA).



Definitions of Terms

Although within the Review of Literature definitions

and concepts are addressed, the following terms are

defined briefly in order to assist in understanding the









terminology of the present study. To facilitate a better

comprehension of these terms, it is first necessary to

present a brief overview of the freestyle swimming

armstroke. The stroke is made up of three phases (catch,

insweep, and finish). (Recovery, in which the hand

travels from the end of the stroke to reenter the water,

is the fourth phase of the stroke, but is not associated

with the propulsion of the swimmer.) The phases are not

distinct, but are continuous parts of the stroke. Thus,

the swimmer first enters the water, "catching" it and

pulling back and away from the body. Next, the swimmer

begins to bend the elbow more as he or she "sweeps" the

water with the hand in and underneath the body. To

"finish" the stroke, the swimmer pushes the water with

the hand out and back (from underneath the body)

eventually lifting the elbow and hand out of the water

for recovery. From the perspective of the swimmer, the

right arm generally follows the shape of an inverted "S",

while the left arm approximates an "S".


Angle of Pitch (AP) is the angle of the hand in

relation to the swimmer's body at any one time during the

armstroke (90 approximates a hand-shaking position).

Anxiety refers to the experience of negative

thoughts (e.g., worry, self-doubt) and usually

concomitant physiological sensations (e.g., sweaty palms,

racing heart rate) which are induced in response to a









threatening situation (objective or subjective; of

environmental, social or intrapersonal origin).

Arousal is defined as psychological and/or

physiological activation of an organism on a continuum

from deep sleep to extreme activation (e.g., intense

excitement or fear).

Catch is the first phase of the armstroke in which

the swimmer's hand enters the water and begins the

stroke. For analytical purposes, it continues to the

point at which the swimmer's hand is at its widest point

(i.e., furthest point laterally from the body).

DiQitization refers to the process of converting a

video image of an action (e.g., a swimming armstroke)

into two and three dimensional coordinates for

quantitative computer analysis.

Drag is defined as any negative force created during

swimming which acts to slow the body through water

resistance (e.g., during hand entry).

Finish describes the third, final, and most powerful

phase of the armstroke in which the swimmer completes the

stroke cycle. For analytical purposes, it begins at the

point at which the swimmer's hand is at its narrowest

point (i.e., underneath the body) and ends with the

hand's exit from the water.

Flume refers to a "swimming treadmill" in which

subjects are evaluated (filmed via underwater video









cameras) while they swim against a steady stream of

water.

Hand Velocity (HV) is the speed of the hand through

the water in meters per second.

Hydrodynamic Biomechanical Analysis is an overall

process of filming a swimmer with underwater cameras, and

then determining forces and efficiency of the swimmer

(via digitization).

Insweep refers to the middle (second) phase of the

armstroke. For analytical purposes, it begins where the

catch ends (i.e., at the widest point) and continues

until the hand is at the narrowest point (i.e.,

underneath the body and where the finish begins).

Propelling Efficiency (PE) is a measure of how

efficient a swimmer is in moving through the water. It

is the propulsive force (RE) divided by the total force

(R) multiplied by 100 and thus expressed as a percentage.

Propulsive Force (RE) is the force (measured in

newtons) which the swimmer exerts upon the water in order

to propel himself or herself through the water. It is a

component of the total force which the swimmer exerts.

Total Force (R) is the total force (measured in

newtons) which the swimmer exerts upon the water while

swimming.

Assumptions

For the purpose of this investigation, the following

assumptions were made:









1. Subjects would be able to swim the freestyle

stroke in the flume during a testing procedure.

2. The flume would provide an adequate assessment

of swimming technique in high school swimmers.

3. The anxiety manipulations and flume testing

procedure would present a significantly stressful

situation to swimmers (especially for those naive to the

flume). This assumption was made on the basis of

literature which suggests that evaluative situations

involving some threat to perceived ability or skills are

highly anxiety-producing (Beuter & Duda, 1985; Brustad &

Weiss, 1987; Burton, 1988; Gould et al., 1987;

Lewthwaite, 1990; Scanlan, 1984). It was assumed that

subjects' reactions to the flume testing procedures would

be fairly representative of how high school swimmers

react (psychologically, physiologically, and

biomechanically) to varying stressful conditions.

4. Subjects would be able to accurately respond to

paper and pencil questionnaires which assess thoughts of

anxiety.


Limitations

1. Due to limitations placed on the investigator

for data collection by U.S. Swimming, the flume testing

procedure was not novel to approximately one-third of the

subjects. The original intention was to include only

subjects who had not previously experienced the flume.









Therefore, data analyses were somewhat altered and

compromised.

2. In that only high school swimmers were tested,

there may be limited generalizability to a more

competitive group of swimmers (e.g., collegiate or

Olympic-caliber swimmers).


Significance of the Study

A recent survey by Blinde and Tierney (1990)

indicated that U.S. Swimming coaches as a group possess a

moderate to large degree of receptivity to the field of

sport psychology. As the authors correctly point out,

this degree of receptivity is critical in the process of

disseminating applied sport psychology research

information to a sport and its coaches and athletes.

However, a clear obstacle to receptivity is a "limited

knowledge base disseminated from the researcher to the

practitioner" (p. 137). The authors recommend that

researchers focus their attention on practical and

applied studies. Accordingly, a potential contribution

of this study was to conduct research that could be

readily received and used by coaches as well as athletes.

It was expected that this study would have implications

for providing applied research knowledge to the consumer

(e.g., coaches and athletes) through the U.S. Swimming

organization via publications and coaches and athletes'

clinics.









In addition to providing information that could be

useful to swimming, this study was expected to contribute

to the body of knowledge associated with the potential

relationship between anxiety and sports performance. As

will be demonstrated in the following section, there are

significant questions as to how athletes respond to

anxiety in a competitive context. It was expected that a

significant contribution of this study would be to expand

upon and clarify the anxiety-performance relationship.

The current investigation also constituted an

attempt to pool the resources of a sport-specific sports

science team (U.S. Swimming, International Center for

Aquatic Research) with sport psychology in a joint effort

to investigate a specific question (i.e., examining the

accuracy of flume assessments with anxious subjects) and

a larger issue (i.e., investigating the relationship

between anxiety and sports performance). As such, it

reflected an integration of different disciplines within

the sports sciences (e.g., biomechanics, motor control,

physiology, and sport psychology) and was expected to

provide a useful model for future multidisciplinary

projects. In general, then, it was expected that this

study would contribute to the literature concerning the

relationship between anxiety and a specific type of

athletic performance (swimming).













REVIEW OF LITERATURE


Concepts and Definitions

Anxiety and Stress

Anxiety can be differentiated in terms of whether it

is manifested as a transitory experience (state anxiety)

or as a proclivity towards feeling anxious (trait

anxiety). State anxiety has been defined as

Transitory emotional states that consist of
subjective, consciously-experienced feelings of
tension, apprehension, nervousness and worry, and
heightened arousal or activation of the autonomic
nervous systems. These states vary in intensity and
fluctuate over time as a function of the amount of
perceived threat. Thus, perceived threat mediates
the relationship between stressors and the intensity
of state anxiety reactions. (Spielberger, 1982, p.
3)

The anxiety state may consist of a combination of

some of the following characteristics: tension,

nervousness, unpleasant thoughts (worries), and

physiological changes (e.g., dry.mouth, pupil dilation,

faster and more intense breathing, tense muscles)

associated with the increased sympathetic activity of the

autonomic nervous system (Burton, 1988; Spielberger,

1982). In more severe instances of anxiety, as during a

panic attack, symptoms experienced may include:

Shortness of breath dyspneaa) or smothering
sensations; dizziness, unsteady feelings, or
faintness; choking; palpitations or accelerated









heart rate; trembling or shaking; sweating; nausea
or abdominal distress; depersonalization
orderealization; numbness or tingling sensations
(parasthesias); flushes (hot flashes) or chills;
chest pain or discomfort; fear of dying; and fear of
going crazy or of doing something uncontrolled
during the attack. (American Psychiatric
Association, 1987, p. 236)

Smith and Smoll (1990) define anxiety as a

multidimensional construct which involves an aversivee

emotional response and an avoidance motive characterized

by worry and apprehension concerning the possibility of

physical or psychological harm, together with increased

physiological arousal resulting from the appraisal of

threat" (Smith & Smoll, 1990, p. 419). Gould and Krane

(in press) report that anxiety has been viewed as

feelings of nervousness and tension associated with

activation or arousal of the organism.

Eysenck (1982) postulates that the strength of an

individual's anxiety state depends on two main factors:

(1) the degree of external threat and (2) the

individual's susceptibility to anxiety (i.e., anxiety

proneness). It is the second factor that is defined as

trait anxiety or

A motive or acquired behavioral disposition that
predisposes an individual to perceive a wide range
of objectively nondangerous circumstances as
threatening and to respond to these with state
anxiety reactions disproportionate in intensity to
the magnitude of the objective danger. (Spielberger,
1966, p. 17)

Thus, individuals who have a high amount of trait anxiety

will tend to perceive more situations as anxiety-









provoking, and/or experience stronger feelings of anxiety

under a threatening condition. Marten, Vealey, and

Burton (1990) concur and suggest that trait anxiety is

the predisposition to perceive various environmental

stimuli as threatening or nonthreatening and to respond

to these stimuli with corresponding levels of state

anxiety.

An additional differentiation in the definition of

anxiety is that of physiological and cognitive

components. Liebert and Morris (1967) addressed this

point in their examination of test anxiety, which they

contended was a composite of worry and emotionality.

They defined worry as the component of anxiety which is

principally "cognitive concern about the consequences of

failure" (p. 975). Emotionality was described as the

more physiological aspects of anxiety (e.g., the

unpleasant physical feelings of nervousness and tension).

This classification has been supported widely, and is

seen as an important feature of anxiety (Barnes, Sime,

Dienstbier, & Plake, 1986; Borkovek, 1976; Burton, 1988;

Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990; Morris, Harris, &

Rovins, 1981; Taylor, 1987). Generally, the

worry/emotionality distinction is described in terms of

cognitive and somatic anxiety. As will be demonstrated,

these two concepts have been examined as to their

independence and interrelatedness.









As applied to participation in sport, anxiety is

frequently operationally defined in terms of "competitive

stress" or "competitive anxiety." Although stress has

been at times been used interchangeably with anxiety, it

is actually a broader term which can be defined at times

as a stimulus, an intervening, or a response variable

(whereas anxiety is almost exclusively described as a

response variable). Thus, these two terms may or may not

be analogous depending on the context in which they are

used.

As a stimulus, the term stressor is usually used to

refer to situations or stimuli that are objectively

characterized by some degree of physical or psychological

danger or threat (Spielberger, 1982). Spielberger

explains that reactions to a stressor are dependent on

whether a particular situation or stimulus is threatening

(i.e., potentially dangerous or harmful). Of course,

this can be both objective and subjective "danger."

Thus, objective dangers (e.g., hurricanes, illness) are

appraised by most people as threatening, whereas for

subjective dangers the same stimulus may be seen as a

threat, a challenge, or as largely irrelevant, depending

on the person's estimation of the threat value of the

stimulus.

Spielberger concludes then that the experience of

threat has two main characteristics: (1) It is future-

oriented, generally involving the anticipation of a









potentially harmful event; and (2) It is mediated by

psychological activities (e.g., perception, thought,

memory, and judgement) which are involved in the

appraisal process. An example comes from some

competitive sports in which athletes strive to perform at

peak levels under circumstances in which an opposing side

aims to restrict such performance (Madden et al., 1990).

The athlete must appraise the potential threat using

mental processing (i.e., accurate perception, careful

thought, recollections of previous interactions, etc.)

and must arrive at a reasonable judgement.

The concept of stress has also been described as an

intervening variable, linking two sets of factors

(stressors and stress reactions) together. Thus, the

stressfulness for an individual of any stressor varies,

depending on how he or she perceives the situation and on

how he or she perceives available coping resources

(Kimble, Garmezy, & Zigler, 1984). Stress has also been

defined very generally as "any behavioral response of an

organism to environmental stimulation" (Fenz, 1988, p.

223).

With regard to sports, Scanlan (1984) states that

competition can be "stressful" due to extensive

evaluation of ability and competence, and that

competitive stress is a negative emotional reaction an

athlete feels when self-esteem is threatened. "It is

his/her perceptions of inadequacy in successfully meeting









the performance demands, and his/her perceptions of the

consequences of failure, that create the threat to self-

esteem which triggers the stress reaction" (Scanlan,

1984, p. 119).

In a more recent paper, Scanlan and her colleagues

(1991) define competitive stress as an encompassing

condition where the athlete experiences negative

emotions, feelings, and thoughts that might occur with

respect to a competitive experience. "These would

include feelings of apprehension, anxiety, muscle

tension, nervousness, physical reactions (such as

butterflies in the stomach, shaking, or nervous

sweating), thoughts centered on worry and self-doubt, and

negative statements to yourself" (Scanlan et al., 1991,

p. 105). Martens, Vealey, and Burton (1990) comment on

how stress is related to anxiety suggesting that stress

occurs under conditions in which failure to meet demands

is perceived as having important consequences and is thus

responded to with increased levels of state anxiety.

Competitive anxiety appears to be solely defined as

a response variable (i.e., an athlete can respond to a

competitive stressor with competitive anxiety).

Competitive anxiety is the more prevalent term in the

literature to describe the reaction to a "stressful"

competitive situation. Utilizing Spielberger's (1966,

1972) and others (Borkovek, 1976; Liebert & Morris, 1967)

suggestions that anxiety is a multidimensional construct,









Martens (1977) suggests that cognitive and somatic

anxiety are two separate components of competitive

anxiety. Burton (1988) writes that

Cognitive anxiety is the mental component of anxiety
caused by negative expectations about success or
negative self-evaluation, whereas somatic anxiety is
the physiological or affective component of anxiety
that is directly related to autonomic arousal.
Cognitive anxiety is characterized by worry,
negative self-talk, and unpleasant visual imagery,
whereas somatic anxiety is reflected in such
responses as rapid heart rate, shortness of breath,
clammy hands, butterflies in the stomach, and tense
muscles. (Burton, 1988, p. 46)

It has been proposed that these two components have

differential effects on performance (e.g., Burton, 1988;

Smith & Smoll, 1990; Weinberg, 1990) and thus the

comprehensive term "competitive anxiety" may not have

exclusively negative or positive effects (see a later

section entitled Relationship between Competitive Anxiety

and Performance).

Although the two components of anxiety are

hypothetically independent, Morris, Davis, and Hutchings

(1981) have suggested that they probably covary in

stressful situations since these situations contain

elements related to the stimulation of both somatic and

cognitive responses. A modest dependence has been

demonstrated in a number of studies (Deffenbacher, 1980;

Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990; Morris & Liebert, 1973).

However, conflicting evidence exists that suggests that

cognitive and somatic anxiety are independent, depending

on the situational stressor. That is, high somatic









anxiety can be aroused without eliciting self-evaluation,

while certain conditions which are highly evaluative

elicit cognitive anxiety but not somatic state anxiety

(Burton, 1988; Morris, Harris, and Rovins, 1981).

Competitive anxiety can be further delineated using

state and trait anxiety terms, which have been described

previously. Hence, competitive state anxiety can be

defined as a condition prior to or during a competitive

situation "characterized by feelings of apprehension and

tension and associated with activation of the organism"

(Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990, p. 9), while

competitive trait anxiety is defined as a "situation-

specific modification of the more general A-trait

construct a tendency to perceive competitive

situations as threatening and to respond to these

situations with A-state" (p. 11).

Although it may be true that it cannot yet be

adequately explained why some athletes perceive threat in

the sport environment while others regard their sport

experiences as positive or benign (Lewthwaite, 1990) we

can at least define the stress/anxiety terms in a more

straightforward and consistent way. An appropriate

summary of the stress process which has four interrelated

stages is given by Gould and Krane (in press) who adapted

McGrath's (1970) process model of stress to sports.

First, an environmental situation or demand is placed on

the athlete. Second, the athlete must interpret this









situation and determine whether there is a perceived

imbalance between the demands of the situation and the

capabilities of himself or herself. Third, and depending

on this interpretation, the athlete can experience

changes in physiological arousal and/or state anxiety.

Fourth is the outcome of the performance.

This explanation is helpful in that it demonstrates

that competitive stress is a process and that the

emphasis is placed on the athlete's evaluation and

perception of a competitive situation, and not simply the

situation itself. Thus, in this context, competitive

stress may be viewed as positive or negative. This is in

contrast to competitive anxiety which is described as

primarily negative. However, even this is not

indisputable as will be seen in the forthcoming section

on the relationship between anxiety and performance.

Arousal and Activation

The relatedness among terms does not end with

anxiety and its associated terms but continues in the

notion of arousal and activation. Some writers adopt a

parsimonious approach to the topic:

Arousal and activation are used interchangeably by
most motivation theorists, although there are some
who have attempted to make distinctions between the
two concepts. In this text, the two words will be
considered to be synonymous. Emotional, tense, and
anxious are other adjectives that are frequently
used to express the same idea, and in sports,
"psyched-up" conveys the same notion. (Sage, 1984,
p. 345)









Other writers have explained arousal as synonymous

with motivation (Magill, 1989), alertness/readiness (Cox,

1990), and psychic energy (Martens, 1987). Perhaps the

most traditional definition explains arousal as energy

mobilization ranging on a continuum from deep sleep or

coma at one extreme, to panic-stricken terror or great

excitement at the other extreme (Eysenck, 1984; Malmo,

1959). Duffy (1957, 1962) proposed that arousal is

neural/physiological excitation which varies on two

dimensions: intensity and direction. "For Duffy (1962),

any given point on this continuum was determined by 'the

extent of release of potential energy, stored in the

tissues of the organism, as this is shown in activity or

response' (p. 17)" (Neiss, 1988a, p. 345).

As with anxiety, arousal can be described as

multidimensional in nature (Landers, 1980), and has been

suggested to encompass three dimensions: physiological,

behavioral, and cognitive (Borkovek, 1976). The

indicators of increased arousal are manifested and

assessed in a number of ways: self-report,

electrophysiological (e.g., decreases in skin resistance

of galvanic skin response; increases in palmar sweating,

EMG, EEG), respiratory and cardiovascular (e.g.,

increases in ECG, blood pressure, heart rate), and

biochemical (e.g., increases in the release of adrenaline

and noradrenaline) (Gould & Krane, in press; Hackfort &

Schwenkmezger, 1989).









It has been suggested and demonstrated empirically

that the neurophysiological indicators of increased

arousal have poor intercorrelations and low correlations

with self-report scales of arousal (Fahrenberg,

Walschburger, Foerster, Myrtek, & Muller, 1983; Venables,

1984; Zaichkowsky & Takenaka, in press). It is not

clearly understood why this is the case although

suggested reasons are autonomic response stereotypy

(Lacey & Lacey, 1958), differing expectancies (Kirsch &

Weixel, 1988; Neiss, 1990), learning history (Borkovek,

1976; Landers, 1980), and construct validation problems

with arousal (e.g., Neiss, 1988).

In discussing the different measures of arousal,

Hackfort and Schwenkmezger (1989) propose that

physiological indicators of arousal are difficult to

apply in sport psychology research, in that these

parameters often change more as a result of physical

activity than as a result of anxiety-inducing situations.

Behavioral assessments of arousal (e.g., pacing,

avoidance) are less seldom reported in the sport

psychology literature, although Hackfort and

Schwenkmezger (1989) suggest that this is an area which

is particularly important in sport.

Arousal and anxiety are generally discussed in the

same context, but are not necessarily related to each

other. For example, excessive physiological arousal may

be associated with a range of diverse feelings such as









anxiety, sexual excitement, fear or exhilaration (cf.

Apter, 1982). In an early paper discussing the nature

and measurement of anxiety, Cattell (1963) found that the

correlation between heart rate and anxiety is only a

moderately positive one, again suggesting a variable

relationship between arousal and anxiety. Zaichkowsky

and Takenaka (in press) suggest that although anxiety is

typically associated with an increase in arousal, the two

constructs are not the same. Drawing from the previous

discussion of the anxiety concept, it appears more useful

to discuss how the subcomponents of anxiety relate to

arousal rather than trying to establish a relationship

between the broad term anxiety and arousal. Clearly,

cognitive anxiety is unlikely to occur during a highly

arousing condition such as excitement, which is described

by Apter (1984) as a "paratelic state".

On the other hand, cognitive anxiety will likely

occur during what Apter terms a "telic state" (e.g., a

high arousal condition of fear). For example, two rock

climbers (or skydivers, or bull-riders) experience

heightened arousal related to the potential threat

(falling). One feels challenged by the climb and

experiences the situation in the paratelic mode (i.e.,

with excitement). The other, less confident athlete

experiences the situation in the telic mode (i.e., with

fear and anxiety). In both situations, the climbers will

likely experience increases in arousal and report somatic









anxiety. However, only the second individual will report

cognitive anxiety. This distinction is vital, as will be

shown in the following section, in determining the

effects of anxiety and arousal on sports performance.

Summary of Concepts

Activation and arousal are assumed to be synonymous

constructs. The term arousal will be used in this paper

and is defined as a general indicator of physiological

energy and intensity. It is not synonymous with anxiety

as a whole, but is similar to the subcomponent, somatic

anxiety. However, somatic anxiety is not a well-

understood construct. In this paper, somatic anxiety is

operationally defined as (measured by) an individual's

perception of physiological arousal (e.g., how hard my

heart is beating). Further, the definition of somatic

anxiety is not exclusive of cognitive anxiety since an

individual's perceptions of physiological arousal may be

greatly affected by anxious thoughts.

Cognitive anxiety, while able to cause increases in

physiological arousal, is not synonymous with arousal.

Cognitive anxiety can be determined to be either a cause

or result of increased physiological arousal, and in some

cases may be independent of arousal. It is defined in

this paper in terms of negative thoughts associated with

perceptions about success or thoughts involving negative

self-evaluation.








Relationship of Anxiety and Arousal to Performance

In examining the relationship of anxiety and arousal

to skilled motor performance, and more specifically, to

sports performance, researchers have often used terms

(e.g., stress, anxiety, arousal) interchangeably and

inappropriately. According to Gould and Krane (in

press), the inconsistent use of these terms has been a

long-standing problem for this body of literature. A

review of the literature is difficult when trying to

grasp what is being assessed, and whether authors are

referring to arousal or anxiety when they present their

findings. Thus, in this review of the arousal-anxiety /

performance relationship, efforts are made to distinguish

between terms where possible.

Despite the conceptual and definitional

inconsistencies in this area of research, analyses of the

relationships among anxiety, arousal, and sports

performance constitute a large part of the sport

psychology literature (e.g., Jones & Hardy, 1989; Krane &

Williams, 1987; Landers & Boutcher, 1986; Madden,

Summers, & Brown, 1990; Meacci & Price, 1985; Murphy &

Woolfolk, 1987; Poteet & Weinberg, 1980; Raglin, Wise, &

Morgan, 1990; Sonstroem & Bernardo, 1982). This section

of the literature review will examine the various

theories which seek to describe the anxiety-arousal-

performance relationship with a focus on those studies

most relevant to the research in this dissertation.








Arousal

While the concept of arousal is somewhat amorphous,

much attention has been focused on its relationship to

performance. Early hypotheses derived from drive theory

suggested that there was a positive, linear relationship

between arousal and performance (Hull, 1943; Spence,

1951). This view received little empirical support and

has principally been replaced by the inverted-U theory

which posits a curvilinear relationship between arousal

and performance. Increases in arousal are associated

with increases in performance to an optimal level, beyond

which decrements in performance ensue (Easterbrook, 1959;

Yerkes & Dodson, 1908).

The inverted-U concept has been based on the

relationship between arousal, task difficulty, and

performance. The hypothesis arose as a result of

research by Yerkes and Dodson (1908), who discovered that

mice learned to discriminate brightness more quickly with

increases in the strength of an electric shock, as long

as the discrimination task was relatively simple. As the

task became harder, the optimal shock level for learning

was progressively reduced. From this study arose the

Yerkes-Dodson law which can be expressed as follows:

(a) For any task there is an optimal level of
arousal such that performance is related to arousal
in the form of an inverted U.
(b) The optimum level of arousal is a
decreasing monotonic function of the difficulty
of the task. (Hockey, 1979, p. 143)









Easterbrook (1959) explained the inverted-U function

by asserting that "emotional arousal" acts to reduce the

range of cues that an individual uses. That is, the

range of cue utilization shrinks as the use of peripheral

(irrelevant or partially relevant) cues is reduced, while

the use of central (immediately relevant) cues is

maintained. Thus, reduction in the range of cues should

first improve task proficiency (as the irrelevant, non-

essential cues are omitted), but later impair ability.

"It would in fact produce just the sort of up and down

relation between proficiency and drive that is familiar

in connection with the names of Yerkes and Dodson"

(Easterbrook, 1959, p. 193).

In explaining the effects of arousal in sport,

Landers (1980) draws from Yerkes-Dodson (1908) and

Easterbrook (1959) stating that when arousal

increases up to a certain (optimal) level,

perceptual selectivity also increases improving the

individual's performance (presumably because the

athlete tries harder and is more likely to eliminate

task-irrelevant cues). Increases in arousal beyond

this "optimal" point should induce further

perceptual narrowing and a concomitant deterioration

in performance, in accordance with the inverted-U

hypothesis. For example, an "over-aroused"

quarterback in football might be focused too









narrowly to detect receivers open in the periphery,

or more important, a blitzing outside linebacker.

Some feel that the inverted-U hypothesis is not very

useful in understanding the arousal-performance

relationship (Cooke, 1982; Kerr, 1989; Welford, 1976).

It appears that this stance has been taken since

"performance-degrading dysphoric psychobiological states

and performance-enhancing euphoric ones can occur at

equal arousal levels. Global arousal, then, could only

serve to obscure the profound individual differences with

which humans approach important motor performances"

(Neiss, 1988b, p. 154). Eysenck (1982) points out that

the singular notion of arousal is inadequate and must be

replaced by more complex conceptualizations. Kerr (1989)

similarly feels that the optimal arousal theory is

limited in its singular optimal state and homeostatic

basis. He cites several notable psychologists who are

opposed to the basic principles of the homeostatic

construct (cf. Allport, 1960; Buhler, 1959; Frankl, 1969;

Harlow, 1953; Maslow, 1954). Apter (1982), for example,

identifies four terms (anxiety, excitement, boredom, and

relaxation), "which are reflections of pleasant,

unpleasant, and high and low arousal, questioning the

ability of optimal arousal theory to distinguish between

them" (Kerr, 1989, p. 140).

In a recent series of articles, Neiss and Anderson

(Anderson, 1990; Neiss, 1988a, 1990) engage in the debate









as to whether arousal is a useful concept. Neiss (1988a)

conducted a review of the research which demonstrated the

effects of various psychobiological arousal states on

motor performance. He reported that their is little

support for the inverted-U hypothesis especially due to

difficulties in interpreting the actual influence of

arousal on an unsuccessful performance. He also states

that

The inverted-U hypothesis [as a causal hypothesis]
has not received clear support from a single
study... If, recast in psychological terms, the
inverted-U hypothesis reveals only that the
motivated outperform the apathetic and the
terrified, it should be consigned to the true-but-
trivial category. (Neiss, 1988a, p. 355)

Neiss claimed that the inverted-U hypothesis is

basically irrefutable due to the inability to specify its

parameters and the variability of optimal arousal across

tasks, and that the global term arousal is thus a

hindrance to understanding the relationship of human

motor performance to emotional states. This criticism is

not dissimilar to Eysenck's (1982) claim that one is

hard-pressed to disprove the predicted inverted-U

relationship because two-thirds of studies investigating

this relationship (and utilizing three distinct arousal

levels) would obtain supportive evidence by chance alone.

Eysenck explains that if three levels of arousal are

compared, there are six possible orderings of the three

levels with respect to performance, only two of which are

inconsistent with the Yerkes-Dodson law (the two in which









the medium level of arousal is associated with the worst

performance). Similarly, Baddeley (1972) is critical of

the optimal arousal theory and suggests it can account

for almost any result so long as the exact location on

the inverted-U curve is not specified in advance.

Anderson (1990) takes issue with Neiss' suggestion

to abandon arousal, the inverted-U, and the Yerkes-Dodson

law. She writes that Neiss' objections are neither

logically nor empirically warranted, challenging his

evidence as limited. However, she focuses primarily on

the relationship between arousal and cognition, not motor

performance. Indeed, her documentation of studies

supporting the inverted-U relationship between

information processing and arousal appears to be less

relevant to Neiss' stance. In a rebuttal, Neiss (1990)

indicates that an abundance of empirical findings from

diverse research areas challenges the conception of

unidimensional arousal, and that methodological advances

permit the investigation of discrete psychobiological

states in their cognitive, affective, and physiological

manifestations.

An additional problem with the arousal literature is

that a major aspect of the inverted-U hypothesis has

largely been ignored. The hypothesis suggests that at

low levels of arousal, performance should suffer.

Broadbent (1971) argued that there is no difficulty in

explaining why low arousal leads to poor performance as









postulated by the inverted-U: "Response simply fails to

occur on occasions when it should do so. The typical

decrement produced by sleeplessness is that of the pause

in which no reaction occurs" (p. 425). Yet aside from

research examining sleep-deprived individuals (Kjellberg,

1977; Wilkinson, 1961) there have been few examinations

of subjects' performances under conditions of low

arousal. Moreover, many researchers report that the

inverted-U relationship was validated in their study,

when in actuality, only the component suggesting that

excessive arousal is detrimental to performance is

validated. This is especially important in sport

psychology investigations, where much of the research

regarding the arousal-sport relationship examines

athletes' experience of anxiety and overarousal. There

is much ancillary and anecdotal evidence suggesting that

a team that plays "flat" or "without emotion" will

experience a decrease in performance. This might easily

be described under the inverted-U model and yet has not

been fully examined under empirical conditions.

Despite these criticisms of the inverted-U as a

useful and accurate description of the relationship

between arousal and performance, there are many studies

that have examined this theory. Early researchers,

conducting primarily laboratory studies, seemingly

support the inverted-U and Yerkes-Dodson hypotheses

(Broadhurst, 1957; Duffy, 1962; Matarazzo, Ulett, &









Saslow, 1955; Stennett, 1957). For example, Broadhurst

(1957) suspected that rats placed in a situation of

intense motivation (oxygen deprivation) would

consequently demonstrate fear and arousal affecting the

learning task. He hypothesized that under the stressful

condition, rats would learn faster on the easy task, but

more slowly on the hard task. His results confirmed the

task complexity aspect of the Yerkes-Dodson law in that

"the optimum motivation for a discrimination task

demonstrably decreases with increasing difficulty of the

task" (p. 348).

In addition to changes with task complexity,

increases in "drive" (emotional arousal or general covert

excitement) are associated with a reduction in the range

of cue use (Easterbrook, 1959). Bahrick, Fitts, and

Rankin (1952) tested the hypothesis that an increase in

incentive causes increased perceptual selectiveness

favoring those parts of the stimulus field deemed by the

subject as most relevant to the expected reward. The

researchers utilized a continuous central-tracking task,

with intermittent stimuli detectable in the periphery.

It was discovered that while increasing motivation with

incentives (monetary bonuses) was beneficial for tracking

the central task, peripheral proficiency declined.

Easterbrook explained that "the effect of added drive

cannot be described unequivocally as either facilitation

or disruption, but it can certainly be described as a









reduction in the range of cue utilization" (1959, p.

185).

Bursill (1958) investigated subjects' attention to

peripheral stimuli while they were engaged in a

continuous central task under both normal conditions and

conditions of high temperature (thermal stress). He

reported that the subjects in the high stress condition

had a tendency to funnel their field of awareness towards

the center, and thus missed signals presented on the

periphery (i.e., signals presented at greater eccentric

angles had a greater probability of being missed in the

hotter condition). Stennett (1957) also studied the

relationship of performance level to level of arousal.

Using EMG recordings as a measure of arousal, and an

auditory tracking task as a performance measure, Stennett

obtained results supporting the inverted-U relationship.

Oxendine (1970, 1980) has been a proponent of

applying these hypotheses to sport. He indicates that a

high level of arousal is optimal in gross motor

activities involving strength, endurance, and speed

(e.g., many track events, weight lifting, football

blocking). Alternatively, a high level of arousal should

interfere with performance involving complex skills, fine

muscle movements, steadiness, and general concentration

(e.g., archery, shooting, golf putting).

Hanin (1980, 1986) has extended the inverted-U

theory and reported that arousal is related to athletic









performance at an individual level; that is, each athlete

has a particular arousal level where performance is

optimal, regardless of the absolute level which can be

low, medium, or high. This level has been declared the

"zone of optimal functioning" (ZOF). The ZOF theory is

generally endorsed by Jones and Hardy (1989) who suggest

that in explaining or predicting sport performance, one

should take into account the nature of the stressor, the

mental demands of the competitive task, and the

psychological characteristics of the athlete.

In two studies purporting to examine the ZOF theory,

Raglin and his associates (Raglin & Morgan, 1988; Raglin,

Wise, & Morgan, 1990) demonstrated that swimmers reported

increased state anxiety (the authors' measure of arousal)

before competition, and significantly more anxiety prior

to a difficult meet as compared to an easy one.

Interestingly, swimmers who had the most successful

performances were best at predicting their pre-

competitive anxiety levels 24 to 48 hours in advance of

actual competition. The researchers conclude in support

for Hanin's ZOF theory and reject the inverted-U

hypothesis which they suggest does not take into account

individual differences. This is not an appropriate

conclusion because of their misinterpretation of the

inverted-U hypothesis. Raglin, Wise, and Morgan (1990)

state that "the inverted U-theory [sic] is the most well-

known theory of anxiety and sport performance, and this









theory implies that a moderate level of anxiety is best

for performance" (p. 5). Yet, clearly the inverted-U

hypothesis is one describing the relationship between

arousal and performance, not anxiety and performance. It

becomes confusing to the reader when a group of

researchers appears to inappropriately use these two

terms (anxiety and arousal) as synonymous. In a recent

chapter, Morgan (an author of the previously-reported

studies) and Ellickson (1989) write that Hanin's theory

should not be dismissed as a reiteration of the inverted-

U explanation, in that "ZOF theory does not argue that a

moderate level of arousal is superior to low or high

levels... [but] predicts that some individuals will have

their best performances when highly aroused, others when

deeply relaxed, and others when moderately aroused" (p.

168). In this case, Morgan discusses the inverted-U

hypothesis in terms of arousal.

There is a common problem in sport psychology

research examining the relationship among anxiety,

arousal, and performance. There are many investigations

which claim to investigate the relationship between

arousal and sports performance which are misleading since

the measurement of "arousal" is typically a measurement

of competitive anxiety (as the studies conducted by

Raglin and his associates exemplify). In fact, there are

very few studies which examine the arousal-sports

performance relationship. The studies that support the









inverted-U hypotheses are primarily those of a more basic

research nature (e.g., Bursill, 1958; Stennett, 1957).

It appears that the question of the effects of

arousal on sports performance has not been addressed

adequately. Adapting Neiss' (1988a) position, one could

argue that it is fairly obvious that athletes who are

unmotivated (and underaroused) will not achieve their

competitive potential. However, it is not as simple with

the highly-aroused athlete. Just as high arousal in an

individual can be manifested similarly by two very

different stimulus situations (e.g., sexual excitement

versus fear), an athlete could demonstrate high arousal

when thrilled about the potential of catching a touchdown

pass or when terrified of missing a field goal in front

of 85,000 spectators. These two similar arousal levels

may have quite different effects on the performance

outcome. What appears to be more important than

physiological arousal is the athlete's interpretation of

this arousal and the competitive situation. The

following studies address this issue by examining the

relationship between competitive anxiety and sports

performance.

Competitive Anxiety

In this section, the relationship of competitive

anxiety to sports performance is highlighted. Again,

some of the researchers who have investigated this

relationship have done so from the perspective of









assessing arousal. These studies are included in this

section rather than the previous one because of the

actual measurements conducted (i.e., primarily self-

reported anxiety), and not how the researchers identified

the constructs (arousal vs. anxiety). The issue of the

nature of the relationship that exists between anxiety

and sports performance (e.g., inverted-U, linear

negative, unrelated) is thus presented.

Trait and state anxiety

The relationship between competitive trait anxiety

and sports performance has been investigated under both

laboratory and field conditions. According to Martens,

Vealey, and Burton (1990), laboratory studies have

generally failed to demonstrate a consistent relationship

between competitive A-trait and sports performance (e.g.,

Martens, Gill, & Scanlan, 1976; Murphy & Woolfolk, 1987;

Poteet & Weinberg, 1980). Indeed, some studies which

purport to analyze the relationship between trait anxiety

and performance are not interpretable since there is an

inappropriate use of the trait measure (i.e., the Sport

Competition Anxiety Test (SCAT); Martens, 1977). For

example, administering the SCAT as a precompetitive

measure of anxiety is incorrect (cf. Gerson & Deshaies,

1978; Thirer & O'Donnell, 1980) and assesses the

relationship between state anxiety and performance rather

than trait anxiety and performance.









There have been more productive investigations

utilizing authentic competitive situations. These have

focused on the relationship between competitive trait

anxiety, competitive state anxiety, and athletic

performance on the field, in the pool, and so forth. For

example, Klavora (1978) reported that high school

basketball players had different "optimal arousal" levels

which correlated with their self-reported competitive

trait anxiety, where optimal arousal is defined as the

level of self-reported state anxiety at which the athlete

performs most successfully. Thus, low-trait anxious

players performed better when reporting low state

anxiety, while high-trait anxious players actually did

better when reporting a higher amount of state anxiety.

Smith and Smoll (1990) interpret Klavora's results as

suggesting "the possibility that optimal performance may

occur at a level of arousal that is similar to athletes'

customary level of anxiety rather than at a normative

level defined by the anxiety distribution for all

subjects" (p. 440).

Sonstroem and Bernardo (1982) investigated the

inverted-U theory with female collegiate basketball

players who had been assessed on both competitive trait

and state anxiety. Competitive trait anxiety was not

found to have a significant main effect on performance;

however, their results suggested that after controlling

for individual differences in competitive A-state, an









inverted-U function could describe the relationship

between competitive A-trait and basketball performance on

an intraindividual basis. In a similar study utilizing

golfers, Weinberg and Genuchi (1980) found that the

athletes lowest in competitive trait anxiety performed

better than moderate and high competitive A-trait golfers

(although there was no difference in performance between

the latter two groups). Also, competitive A-state was a

better predictor of performance than was competitive A-

trait.

Investigators have increasingly focused on the

effects of competitive state anxiety on performance.

Smith and Smoll (1990) assert that competitive state

anxiety is moderated by three factors. First is the

nature of the sporting situation in which the athlete is

competing (e.g., strength of opponents, significance of

the event, presence of spectators or significant others,

and social support from coaches or teammates). Second is

the magnitude of the athlete's competitive trait anxiety.

Third are the "psychological defenses that the athlete

may have developed to cope with anxiety-arousing

competitive situations" (p. 421). Furthermore, these

three factors are assumed to jointly influence the

athlete's appraisal processes. These processes include:

Appraisal of the situational demands; appraisal of
the resources available to deal with them; appraisal
of the nature and likelihood of the potential
consequences if the demands are not met (that is,
the expectancies and valances [sic] relating to









potential consequences); and the personal meaning
that the consequences have for the individual.
(Smith & Smoll, 1990, p. 422)

It is clear that higher levels of competitive state

anxiety are typically found under competitive conditions

as compared to practice conditions (Bird & Horn, 1990;

Klavora, 1978). However, it is not clear how competitive

anxiety actually affects performance. In an attempt to

clarify this situation, an additional conceptualization

is examined.

Cognitive and somatic anxiety

As described earlier, multidimensional anxiety

theory postulates that competitive anxiety is comprised

of two major components: cognitive anxiety and somatic

anxiety. Cognitive anxiety may be composed of worry,

negative self-talk, fear of evaluation, and so forth. As

such, and in its strict sense, cognitive anxiety is

experienced as a negative emotion. Thus, some have

postulated the relationship of competitive state anxiety

to performance as one of a negative, linear nature

(Burton, 1988; Martens et al., 1983), whereas the somatic

component of competitive anxiety (considered similar to

"arousal") may demonstrate an inverted-U relationship to

performance. This may be because "somatic anxiety" is

simply a perception of physiological arousal. Adopting

this conceptualization, an athlete who feels the classic

"butterflies in the stomach" may perform better than when

he or she either perceives no physiological arousal (and









may be unmotivated) or when he perceives his heart to be

pounding so hard that he becomes too distracted to

perform successfully.

Research in cognitive psychology supports the

contention that the effect of competitive anxiety on

performance may be described using a negative, linear

function. For example, Easterbrook's (1959) hypothesis

regarding the peripheral narrowing which occurs as

arousal increases (although generally cited to support

the inverted-U relationship between arousal and

performance) can be applied in understanding the

cognitive anxiety/performance relationship. Here, any

increase in worry or cognitive anxiety is associated with

attention to irrelevant cues (e.g., "I'm not going to do

well; All these people are watching me"). Thus, as

cognitive anxiety increases, more internal, irrelevant

cues and negative self-statements are created, and there

is an increased tendency for the individual to pay

attention to his own internal thoughts and cues rather

than to the task (Mandler, 1975). This would

theoretically affect performance in a negative linear

fashion.

This issue has been examined in the test anxiety

literature. Sarason (1975), for example, argues that

test anxiety is primarily a function of cognitive worry

(e.g., "I am stupid; I'll never pass this test") and

physiological reactivity. Sarason writes that saying the









negative self-statements "during a test might interfere

considerably with attention to the task at hand, be it

one that requires learning or figuring out the answers to

certain questions. Worry is unmistakably an

attentionally demanding and emotionally arousing

cognitive activity" (p. 28). In a review of selective

attention, Wine (1971) indicated that high test anxious

individuals respond with personalized task-irrelevant

responses. Furthermore, Deffenbacher (1980) and Morris,

Davis, and Hutchings (1981) have shown in their review of

the literature that cognitive anxiety is more

consistently and strongly related to test performance

than is somatic anxiety.

Utilizing the theories from cognitive psychology

(e.g., test anxiety research), sport psychology and motor

performance researchers have hypothesized that cognitive

anxiety is more strongly related to sport and motor

performance than is somatic anxiety (Barnes, Sime,

Dienstbier, & Plake, 1986; Martens, Vealey, & Burton,

1990; Morris, Smith, Andrews, & Morris, 1975). One

explanation is that

Somatic anxiety should influence performance less
than cognitive anxiety because it reaches its peak
at the onset of a competitive event and dissipates
over the course of the competition. Cognitive state
anxiety increases during competition, however,
because it is linked to increases in social and
self-evaluation that occur during the event and
hence causes stronger and more consistent
performance decrements. (Gould et al., 1987, p. 34)









Despite the intuitive appeal of the cognitive

anxiety/performance relationship, studies which have

investigated the multidimensional influences of anxiety

(i.e., cognitive worry and somatic anxiety) in

competitive settings have provided mixed results

regarding the strength and nature of the relationship.

For instance, Gould et al. (1987) studied police officers

performing in a pistol shooting competition, and

concluded that the cognitive component of competitive

anxiety was unrelated to shooting outcome. However, the

somatic component was found to influence performance so

that "a quadratic function best explained the somatic

anxiety/performance relationship" (Gould et al., 1987, p.

40). In this case, the authors explain the somatic

component as being more predictive because pistol

shooting depends on fine neuromuscular control easily

disrupted by slight physiological changes.

Although this is certainly true, Burton (1988)

suggests that there also may have been methodological

reasons for the nonsignificant relationship between

cognitive anxiety and shooting performance. First, Gould

and his colleagues used the average scores of a single

competition (as opposed to a season average) as the

comparison to a specific round, and thus gained a less

reliable assessment of anxiety-mediated performance

fluctuations. Also, the subjects may have had low ego-

involvement with the task, as it was an elaborate









experimenter designed competition and "may have lacked

sufficient external validity" (Burton, 1988, p. 49).

McCauley (1985) found no relationship between either

cognitive or somatic competitive anxiety and golf

performance over 10 rounds of tournament golf. However,

as Bird and Horn (1990) and Gould et al. (1987) point

out, McCauley's findings of nonsignificance may have been

confounded by changing task demands (i.e., different golf

courses). A recent study also did not demonstrate any

significant relationship between competitive state

anxiety (both cognitive and somatic) and cycling

performance on stationary bicycles (Caruso, Dzewaltowski,

Gill, & McElroy, 1990). Once again, the authors admit

that "the task in the present study was not cognitively

demanding nor did it require complex motor skills that

would lead to performance impairment as a result of

anxiety. Additionally, the contrived competition did not

induce high levels of anxiety" (p. 18).

Karteroliotis and Gill (1987) examined the

relationships of cognitive worry, somatic anxiety, and

self-confidence to motor performance during a simulated

laboratory competition on a pegboard task. This study

revealed little support for their predicted inverse

relationship between cognitive worry and performance. It

was also concluded that both self-reported somatic

anxiety and physiological arousal were unrelated to motor

performance at any stage of the experiment. However,









similar to Caruso et al. (1990) and Gould et al. (1987),

this task had little external validity and the subjects

likely had low ego involvement. Furthermore, as the

authors acknowledge, due to the simplicity of the

pegboard task, complex motor skills were not required

which might be impaired by cognitive anxiety.

On the other hand, several researchers have

demonstrated a relationship between cognitive anxiety and

sports performance in field studies. For example, Powell

and Verner (1982) found that linear increases in state

anxiety and fear estimates (roughly cognitive worry) were

significantly and negatively related to sport parachuting

performance. Unexpectedly, heart rate (physiological

arousal) was also negatively related (in a linear

fashion) to performance.

More recently, McCann, Murphy, and Raedeke (in

press), studied national level cyclists under laboratory

(cycling ergometer) and field (time-trial road race)

conditions. The investigators found that self-reported

anxiety was strongly related to cycling performance, with

the strongest relationships occurring under the field

condition. High cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety

were associated with weak performance, while high self-

confidence was associated with a stronger performance.

Also, only cognitive anxiety was significantly related to

performance under the cycling ergometer laboratory

setting. This study had many strengths: (1) It employed









a timely and appropriate measure of anxiety; the

Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) was given

10 min prior to the road race. (2) An adequate aspect

of performance was assessed. (3) Subjects were fairly

homogeneous in skill level and ability. (4) The meaning

and significance of the field setting task was probably

quite high to the subjects since it involved a time trial

race. A drawback to the study was its correlational

design, making an empirical test of the nature of the

anxiety-performance relationship unfeasible.

Additionally, the authors acknowledge that even stronger

results may have been obtained had an intraindividual

design and analysis been utilized.

Another pertinent study was conducted by Burton

(1988), who administered the CSAI-2 to collegiate

swimmers prior to different situations (e.g., early

season meet, mid-season meet, and conference

championships), using race event times as performance

outcome measures. Burton, in drawing from the cognitive

psychology literature (e.g., Easterbrook, 1959; Wine,

1971) hypothesized that cognitive anxiety would misdirect

attention from task-relevant cues to irrelevant cues

(e.g., social evaluative cues), and thus would cause

performance to decrease linearly. On the other hand,

somatic anxiety was hypothesized to demonstrate the more

traditional inverted-U relationship with performance

(although it is difficult to discern whether Burton's









"low arousal" division was truly underarousal, a

necessary component for fully supporting an inverted-U

relationship between anxiety and performance, or whether

it was simply a lack of reported anxiety). The results

of Burton's investigation indicated that cognitive

anxiety was more consistently and strongly (negatively

and linearly) related to swimmers' performance than was

somatic anxiety (i.e., self-reported arousal).

A slightly different approach was taken by Bird and

Horn (1990) who tested the relationship between level of

competitive anxiety and mental errors in a sport setting

(i.e., softball game). Prior to a game, the athletes

completed the CSAI-2. Their anxiety levels were examined

after classifying the players into two groups as a

function of mental errors committed during the game (as

assessed by their coach). The investigators found that

players in the two groups (high vs. low mental errors)

differed only on pre-game cognitive anxiety, and not on

somatic anxiety. This finding is not surprising as the

outcome measure of mental errors seems intuitively most

related to cognitive anxiety. Comprehensive performance

was not examined in which certain aspects (e.g.,

overrunning a fly ball) may be more related to somatic

anxiety.









Problems with the Literature and Researchers'

Recommendations

Bird and Horn (1990) address the question of why

there has been such inconclusive research in the area of

competitive anxiety and sport performance. They

entertain the notion that there could be problems with

the assessment of competition anxiety. However, they

conclude that the CSAI-2 has been the most extensively

used instrument and has been well-validated as measuring

the three constructs of cognitive anxiety, somatic

anxiety, and self-confidence. Next, there could be

problems with the methodology of the field studies. This

was evident in studies in which external validity was

questionable (Gould et al., 1987), opponents varied

(Gould, Petlichkoff, & Weinberg, 1984), and in which

situational characteristics differed (McCauley, 1985).

In addition to the comments from Bird and Horn

(1990) regarding the inconsistent anxiety/performance

relationship findings, Gould and his colleagues have

addressed this issue (Gould et al., 1987; Gould & Krane,

in press). Gould and Krane propose that investigators

must meet four conditions in an attempt to explain the

arousal/performance relationship. In these

recommendations, Gould and Krane use the term "arousal"

where "anxiety" is the more appropriate term. In the

present discussion, the term "anxiety" is substituted.

It is recommended that the investigators must (1)









adequately assess anxiety and related states, (2) utilize

more adequate measures of athletic performance, (3)

employ intraindividual anxiety analyses, and (4) create

at least three distinct levels of anxiety when testing

nonlinear predictions.

Gould and Krane's first recommendation is a broad

one, but basically involves carefully defining what one

is measuring, utilizing conceptual frameworks (e.g.,

multidimensional components of anxiety), and using

reliable and valid measures of anxiety. The second plea

is for the investigator to adequately measure athletic

performance. Many studies have relied upon

nonstandardized performance measures (cf. Gould et al.,

1984, McCauley, 1985) which fluctuated according to task

demands. Furthermore, the utilization of outcome

measures (e.g., win-loss, comparing game scores) is

discouraged. Gould and Krane cite Burton (1988) as a

positive example in which the author assessed best times

in a swimming event relative to previous times in that

event. However, even an assessment such as this has

limitations. True, it may provide a general idea of

variations in performance associated with changes in

anxiety. However, this type of outcome measure may not

adequately provide information regarding the process of

performance change in a particular sport.

Instead of focusing on the outcome of a competitive

performance, a more process-oriented focus is desirable.









Thus, the manner in which individuals organize their

motions in the execution of motor skills is the crux of

the investigation (cf. Beuter & Duda, 1985; Weinberg &

Hunt, 1976; Weinberg, 1978). Martens, Vealey, and Burton

(1990) concur and recommend that one way to improve the

predictive ability for the relationship between anxiety

and performance is to focus on qualitative aspects of

performance as opposed to quantitative. Thus, using

electromyographic or kinematic measures, for example, may

more sufficiently address the question of how sport

performance is affected by anxiety.

A study specifically relevant to this recommendation

(and to the current investigation) involved examining the

effects of anxiety on the motor performance of children

during a stepping task over three obstacles (Beuter &

Duda, 1985). The investigators created two conditions

for each subject during the stepping task: (1) an

informal assessment or low anxiety condition, and (2) a

high anxiety condition which involved creating a

stressful social situation that incorporated evaluation,

competition, and threat to self-esteem. Using digitized

videotaped recordings of the subjects' stepping motions

to examine the kinematic characteristics of motion and a

within-subjects design, it was demonstrated that the two

anxiety conditions created significantly different

movements in the ankle joint.









Beuter and Duda (1985) suggested that under the high

anxiety condition, what was once automatic and smooth

came under volitional control (likely due to the

evaluative and competitive anxiety) and became less

smooth and efficient. Once again, a problem with the

study is that Beuter and Duda created different anxiety

conditions, but described them as arousal levels, and

used a general measure of arousal (heart rate taken prior

to the two trials) to assess the manipulation. That is,

self-report measures of anxiety were not utilized (e.g.,

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children) to assess the

anxiety manipulation.

The third recommendation of Gould and Krane is to

employ intraindividual analyses (e.g., Beuter & Duda,

1985). They write that Sonstroem and Bernardo's (1982)

study of basketball players is an excellent example of

this method. Without having controlled for each player's

own state anxiety scores, the researchers would have

mistakenly concluded that there was no significant

relationship between competitive anxiety and basketball

performance. Instead, as mentioned previously, Sonstroem

and Bernardo discovered that an inverted-U relationship

existed between state anxiety and performance across all

subjects. Furthermore, other investigators (Landers &

Boutcher, 1986; Neiss, 1988b) have suggested that there

is a need to analyze intra-individual changes in arousal

and anxiety measures when relating them to performance.









The final recommendation to create at least three

levels of anxiety when investigating the anxiety-

performance relationship is one that has been made by

several researchers (Eysenck, 1982; Gould & Krane, in

press; Martens, 1977). Gould and Krane correctly assert

that not only do the levels of anxiety need to be

statistically significantly different, but also

conceptually or clinically distinct. For example, three

scores on an anxiety measure could be statistically

different, and yet fall within a clinically

indistinguishable range of anxiety. Typically,

researchers have not created anxiety levels, but have

either relied upon self-report anxiety scores to place

subjects in different anxiety levels or have performed

strictly correlational analyses (cf. Brustad & Weiss,

1987; Burton, 1988; Madden, Summers, & Brown, 1990;

Martin & Gill, 1991; McCann, Murphy, & Raedeke, in press;

Raglin, Wise, & Morgan, 1990). However, these two

methods may be unavoidable when conducting field research

during actual competitions.

The preceding recommendations appear to be

appropriate and necessary. It is clear from the existing

literature that researchers have usually fallen short in

one or more areas. Even the relatively superior studies

in this area (e.g., Beuter & Duda, 1985; Burton, 1988;

McCann et al., in press; Sonstroem & Bernardo, 1982) are

diminished by specific and acknowledged shortcomings. It









is likely due to the conceptual and methodological

problems that there is no consensus as to the nature of

the relationship of competitive anxiety to competitive

performance.

To recapitulate, it has been suggested that

competitive anxiety be recognized as having both state

and trait components, and both cognitive and somatic

components. It is accepted that state competitive

anxiety is more closely related to performance than is

trait competitive anxiety. However, beyond this obvious

conclusion, there is no definite evidence as to the

relationship among the rest of the factors. Depending on

the study, it has been suggested that cognitive anxiety

is more associated with sports performance than is

somatic anxiety (and vice-versa). It has been suggested

that the relationship between somatic (and/or cognitive)

anxiety and performance is of an inverted-U nature, is

negatively linear, or is irrelevant. In the next

section, this issue will addressed in demonstrating the

need for the current study.


Summary of Literature Review and Restatement
of Need for Current Study


Anxiety can be defined as the experience of

distressing thoughts (e.g., fear of evaluation, worry,

self-doubt) and usually physiological sensations (e.g.,

dry mouth, racing heart rate) which are induced in









response to a threatening situation. This threat can be

an objective or subjective one, and can be of

environmental, social or intrapersonal origin. The

dimensions of anxiety include state and trait, and

cognitive and somatic. Each of the dimensions has been

suggested to have different effects on competing

athletes.

For example, competitive trait anxiety is primarily

an intervening variable which directly affects the amount

of state anxiety that an athlete may perceive in a

specific sport situation. Cognitive and somatic anxiety

(as interrelated components of competitive state anxiety)

are also thought to have different effects on

performance. Competitive cognitive anxiety in its strict

sense will generally be detrimental to performance. As

an athlete's cognitive anxiety rises during a

competition, it is suggested that his or her performance

will suffer accordingly and in a linear fashion. This

seems to be due primarily to a focus on irrelevant cues

(e.g., negative self-talk, the spectators).

The relationship between somatic anxiety and sport

performance is often thought to be one of an inverted-U

nature. This hypothesis is drawn from the research that

suggests that this type of relationship exists between

arousal and performance. Somatic anxiety and arousal,

though not identical, can be seen as similar constructs.

The primary difference is that somatic anxiety appears to









have a perceptual component. That is, an individual's

arousal level is basically a measurable entity (e.g.,

EMG, EEG, palmar sweating, heart rate, respiration) while

somatic anxiety is assessed by self-report and thus is a

subjective measure of the individual's perceived arousal.

It has been suggested that there exists an optimal level

of physiological arousal (and the related somatic

anxiety) for athletes, which is dependent on the sport's

tasks (e.g., attention demands, strength requirements),

and on individual differences.

As demonstrated in this review, the manner in which

anxiety and arousal are related to sport and motor

performance has not been consistently demonstrated.

Although the inverted-U hypothesis has been a prevalent

theory in explaining the relationship between arousal

(and somatic anxiety) and motor performance, it has its

detractors (cf. Eysenck, 1982; Karteroliotis & Gill,

1987; Kerr, 1989; Neiss 1988a, 1988b, 1990; Powell &

Verner, 1982). Similarly, although the relationship of

cognitive anxiety or worry to performance has been

suggested to be a linear, negative one, this has been by

no means established.

In this author's view, many of the problems with

this literature are related to the faulty methodology and

conceptualization of the issue. This is an unfortunate

state of the literature and field since there is a need

for both basic researchers and sport psychology consumers









(e.g., coaches, parents, athletes, clinical sport

psychologists) to understand the relationship between

anxiety and competitive performance. Therefore, the

current investigation has attempted to more clearly

assess the effects of anxiety on sport performance

(swimming), specifically examining the influence of

cognitive and somatic factors. Consistent with the

recommendations of Gould and Krane (in press) and

Weinberg (1990), the current study used an adequate

assessment of anxiety and related states, measured

athletic performance accurately and in a process-oriented

fashion, employed intra-individual analyses, and

attempted to create three distinct ranges of anxiety.

Also to overcome the limitation of poor external validity

(cf. Caruso et al., 1990; Gould et al., 1987;

Karteroliotis & Gill, 1987), the current investigation

utilized an externally valid setting which was expected

to induce high ego-involvement, while not sacrificing the

controlled nature of the experiment. It was hoped that

the current investigation would fulfill the need for more

consistent and useful information regarding the anxiety-

performance relationship.













PROCEDURES

Subjects


Subjects were 33 swimmers assessed at the

International Center for Aquatic Research (ICAR), United

States Swimming, Colorado Springs, Colorado. The

subjects, males (N=7) and females (H=26) ranged in age

from 13-18 years (M=15.30) and were recruited from two

local high school swim teams. An attempt was made to

recruit female subjects exclusively. However, only 26

were able to participate and thus seven males were

recruited to increase the sample to at least a minimum of

30.

A goal of assessing 45 swimmers (to obtain 15

swimmers per group) was not met because of time

limitations placed on the principal investigator by U.S.

Swimming (due to the heavy use of the flume). The

principal investigator was therefore given approval to

assess approximately 30 subjects. Additionally, there

was a very short time period in which to recruit

subjects. In this recruiting period, the principal

investigator was unable to obtain only swimmers naive to

the flume and thus 13 of the subjects had undergone

previous testing.









The subjects were average high school swimmers

(based on the swimmers' best 100 yard freestyle times

during the current season, M=59.76 seconds). All

subjects provided consent to complete self-report

psychological assessments, to be videotaped at various

times in the flume, and to have their heart rate taken in

the course of the study. The study was granted approval

by the Human Subjects Committee of the Institutional

Review Board of the University of Florida, by the Sports

Science Review Board of United States Swimming, and by

the Sports Science Department of the United States

Olympic Committee.


Procedural Overview

The following is an overview of the framework of the

study. A more complete description of the measures and

methodology is presented in the two subsequent sections.

Pre-Flume Testing Procedures

(1) A brief explanation of the study was provided by the

investigator and informed consents were obtained. The

investigator purposely did not mention anxiety as an

aspect of the study or that subjects would swim under an

"anxiety-condition." Rather, subjects were told that the

study involved swimming in the flume on two trials,

before which they would complete several self-report

questionnaires related to how they felt about swimming in

the flume. (It was only directly prior to each swim that









the swimmer received any instructions regarding

performance expectations and conditions {see methodology

section).)

After obtaining consent, the Sport Anxiety Scale

(SAS; Smith, Smoll, & Schutz, 1990), which assesses the

tendency to experience anxiety within competitive sport

situations, was administered. Each swimmers' best 100 yd

freestyle time over the past season (by self-report and

cross validation with the swimmer's coach) was also

recorded.

(2) Subjects were assigned to one of three groups and

were equivalent on scores of the SAS, age, and best

freestyle time (see Table 1, p. 88).

Flume Testing Procedures

(3) Two psychological questionnaires were administered:

the State component of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory

(SAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) which

measures transitory emotional responses to a specific

situation, and the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory

(CSAI-2; Martens, Burton, et al., 1990) which measures

cognitive and somatic components of sport-specific state

anxiety, as well as self-confidence. Also, a one-item

Likert scale regarding the perceived importance of the

pending flume test was administered (i.e., "How important

to you is the upcoming flume evaluation on a scale of 1

to 10 [very important]?").

(4) Resting heart rate (RHR) was taken.









(5) The swimmer warmed up in the flume for 21/2 min,

then was assessed for baseline freestyle efficiency at

approximately 80% of his or her maximum swimming speed.

(6) Exertional heart rate (EHR) and Ratings of Perceived

Exertion (RPE; Borg, 1962) were taken immediately

following the baseline swim.

(7) Instructions were provided regarding task demands

for the upcoming flume test. Instructions were designed

to create three anxiety conditions, and therefore three

groups (low, moderate, and high anxiety), prior to being

evaluated on the flume test.

(8) Psychological questionnaires (SAI, CSAI-2) were

administered to assess state anxiety following the

instructional manipulation.

(9) Resting heart rate was taken following a brief

recapitulation of the instructional manipulation.

(10) The swimmer warmed up in the flume for 1 min, and

then was assessed for freestyle efficiency at

approximately 80% of his or her maximum swimming speed.

It was during this phase that the swimmer was aware of

the filming.

(11) Exertional heart rate and Ratings of Perceived

Exertion were taken immediately following the evaluated

swim.

(12) Swimmers were debriefed after all had completed

their tests.









Measures

This section contains descriptions of swimming

performance variables, physiological indices, and

psychological measures.

Performance and Physiological Indices

Flume evaluation

Each swimmer was instructed to swim freestyle in the

flume, during which time they were videotaped in order to

assess swimming efficiency. Analyzing the arm stroke is

vital to evaluating the swimmer's technique. Reilly,

Kame, Termin, Tendesco, and Pendergast (1990) describe

the basic mechanics of swimming as follows:

In swimming, a propulsive force equal to or greater
than the water resistance (body drag) must be
generated by the swimmer to maintain a constant
speed or to accelerate The propulsive force
is provided by a combination of arm stroke and leg
kick, although it would appear that the arm stroke
is more important than the leg kick in freestyle
swimming. (Reilly et al., 1990, p. 19)

Subjects were filmed with two genlocked video

cameras in underwater housings (Pulnix 740 cameras, 60

Hz.) These cameras provided videotape to be digitized

for hydrodynamic biomechanical analysis. For digitizing,

one representative armstroke was chosen for analysis.

According to standard protocol of the flume, the

representative armstroke to be digitized for the

biomechanical analysis was approximately five strokes

from the end of the swim. Frames in each camera were

synchronized using the right arm entry. The following









six landmarks were digitized in both cameras of the

underwater video during one stroke cycle: fingertip,

wrist, thumb, little finger, elbow, and shoulder. Three-

dimensional arm and hand coordinates were calculated

using the Direct Linear Transformation method (Abdel-Aziz

& Karara, 1971).

This analysis was then used to determine propulsive

forces of the swimmers. From the arm position data, hand

reaction forces were calculated (Schleihauf, 1979). This

method calculates lift and drag forces based upon hand

orientation and hand velocity. The resultant force is

calculated by the addition of the lift and drag forces.

The effective (or propulsive) component of the stroke is

the projection of the resultant force on the forward

direction.

For more detailed information, the stroke was

divided into the catch phase (from hand entry to the

widest point of the initial outsweep), the insweep phase

(from the widest point of the outsweep to the narrowest

point under the body), and the finish phase (the

narrowest point until hand exit). During these phases,

the resultant force, effective force, hand velocity and

angle of pitch were averaged, and a phase-specific

propelling efficiency was calculated. An overall

propelling efficiency of the swimmer was also calculated.

The digitization of the videotapes was performed by

an undergraduate psychology major student under the









training and supervision of the Biomechanics Department

of the Sports Science Division of the United States

Olympic Committee. The director of the Biomechanics

Department of United States Swimming also provided

assistance to the digitizer and to the principal

investigator. The utilization of only one digitizer was

designed to increase the reliability of the biomechanical

analyses across and within subjects. The digitizer was

blind to the conditions of the study, and only worked for

2-3 hour sessions. PEAK Performance equipment was used

for the digitizing.

Heart rate

Heart rate was assessed by the principal

investigator by palpating the radial or carotid artery

for 15 sees and extrapolating to obtain heart rate as the

number of beats per minute (bpm). To obtain resting

heart rates, subjects sat quietly for 10 min prior to a

reading, and remained motionless while their heart rate

was assessed. To obtain exertional heart rates, the

swimmers' carotid artery was palpated for the 15 sees

directly following a swim in the flume (while the swimmer

was still in the water). Heart rate was used for two

purposes. The first was to compare resting heart rates

prior to the unevaluatedd" warm-up and prior to the post-

instructional flume evaluation. This was to provide an

indicator of reactivity to different evaluative and

stressful conditions. The second was to monitor heart









rates following the two swims allowing a comparison of

exertion. Since the time and speed were identical for

the two swims, any changes in exertional heart rate could

help determine the contributions of anxiety and/or

differences in swim stroke technique.

PsycholoQical Questionnaires

Sport Anxiety Scale (SAS; Smith et al., 1990).

This 21-item scale is designed to measure sport-

specific trait anxiety. It is composed of three

subscales: somatic anxiety, worry, and concentration

disruption. The SAS scale and its subscales have high

internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .92, .86, and

.81, for the three subscales) despite the relatively

small number of items. The scales also appear to have

adequate reliability (7-day test-retest reliabilities

exceeded .85 for all three scales). In a study of 71

football players, the SAS successfully discriminated

between groups of athletes who differed in performance

level, with the poorer performers having higher total

scores than the best performers [F(1,46) = 4.93, p<.05]

(Smith et al., 1990).

This scale was chosen as a measure of trait anxiety

because of its capacity to determine the tendency of

individuals to experience anxiety within a particular

class of situations, i.e., competitive sport situations

(Smith & Smoll, 1990). Smith and Smoll (1990) report

that research strongly suggests that "situation-specific









anxiety measures would relate more strongly to behavior

in the critical situations than would general

transituational anxiety" (p. 420). Therefore, the SAS

was chosen rather than Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Scale

(Spielberger et al., 1970), since the latter is a general

measure of trait anxiety and is thought to be less

predictive of trait anxiety in sport than the SAS.

The SAS was also chosen instead of the Sport

Competition Anxiety Test (SCAT; Martens, 1977) since the

latter only provides a unidimensional measure of sport-

specific trait anxiety (primarily somatic anxiety),

whereas the SAS provides a multidimensional measurement

of the construct (i.e., somatic anxiety, worry, and

concentration disruption, across competitive sport

situations). A multidimensional assessment is desirable

since "anxiety involves three separate and largely

independent cognitive, physiological, and behavioral

response dimensions.... [and] that these dimensions may

differentially affect behavior" (Smith & Smoll, 1990, p.

420). It was important to know which component of

anxiety, if either, would most affect swimmers in the

flume.

Finally, this scale was used to predict the

intensity of anxiety which may be experienced in the

flume across differing evaluative conditions (see

following measure). Spielberger (1972) writes that

"situation-specific trait anxiety measures are better









predictors of elevation in A-state [state anxiety] for a

particular class of stress situations than are general A-

trait [trait anxiety] measures" (p. 490).

Competitive State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2; Martens,

Vealey, & Burton, 1990)

This 27-item measure is designed to assess sport-

specific state anxiety and has three subscales: cognitive

anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence. One study

examining the construct validity of this test with male

elite college swimmers indicated that cognitive anxiety

(but not somatic anxiety) was a significant predictor of

performance levels (Barnes, Sime, Dienstbier, & Plake,

1986). The reliability (i.e., internal consistency) of

each of the subscales is satisfactory (Cronbach's alpha

ranging from .79 .90). Evidence supporting the

construct validity of the CSAI-2 as a measure of sport

specific state anxiety (cognitive and somatic) and self-

confidence was demonstrated by the authors in a series of

four studies (Martens et al., 1990). Finally, the

authors provide extensive norms for the CSAI-2 by

competitive level, gender, and sport.

In the current experiment, the scale was slightly

modified in that the items relevant to a "competition"

were altered to refer to a procedure (i.e., the flume

evaluation). There were also two additional items which

assessed anxiety associated with the swimmers' reactions

to the flume apparatus itself. These slight









modifications were not expected to alter reliability or

validity of the instrument. The instrument was used to

assess state anxiety levels in a relatively anxiety-free

situation (i.e., baseline testing) and just prior to the

evaluative flume test.

State Anxiety Inventory (SAI; from the State-Trait

Anxiety Inventory; Spielberger et al., 1970)

This 20-item self-report questionnaire assesses

state anxiety, and has been well established as a

research tool in the study of anxiety. It has excellent

construct validity and internal consistency, and is easy

to administer. In this study, only the 20-item state

anxiety component was administered since the SAS was used

for sport specific trait anxiety. Sport psychology

research with this instrument "has included

investigations of football, basketball, badminton,

racquetball and tennis players, swimmers, runners,

gymnasts, fencers, jugglers, and persons engaged in a

variety of physical activities, ranging from routine

exercise to climbing ladders, riding bicycles, and

performing on treadmills" (Spielberger, 1982, p. 10).

In the current study, this instrument was used to

provide additional data regarding state anxiety levels

under different evaluative conditions. It was also used

for a comparison with the CSAI-2, which provides three

separate components of competitive state anxiety (i.e.,

somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and self-confidence).









Correlations can be performed to determine which of these

components is most highly related to the overall state

anxiety from the SAI.

Ratings of Perceived Exertion scale (RPE; Borg, 1962)

This one-item scale quantifies an individual's

rating of exertion level from 6 (no exertion or "very,

very light") to 20 (maximal exertion or "very, very

hard"), and was used to assess a swimmer's perception of

exertion in the flume. This scale was developed by

Gunnar Borg, a psychologist who was interested in

relating sensations of effort to quantifiable physical

stimuli (Noble, 1986). Test-retest reliability is good,

with coefficients from .78 .99. The construct validity

has been established since RPE is essentially linearly

related to heart rate, oxygen consumption, and lactic

acid accumulation in most exercise tasks (Noble, 1986),

with correlations between exercise intensity and RPE

approximately .85 (Borg & Noble, 1974).

In the current study, the RPE was used to determine

the swimmers' perceptions of effort under two separate

swimming conditions (i.e., baseline and evaluated test).

Since the flume speed was identical under both conditions

for any one swimmer, any differences in RPE would be

important in understanding the effects of anxiety on

swimming performance and perceived exertion.









Methodology

Prior to the study in the flume, the experimenter

traveled to the swimmers' training pools and obtained

informed consent from each of them indicating that during

the study he or she would be videotaped at various times

in the flume, complete several self-report

questionnaires, and have their heart rate taken. They

were then administered the Sport Anxiety Scale (SAS) to

determine sport-specific trait anxiety. At this time,

skill level was determined by obtaining each swimmer's

best 100 yd freestyle time during the past competitive

season by self-report and cross validation with the

swimmer's coach. These two variables were used along

with age for group assignment such that the three groups

(i.e., low, moderate, and high anxiety; described

subsequently) were equivalent on three variables (SAS,

best freestyle time, and age). Additionally, subjects

were assigned so that each group would have two or three

males and eight or nine females (11 total in each group).

Upon arriving at the U.S. Swimming center, each

swimmer was administered the State Anxiety Inventory

(SAI), the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2),

and the one-item measure of the importance that the

swimmer attributed to the upcoming flume test. After the

completion of these measures, heart rate was taken as

specified in the measures section to provide a resting

heart rate (RHR) measure. Next, swimmers participated in









what was described as a "familiarizing practice session"

in the flume. Here, swimmers were instructed to swim

freestyle to warm-up at a very easy pace (50% of maximum

speed for a 100 yard freestyle event) for approximately

21/2 min.

The swimmers were then instructed that the speed of

the flume would be increased (to 80% of the swimmer's

best time) "so that you can get the feel of the flume's

speed as it will be when you are tested." They were then

instructed to swim for 30 sees at this speed. In this

phase, no mention was made of videotaping, although the

swimmers were filmed to provide the experimenter a

reliable baseline assessment of freestyle mechanics which

was as unaffected as possible by evaluative performance

anxiety. As stated in the measures section, the segment

of the video which was digitized for hydrodynamic

biomechanical analysis was approximately five strokes

from the end of the swim, providing an accurate and

stable baseline assessment (J. M. Cappaert, Sport Science

Biomechanist, personal communication, 1990). Immediately

after the swimmer completed the 80% swim, exertional

heart rate (EHR) was taken and the subject completed the

Ratings of Perceived Exertion scale (RPE).

Following the baseline filming phase, the

experimenter read to each subject one of three sets of

instructions designed to experimentally manipulate the

amount of anxiety that the swimmer experienced. The









moderate and high anxiety instructions were designed to

create evaluative anxiety and were based on research

suggesting that "situations involving potential failure

or threats to self-esteem are more potent sources of

threat than are potentially physically harmful

situations" (Martens et al., 1990, p. 14). Scanlan

(1984) further confirms that competitive situations can

be stressful due to extensive evaluation of ability and

competence. They involve perceptions of inadequacy in

successfully meeting the performance demands, and

perceptions of the consequences of failure, possibly

leading to a threat to self-esteem.

In this experiment, the threat to self-esteem was

expected to emerge from the swimmer's awareness of being

evaluated by a coach or USS official who could

potentially judge a swimmer as having a "poor" or

"inadequate" swimming style. Although there were no

overt consequences of failure, it was expected that the

swimmers would be concerned about "failing" (i.e., not

performing well in the flume; not having a "good enough"

stroke). The instructional sets were as follows:

(1) Low anxiety. "During this flume test, you will be

videotaped as you swim freestyle. The taping and

analysis of your stroke will be discussed with you and at

a later time with your coach, and will only be used for

your own stroke improvement. Try to swim relaxed and

enjoy yourself. This will be just the same as your warm-









up swim. Do not be concerned with the cameras; the video

will only be used for your benefit."

(2) Moderate anxiety. "During this flume test, you will

be videotaped as you swim freestyle. The taping and

analysis of your stroke will be discussed with you and

your coach(s), and will be used to determine your

relative strength in freestyle as compared to your

teammates. The test will be quite similar to your warm-

up swim. However, please try to swim your best, as it is

important that we get an accurate measurement of your

skills." (During these instructions, the cameras in the

flume were displayed to the swimmer, as were the VCRs for

the recording of the subject's swim.)

(3) High Anxiety. "During this flume test, you will be

videotaped as you swim freestyle. The taping and

analysis of your stroke will be analyzed and evaluated by

the U.S. Swimming Biomechanics staff, officials, and

coaches. Also, during this swim a U.S. Swimming official

will be examining your stroke through the underwater

observation windows. Please attempt to swim your very

best, as the evaluation will be important in determining

your relative standing among other swimmers at your level

who have previously been evaluated in the flume. We will

use the test analysis to decide the areas in which you

need the most improvement." (During these instructions,

the cameras in the flume, the VCRs, and the underwater

observation window were displayed to the swimmer; also, a









television monitor of the flume was activated and

displayed.)

Upon receiving one of the set of instructions

swimmers were then administered the state anxiety

component (SAI) of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and

the Competition State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2) for the

second time. These questionnaires were to be used to

determine the level of anxiety that swimmers reported

directly prior to the flume session, and compared to

their baseline report. Resting heart rate was taken

subsequently to obtain a physiological measure of arousal

(this was following a standardized period of 10 min from

the end of the 30 sec swim). Each swimmer then underwent

the standard freestyle assessment in the flume to

evaluate propelling efficiency (knowing that he or she

would be filmed). The subject warmed up again for 1 min

at 50% of best time, then paused as the flume's speed was

increased to 80% of best time. Each subject then swam

for 30 secs, during which time he or she was videotaped.

The filming and digitization procedures (biomechanical

analysis) were identical to the baseline procedure as

described earlier. Immediately after the swimmer

completed this swim, exertional heart rate was taken and

the subject completed the Ratings of Perceived Exertion

scale (RPE).

Since the swimmers performed in the flume alone,

they were told not to discuss the study with any other





84


swimmers who had not yet undergone their testing.

Swimmers were fully debriefed at the end of the study so

that the nature of the study could be explained without

affecting other swimmers approach to the testing. During

this debriefing, technical feedback was provided to each

swimmer by U.S. Swimming. Questions about freestyle

stroke technique, racing strategies, and so forth were

answered at this time.












RESULTS


The primary purpose of the analyses was to determine

the effects of different imposed degrees of anxiety on

performance as well as the nature of the relationship

among the various measures of anxiety, physiological

arousal, and the sport performance outcome measure (i.e.,

freestyle swimming efficiency). In all analyses, an

alpha level of .05 was set as the criterion for

determining statistical significance. All significance

tests were examined using a conservative two-tailed

approach, despite having directional predictions. This

offset slightly the less conservative approach of

utilizing the alpha level of .05 in multiple analyses.


Subjects
As mentioned in the methodology section, swimmers

were assigned to one of three groups to ensure that each

group would have a subject composition that was

equivalent on trait anxiety in sport (Sport Anxiety Scale

scores), skill level (best freestyle time), and age.

This procedure was followed (instead of utilizing

randomization for subject assignment) due to the small

subject sample size and in order to increase the power of

statistical analyses by eliminating the need for









covariate-based analyses. Statistical equivalency of the

group assignment variables was confirmed utilizing three

one-way ANOVAs to assess best time (F=.03, E=ns), trait

anxiety (SAS; F=.20, R=ns), and age (F=1.08, E=ns). (See

Table 1 for means and standard deviations by group.)

It was also determined that each group of swimmers

perceived an equal amount of importance for the flume

testing. Finally, the groups were almost equivalent by

sex (two groups had nine females and two males, and the

other group had eight females and three males).


Effects of Anxiety Manipulations

Before examining the anxiety-performance

relationship, it was important to first determine the

effects of the anxiety manipulations on the swimmers'

cognitive/affective and physiological reactions to the

flume testing. This analysis was conducted to test the

argument for and efficacy of the experimental

manipulation. First, a multivariate analysis of variance

(MANOVA) revealed no significant differences at baseline

between groups on the four psychological variables (A-

state, cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-

confidence), [F(2,30)=.50, E=ns]. A one-way ANOVA also

indicated that there were no significant differences

between groups on resting heart rate [F(2,30)=2.6, R=ns].

The next analyses determined the effect of group

membership on changes in the five variables following the










TABLE 1

Equivalency of Groups on Three Variables Used for Group
Assignment

GROUP M (SD) M (SD) M (SD


Best Time *

59.6 (3.0)

60.1 (4.5)

59.6 (2.8)

59.8 (3.4)


Trait Anxiety*

46.5 (7.1)

46.5 (11.2)

47.3 (11.2)

46.8 (9.7)


Age

15.2 (1.8)

15.5 (1.8)

15.3 (1.4)

15.3 (1.6)


Fastest time (in seconds) in a 100 yard freestyle
race (current season).

As measured by the Sport Anxiety Scale.


Low

Mod

High

TOTAL


~









anxiety manipulation. A repeated measures MANOVA

(examining A-state, cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety,

and self-confidence) revealed no significant main effect

for anxiety-induced conditions [Wilk's Lambda = .89;

F(2,30)=.40, E=ns] or significant interaction effect

(i.e., Group X Time) [Wilk's Lambda = .61; F(2,30)=1.9,

R=ns]. However, a significant effect for Time was

revealed [Wilk's Lambda = .69; F(2,30)=3.1, R<.05] as

subjects generally reported feeling less anxious and more

self-confident after performing the first flume swim

(i.e., directly prior to the second evaluated swim).

Follow-up univariate repeated measures ANOVAs indicated

no significant interaction effects. However, these

ANOVAs showed time effects indicating that CSAI-Cog

[F=4.0, E=.05] and CSAI-Som [F=9.2, R<.01] decreased

following the baseline swim, while self-confidence (CSAI-

SC) increased [F=7.1, E=.01].

A repeated measures ANOVA conducted on resting heart

rate revealed a significant time effect, as resting heart

rate increased prior to the second flume swim [F=5.1,

E<.05]. A repeated measures ANOVA conducted on ratings

of perceived exertion (RPE; i.e., how difficult the flume

swim was perceived to be) revealed a significant time

effect and indicated that RPE increased significantly for

the second (evaluated) flume swim [F=8.8, R<.01]. Table

2 presents the means of these variables before and after

the instructional manipulation by group.










Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological and

Physiological Reactions to the Flume by Group

MEASURE GROUP
Low Moderate High

State Anxiety (SAI)

Pre 39.0 (7.6) 38.8 (12.5) 38.5 (7.0)

Post 31.2 (6.2) 37.6 (9.4) 36.8 (10.7)

Cognitive Anxiety (CSAI-Cog)

Pre 16.7 (3.9) 16.6 (5.9) 15.3 (2.9)

Post 13.6 (3.7) 14.8 (4.6) 15.9 (4.3)

Somatic Anxiety (CSAI-Som)

Pre 16.2 (5.8) 17.5 (7.8) 17.4 (4.9)

Post 12.0 (2.2) 14.0 (4.1) 15.1 (6.5)

Self-Confidence (CSAI-SC)

Pre 23.9 (5.3) 24.0 (6.1) 25.4 (4.1)

Post 27.7 (4.9) 26.5 (6.1) 25.9 (6.1)

Resting Heart Rate (RHR)

Pre 76.3 (11.5) 69.3 (7.3) 79.6 (13.3)

Post 79.1 (6.4) 77.3 (15.1) 79.6 (13.1)

Ratings of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

Pre 11.2 (1.5) 11.2 (1.2) 10.9 (1.6)

Post 11.9 (1.8) 11.7 (2.2) 12.0 (1.6)









Swimming Efficiency

The next major analysis was the comparison of

freestyle swimming efficiency in the flume by group. For

this analysis, the freestyle arm stroke was examined to

determine its efficiency to propel the swimmer forward

through the water. First, overall propelling efficiency

was examined. As described in the measures section,

propelling efficiency can be defined as the amount of arm

force used to propel the body forward (RE, or effective

force) divided by the total force that the swimmer's arm

is producing (R, or total force), and is expressed as a

percentage. In this analysis, video data for one subject

in the Moderate anxiety group was missing for the post-

swim.

There was no significant difference among the groups

on baseline propelling efficiency as determined by a one-

way ANOVA [F(2,29)=.07, 2=.93]. A repeated measures

ANOVA was then conducted to examine the effect of the

experimental manipulation on changes in freestyle

propelling efficiency across the three groups. Thus,

changes in efficiency from baseline unevaluatedd swim) to

the second swim (which followed the instructional

manipulation) were determined and compared across the

three groups. This analysis was designed to determine

the extent to which performance was a function of group

membership (i.e., different anxiety conditions). The

analysis revealed neither a significant between-subjects









(i.e. group) effect [F=.43, R=.66] nor a significant

interaction (i.e., Group X Time) effect [F=.11, R=.9].

However, a significant main effect for Time was indicated

[F=5.5, R<.05]. Swimmers as a whole became more

efficient during their second swim as compared to their

baseline swim.

The next analysis examined a subcomponent of the

freestyle stroke -- the "finish phase." This phase was

chosen for analysis in that it provides the most force

during the armstroke cycle, and because it had been

hypothesized that if there was one part of the stroke

which would be most affected by evaluative anxiety, it

would be the finish. This subanalysis had initially been

planned to help determine where the variance in the

overall stroke efficiency occurred under different

conditions of anxiety. Although there was little overall

variance, this analysis was still conducted to detect

less obvious changes in efficiency. However, a repeated

measures ANOVA revealed no significant main or

interaction effects [Group -- F(2,29)=.55, R=.58; Time --

F(2,29)=.02, R=.89; Group X Time -- F(2,29)=.37, D=.70].

Table 3 reports the means and standard deviations by

group of overall and finish efficiency for the two swims

(i.e., before and after the instructional manipulation).











Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations of Swimming Efficiency

MEASURE GROUP
Low Moderate High


Overall Efficiency (%)

Pre 57.2 (11.8)

Post 60.0 (6.3)

Finish Phase Efficiency (%)

Pre 84.6 (12.0)

Post 82.1 (10.2)


55.4 (14.7)

63.4 (8.7)



85.2 (11.2)

86.4 (5.2)


55.1 (17.0)

59.4 (9.9)



86.5 (6.1)

87.0 (9.1)









Within-Subiect Analyses

Regression analyses were used to examine the

relationship between freestyle swimming efficiency and

the anxiety measures (independent of group membership),

while controlling for swimming skill and competitive

trait anxiety. A multiple regression model was

constructed to determine the individual and interactive

effects of anxiety (state measures of anxiety) and

physiological arousal (resting heart rate prior to

baseline swim) on swimming stroke efficiency. A mixed

model of regression was used, first forcing the swimmers'

best time in the 100 yard freestyle and scores on the SAS

into the equation (thus controlling for skill level and

competitive trait anxiety). Then a stepwise approach was

used in an attempt to enter state anxiety (SAI),

competitive cognitive anxiety (CSAI-Cog), competitive

somatic anxiety (CSAI-Som), competitive self-confidence

(CSAI-SC), and/or resting heart rate (RHR). However,

none of these variables accounted for a significant

portion of the variance in baseline swimming efficiency

when controlling for skill level and trait sport anxiety.

This same analysis was conducted using the post-scores

and second swim, but also did not provide a useful

predictive model.

Simple Pearson's correlation coefficients were also

calculated for baseline variables. Most of the

significant correlations are between the self-report









psychological questionnaires. However, two measures are

also significantly correlated with the swimmers' best

freestyle time (Competitive Self-Confidence, r=-.54,

R<.001; and State Anxiety, r=.42, R<.01). This suggests

that the better swimmers are more self-confident and less

anxious directly prior to the flume test. However, self-

confidence and state anxiety were not correlated with the

more immediate measure of freestyle swimming efficiency

in the flume (see Table 4).


Effects of Prior Flume Testing

Originally, the study was to include only subjects

who had never been tested in the flume before (NFlumed).

However, due to limited recruitment time, the actual

study included 13 swimmers who had been tested previously

at the flume (Flumed). Thus, it was important to examine

any differences between these two groups.

First, there were no significant differences between

Flumed (N=13) and NFlumed (N=20) subjects for age, skill

level, sport trait-anxiety, baseline resting heart rate,

or ratings of perceived exertion. However, a one-way

ANOVA showed that NFlumed subjects attributed

significantly more importance to the flume test than did

the Flumed subjects [F(1,32)=4.1, R=.05]. Next, a MANOVA

conducted on the four psychological variables at baseline

was not significant [F=2.57, E=.06] and therefore not

interpretable. However, exploratory analyses were




Full Text
DISCUSSION 102
Explanation of Findings 102
Summary and Conclusions Ill
Implications for Future Research 114
REFERENCES 119
APPENDIX 133
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 139


121
Buhler, C. (1959). Theoretical observations about
life's basic tendencies. American Journal of
Psychotherapy. 13, 561-581.
Bursill, A. E. (1958). The restriction of peripheral
vision during exposure to hot and humid conditions.
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 10,
113-129.
Burton, D. (1988). Do anxious swimmers swim slower?
Reexamining the elusive anxiety-performance
relationship. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology. 10, 45-61.
Caruso, C. M., Dzewaltowski, D. A., Gill, D. L., &
McElroy, M. A. (1990). Psychological and
physiological changes in competitive state anxiety
during noncompetition and competitive success and
failure. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology.
12, 6-20.
Cattell, R. B. (1963). The nature and measurement of
anxiety. Scientific American. 208. 96-104.
Cooke, L. E. (1982). Stress and anxiety in sport.
Sports Council Research Project. Sheffield, England:
Sheffield City Polytechnic.
Cox, R. H. (1990). Sport psychology: Concepts and
applications (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown.
Crocker, P. E., Alderman, R. B., & Smith, F. M. (1988).
Cognitive-affective stress management training with
high performance youth volleyball players: Effects on
affect, cognition, and performance. Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology. 10, 448-460.
Dale, J., & Weinberg, R. (1990). Burnout in sport: A
review and critique. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology. 2, 67-83.
Davis, H. (1991). Criterion validity of the Athletic
Motivation Inventory: Issues in professional sport.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 3, 176-182.
Deffenbacher, J. L. (1980). Worry and emotionality in
test anxiety. In I. G. Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiety;
Theory, research, and applications (pp. 111-128).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Doctor, R. M., & Altman, F. (1969). Worry and
emotionality as components of test anxiety:
Replication and further data. Psychological Reports.
24, 563-568.


DISCUSSION
Explanation of Findings
The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate
the effects of anxiety on swimming performance.
Specifically, this study examined 33 high school swimmers
who were tested in a flume, a type of "swimming
treadmill," used at the U.S. Olympic Training Center to
evaluate the performance of competitive swimmers. The
experiment was designed to assess the specific ways in
which anxiety may impact on swimming performance in a
situation which might simulate an important competition
due to the experiencing of high levels of anxiety. Here,
an experimental instructional manipulation was provided
to subjects in an attempt to create three conditions
during which evaluation of swimming performance in the
flume would be conducted. Various measures of anxiety
were obtained in order to assess the impact of the
manipulation in conjunction with the potential stress of
being tested in the flume. More important, the
relationship between certain anxiety measures and
swimming performance was examined.
It was predicted that anxiety experienced as a
result of the experimental manipulation would be
significantly and negatively related to freestyle
102


31
Other writers have explained arousal as synonymous
with motivation (Magill, 1989), alertness/readiness (Cox,
1990), and psychic energy (Martens, 1987). Perhaps the
most traditional definition explains arousal as energy
mobilization ranging on a continuum from deep sleep or
coma at one extreme, to panic-stricken terror or great
excitement at the other extreme (Eysenck, 1984; Malmo,
1959). Duffy (1957, 1962) proposed that arousal is
neural/physiological excitation which varies on two
dimensions: intensity and direction. "For Duffy (1962),
any given point on this continuum was determined by /the
extent of release of potential energy, stored in the
tissues of the organism, as this is shown in activity or
response7 (p. 17)" (Neiss, 1988a, p. 345).
As with anxiety, arousal can be described as
multidimensional in nature (Landers, 1980), and has been
suggested to encompass three dimensions: physiological,
behavioral, and cognitive (Borkovek, 1976). The
indicators of increased arousal are manifested and
assessed in a number of ways: self-report,
electrophysiological (e.g., decreases in skin resistance
of galvanic skin response; increases in palmar sweating,
EMG, EEG), respiratory and cardiovascular (e.g.,
increases in ECG, blood pressure, heart rate), and
biochemical (e.g., increases in the release of adrenaline
and noradrenaline) (Gould & Krane, in press; Hackfort &
Schwenkmezger, 1989).


4
psychologists with athletes. However, less is known
regarding the efficacy of these various interventions.
Obviously, from a layperson's perspective there is a
common occurrence of athletes "choking" under pressure.
Most sports fans can recite several incidents in which an
athlete or team has not performed as well as expected,
and which may be attributed to the athlete's inability to
cope effectively with a pressure situation (e.g., missing
a two-foot putt to win a major golf championship; false-
starting and disqualification in the finals of a swim
meet). Understanding these failures to perform is
interesting to sports fans and scientists alike. Such
understanding is especially important for the athlete who
is seeking his or her best performance.
If there exists, for example, a zone of anxiety or
arousal within which athletes achieve optimal competitive
performance (cf. Hanin, 1980, 1986) then this knowledge
has special relevance for athletes, coaches, and sport
psychologists. If, however, any increase in anxiety or
arousal is detrimental to performance (cf. Bird & Horn,
1990; Burton, 1988), this has different ramifications for
athletes and those working with them.
Despite the fact that competition-specific anxiety
is a major concern for many athletes, coaches, and sport
psychologists, the research literature dealing with this
topic like that related to other forms of anxiety, is
insufficient to explain the precise relationship between


98
Separate Examination of Subjects New to the Flume
Because there were significant differences between
NFlumed and Flumed subjects, another series of analyses
was conducted. Only the NFlumed subjects (N=20) were
examined in the following analyses (which were very
similar to the analyses run on the entire subject
sample). Although swimmers were not assigned to groups
according to prior testing history, an equal number of
NFlumed subjects were in each group and did not differ on
skill level, competitive trait anxiety, or age.
The effects of the instructional manipulations on
the reactions to the flume testing was examined on
this subset of swimmers. A repeated measures MANOVA
conducted on the four psychological variables (A-state,
cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence)
revealed a significant Group X Time interaction [Wilk's
Lambda = .32; F=2.7, pc.05]. Despite this significant
multivariate Group X Time interaction, there were no
significant Group X Time interactions for the univariate
repeated measure ANOVAs.
Follow-up univariate repeated measures ANOVAs
indicated that a significant Time effect occurred for the
three subtests of the CSAI-2, as in the entire sample.
Cognitive and somatic competitive anxiety decreased and
self-confidence increased prior to the second swim [CSAI-
Cog, (F=8.7, E<-01); CSAI-Som (F=10.27, pc.Ol) and CSAI-
SC (F=8.92, pc.01). Still, changes in cognitive anxiety


103
swimming performance, both as a function of group membership
and independent of the groups, as assessed by self-report
measures of competitive and state anxiety. Thus, it had
been predicted that performance decrements would be most
pronounced in those swimmers who demonstrated the greatest
increases in cognitive anxiety from baseline to evaluated
swims. It had also been predicted that cognitive state
anxiety would have a more profound negative effect on
performance than somatic state anxiety. Finally, it had
been anticipated that any decrements found in the freestyle
stroke would most likely occur during the "finish", the
phase of the stroke in which maximal propulsion is created.
The results indicated that swimmers did not report an
increase in anxiety following the experimental manipulation.
That is, instead of increasing the subjects' self-reports of
anxiety, subjects as a whole reported experiencing less
anxiety prior to the second flume swim. Specifically,
ANOVAs showed that cognitive and somatic anxiety decreased
following the baseline swim, while self-confidence
increased. Thus, the experimental manipulation was
ineffective in increasing the subjects' anxiety. However,
there were some trends that indicate that the reduction in
anxiety was greatest in the low-anxiety manipulation group,
suggesting that the three sets of instructions were
qualitatively different. Upon examination of Table 2 (p.
90), it can be seen that the differences between self-report
scores from baseline to post-test were greatest (though not


81
moderate and high anxiety instructions were designed to
create evaluative anxiety and were based on research
suggesting that "situations involving potential failure
or threats to self-esteem are more potent sources of
threat than are potentially physically harmful
situations" (Martens et al., 1990, p. 14). Scanlan
(1984) further confirms that competitive situations can
be stressful due to extensive evaluation of ability and
competence. They involve perceptions of inadequacy in
successfully meeting the performance demands, and
perceptions of the consequences of failure, possibly
leading to a threat to self-esteem.
In this experiment, the threat to self-esteem was
expected to emerge from the swimmer's awareness of being
evaluated by a coach or USS official who could
potentially judge a swimmer as having a "poor" or
"inadequate" swimming style. Although there were no
overt consequences of failure, it was expected that the
swimmers would be concerned about "failing" (i.e., not
performing well in the flume; not having a "good enough"
stroke). The instructional sets were as follows:
(1) Low anxiety. "During this flume test, you will be
videotaped as you swim freestyle. The taping and
analysis of your stroke will be discussed with you and at
a later time with your coach, and will only be used for
your own stroke improvement. Try to swim relaxed and
enjoy yourself. This will be just the same as your warm-


125
Lewthwaite, R. (1990). Threat perception in competitive
trait anxiety: The endangerment of important goals.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 12, 280-
300.
Liebert, R. M., & Morris, L. W. (1967). Cognitive and
emotional components of test anxiety: A distinction
and some initial data. Psychological Reports. 20,
975-978.
Madden, C. C., Summers, J. J., & Brown, D. F. (1990).
The influence of perceived stress on coping with
competitive basketball. International Journal of
Sport Psychology. 21, 21-35.
Magill, R. A. (1989). Motor learning: Concepts and
applications (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown.
Malmo, R. B. (1959). Activation: A neuropsychological
dimension. Psychological Review. 66, 367-386.
Mandler, G. (1975). Mind and emotion. London: Wiley.
Martens, R. (1977). Sport Competition Anxiety Test.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Martens, R. (1987).
Champaign, IL:
Coaches guide to sport psychology.
Human Kinetics.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R. S., Bump, L. A. &
Smith, D. E. (1990) Development and validation of
the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. In R.
Martens, R. S. Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.),
Competitive anxiety in sport (pp. 117-190).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R., Bump, L., & Smith,
D. (1983). The development of the Competitive State
Anxiety Inventory 2 fCSAI-2). Unpublished
manuscript, University of Illinois.
Martens, R., Gill, D. L., & Scanlan, T. K. (1976).
Competitive trait anxiety, success-failure and sex as
determinants of motor performance. Perceptual and
Motor Skills. 43, 1199-1208.
Martens, R., Vealey, R. S., & Burton, D. (1990).
Competitive anxiety in sport. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Martin, J. J., & Gill, D. L. (1991). The relationships
among competitive orientation, sport-confidence,
self-efficacy, anxiety, and performance. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology. 13, 149-159.


6
nature of sport-related anxiety, and how different
dimensions of anxiety may relate to skilled sports
performance. Focus on this topic has mainly resulted
from the development of a revised form of the Competitive
State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2; Martens, Burton, Vealey,
Bump, & Smith, 1983) which is designed to assess
cognitive and somatic competitive anxiety and self-
confidence. Since the development of the CSAI-2, it has
become a prominent instrument in the assessment of sports
related state anxiety. The authors cite 16 published
empirical studies from 1984-1988 which have included the
CSAI-2 (Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990) and there have
been at least this many studies utilizing the CSAI-2 in
the last four years.
In creating the CSAI-2, Martens et al., (1983) with
regard to previous research (e.g., Borkovek, 1976; Doctor
& Altman, 1969; Liebert & Morris, 1967; Morris, Davis, &
Hutchings, 1981) have suggested that the distinction
between cognitive and somatic state anxiety is both
conceptually and practically important in the assessment
of competitive anxiety. Likewise, Morris and his
colleagues (Morris, Brown, & Halbert, 1977; Morris,
Harris, & Rovins, 1981; Morris & Liebert, 1973) have
argued that cognitive and somatic anxiety can be elicited
independently by different antecedents and are separate,
albeit related, components. Martens and his colleagues
have applied these notions to sport psychology and have


9
for pressure-filled competitive situations (Lewthwaite,
1990; Smith & Smoll, 1990).
It also appears that anxiety primarily affects the
athlete in performance-degrading ways (e.g., Burton,
1988; McCann, Murphy, & Raedeke, in press) through
cognitive and attentional factors (e.g., "mental" errors)
(Albrecht & Feltz, 1987; Bird & Horn, 1990; Singer et
al., 1991), and through somatic effects (e.g., too
"pumped-up") (Powell & Verner, 1982; Smith & Smoll,
1990). Anxiety also appears to affect individuals
negatively in a competitive situation via altered motoric
reactions (e.g., Beuter & Duda, 1985; Weinberg, 1990).
As will be demonstrated in the literature review, it
is currently not clear which factors of competition
(e.g., intraindividual pressure, competitors, coaches)
and which mediating factors (e.g., attention,
physiological arousal, cognitive anxiety) are most
relevant to performance in regards to competition
anxiety. Sport psychologists who are evaluating athletes
and the athletes themselves would benefit from more
compelling information regarding how athletes react under
potentially "stressful" competitive situations. A more
precise understanding of the nature of athletes'
responses to stressful situations and how their
performances are affected is needed.
One specific example of a situation which may be
anxiety-producing to athletes, and which may represent an


18
cameras) while they swim against a steady stream of
water.
Hand Velocity CHV) is the speed of the hand through
the water in meters per second.
Hydrodynamic Biomechanical Analysis is an overall
process of filming a swimmer with underwater cameras, and
then determining forces and efficiency of the swimmer
(via digitization).
Insweep refers to the middle (second) phase of the
armstroke. For analytical purposes, it begins where the
catch ends (i.e., at the widest point) and continues
until the hand is at the narrowest point (i.e.,
underneath the body and where the finish begins).
Propelling Efficiency (PE) is a measure of how
efficient a swimmer is in moving through the water. It
is the propulsive force (RE) divided by the total force
(R) multiplied by 100 and thus expressed as a percentage.
Propulsive Force (RE) is the force (measured in
newtons) which the swimmer exerts upon the water in order
to propel himself or herself through the water. It is a
component of the total force which the swimmer exerts.
Total Force (R) is the total force (measured in
newtons) which the swimmer exerts upon the water while
swimming.
Assumptions
For the purpose of this investigation, the following
assumptions were made:


53
Despite the intuitive appeal of the cognitive
anxiety/performance relationship, studies which have
investigated the multidimensional influences of anxiety
(i.e., cognitive worry and somatic anxiety) in
competitive settings have provided mixed results
regarding the strength and nature of the relationship.
For instance, Gould et al. (1987) studied police officers
performing in a pistol shooting competition, and
concluded that the cognitive component of competitive
anxiety was unrelated to shooting outcome. However, the
somatic component was found to influence performance so
that "a quadratic function best explained the somatic
anxiety/performance relationship" (Gould et al., 1987, p.
40). In this case, the authors explain the somatic
component as being more predictive because pistol
shooting depends on fine neuromuscular control easily
disrupted by slight physiological changes.
Although this is certainly true, Burton (1988)
suggests that there also may have been methodological
reasons for the nonsignificant relationship between
cognitive anxiety and shooting performance. First, Gould
and his colleagues used the average scores of a single
competition (as opposed to a season average) as the
comparison to a specific round, and thus gained a less
reliable assessment of anxiety-mediated performance
fluctuations. Also, the subjects may have had low ego-
involvement with the task, as it was an elaborate


17
threatening situation (objective or subjective; of
environmental, social or intrapersonal origin).
Arousal is defined as psychological and/or
physiological activation of an organism on a continuum
from deep sleep to extreme activation (e.g., intense
excitement or fear).
Catch is the first phase of the armstroke in which
the swimmer's hand enters the water and begins the
stroke. For analytical purposes, it continues to the
point at which the swimmer's hand is at its widest point
(i.e., furthest point laterally from the body).
Digitization refers to the process of converting a
video image of an action (e.g., a swimming armstroke)
into two and three dimensional coordinates for
quantitative computer analysis.
Drag is defined as any negative force created during
swimming which acts to slow the body through water
resistance (e.g., during hand entry).
Finish describes the third, final, and most powerful
phase of the armstroke in which the swimmer completes the
stroke cycle. For analytical purposes, it begins at the
point at which the swimmer's hand is at its narrowest
point (i.e., underneath the body) and ends with the
hand's exit from the water.
Flume refers to a "swimming treadmill" in which
subjects are evaluated (filmed via underwater video


16
terminology of the present study. To facilitate a better
comprehension of these terms, it is first necessary to
present a brief overview of the freestyle swimming
armstroke. The stroke is made up of three phases (catch,
insweep, and finish). (Recovery, in which the hand
travels from the end of the stroke to reenter the water,
is the fourth phase of the stroke, but is not associated
with the propulsion of the swimmer.) The phases are not
distinct, but are continuous parts of the stroke. Thus,
the swimmer first enters the water, "catching" it and
pulling back and away from the body. Next, the swimmer
begins to bend the elbow more as he or she "sweeps" the
water with the hand in and underneath the body. To
"finish" the stroke, the swimmer pushes the water with
the hand out and back (from underneath the body)
eventually lifting the elbow and hand out of the water
for recovery. From the perspective of the swimmer, the
right arm generally follows the shape of an inverted "S",
while the left arm approximates an "S".
Angle of Pitch (AP) is the angle of the hand in
relation to the swimmer's body at any one time during the
armstroke (90 approximates a hand-shaking position).
Anxiety refers to the experience of negative
thoughts (e.g., worry, self-doubt) and usually
concomitant physiological sensations (e.g., sweaty palms,
racing heart rate) which are induced in response to a


104
statistically significantly) for the Low Anxiety
manipulation group. Thus, the instructions to "try to swim
relaxed and enjoy yourself" were apparently less stressful
than those in the moderate and high anxiety groups in which
efforts were made to elicit anxiety responses.
Despite the trends that indicated the instructional
sets were different, they did not increase anxiety prior to
the second swim. One conclusion could be that the anxiety
manipulation produced less anxiety than do many actual
competitive situations. Indeed, the subjects' post
manipulation anxiety scores were below the mean as compared
to a normative sample of high school athletes, and as
compared to a normative sample of competitive swimmers prior
to a competition (Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990).
However, it would have been difficult to increase the
potential threat of the high anxiety group instructions
without becoming unethical or unbelievable.
Furthermore, despite the observation that the
instructions were less effective than had been hypothesized,
it appears that the problem did not lie with the
instructions as much as it did with the testing situation
itself. Most of the swimmers did not appear to be overly
concerned with the testing in general. Their initial
competitive state anxiety scores, which were expected to be
somewhat elevated, were also below the mean as compared to a
normative sample of high school athletes, and as compared to
a normative sample of competitive swimmers prior to a


55
similar to Caruso et al. (1990) and Gould et al. (1987),
this task had little external validity and the subjects
likely had low ego involvement. Furthermore, as the
authors acknowledge, due to the simplicity of the
pegboard task, complex motor skills were not required
which might be impaired by cognitive anxiety.
On the other hand, several researchers have
demonstrated a relationship between cognitive anxiety and
sports performance in field studies. For example, Powell
and Verner (1982) found that linear increases in state
anxiety and fear estimates (roughly cognitive worry) were
significantly and negatively related to sport parachuting
performance. Unexpectedly, heart rate (physiological
arousal) was also negatively related (in a linear
fashion) to performance.
More recently, McCann, Murphy, and Raedeke (in
press), studied national level cyclists under laboratory
(cycling ergometer) and field (time-trial road race)
conditions. The investigators found that self-reported
anxiety was strongly related to cycling performance, with
the strongest relationships occurring under the field
condition. High cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety
were associated with weak performance, while high self-
confidence was associated with a stronger performance.
Also, only cognitive anxiety was significantly related to
performance under the cycling ergometer laboratory
setting. This study had many strengths: (1) It employed


37
Easterbrook (1959) explained the inverted-U function
by asserting that "emotional arousal" acts to reduce the
range of cues that an individual uses. That is, the
range of cue utilization shrinks as the use of peripheral
(irrelevant or partially relevant) cues is reduced, while
the use of central (immediately relevant) cues is
maintained. Thus, reduction in the range of cues should
first improve task proficiency (as the irrelevant, non-
essential cues are omitted), but later impair ability.
"It would in fact produce just the sort of up and down
relation between proficiency and drive that is familiar
in connection with the names of Yerkes and Dodson"
(Easterbrook, 1959, p. 193).
In explaining the effects of arousal in sport,
Landers (1980) draws from Yerkes-Dodson (1908) and
Easterbrook (1959) stating that when arousal
increases up to a certain (optimal) level,
perceptual selectivity also increases improving the
individual's performance (presumably because the
athlete tries harder and is more likely to eliminate
task-irrelevant cues). Increases in arousal beyond
this "optimal" point should induce further
perceptual narrowing and a concomitant deterioration
in performance, in accordance with the inverted-U
hypothesis. For example, an "over-aroused"
quarterback in football might be focused too


30
situation and determine whether there is a perceived
imbalance between the demands of the situation and the
capabilities of himself or herself. Third, and depending
on this interpretation, the athlete can experience
changes in physiological arousal and/or state anxiety.
Fourth is the outcome of the performance.
This explanation is helpful in that it demonstrates
that competitive stress is a process and that the
emphasis is placed on the athlete's evaluation and
perception of a competitive situation, and not simply the
situation itself. Thus, in this context, competitive
stress may be viewed as positive or negative. This is in
contrast to competitive anxiety which is described as
primarily negative. However, even this is not
indisputable as will be seen in the forthcoming section
on the relationship between anxiety and performance.
Arousal and Activation
The relatedness among terms does not end with
anxiety and its associated terms but continues in the
notion of arousal and activation. Some writers adopt a
parsimonious approach to the topic:
Arousal and activation are used interchangeably by
most motivation theorists, although there are some
who have attempted to make distinctions between the
two concepts. In this text, the two words will be
considered to be synonymous. Emotional, tense, and
anxious are other adjectives that are frequently
used to express the same idea, and in sports,
"psyched-up" conveys the same notion. (Sage, 1984,
p. 345)


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I express my appreciation to the staff of United
States Swimming who provided me with the facilities and
technical support to conduct this study. I would also
like to thank Drs. Shane Murphy, Jay Kearney, and Sara
Smith of the United States Olympic Committee whose
endorsement, assistance and encouragement were vital to
its completion. A special thanks goes to Samantha Ortiz,
who spent many long hours at the video and computer
terminals coding the swimming data. At the University of
Florida, I had the assistance and expertise of five
outstanding committee members: Drs. Bruce Crosson,
Michael Geisser, Anthony Greene, James Johnson, and
Robert Singer. I thank them each for their advice and
instructive contributions to this dissertation. Deep
gratitude is especially given to my doctoral chairman,
Jim Johnson. Dr. Johnson's constant support, advisement
and enthusiasm were indispensable for the completion of
this project. Finally, I extend thanks and appreciation
to my dear friends and family who mean so much to me and
to whom I dedicate this work.
ii


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Robert Andrew Swoap was born in New Brunswick, New
Jersey, on October 28, 1965. He is the second of the four
sons of Joan and J.R. Swoap, and was raised in Houston and
Conroe, Texas. From 1983-1987, Bob attended Duke University
(and became a devoted follower of Blue Devil basketball)
graduating cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts degree in
psychology in May 1987. Four months later, Bob began
doctoral studies at the University of Florida where he
studied clinical and health psychology. Bob pursued a
special interest in sport psychology at the United States
Olympic Training Center as a clinical research assistant
from August 1990-July 1991. In September of 1991, Bob began
a predoctoral clinical psychology internship at the Medical
University of South Carolina. Beginning in September, 1992,
Bob will work at Duke University Medical Center in the
Behavioral Medicine Program as a Clinical Associate-
Postdoctoral fellow.
139


12
assessment procedure (i.e., the flume) to determine its
effects on swimmers' anxiety and performance.
Statements of the Problem
There were three primary purposes for conducting
this investigation: (1) to examine and compare the
effects of the components of anxiety (i.e., somatic vs.
cognitive) on swimming performance; (2) to determine how
the swimming stroke (from a biomechanical perspective) is
affected by different levels of externally-induced
anxiety; and (3) to determine whether current assessment
procedures at the International Center for Aquatic
Research are affected by a swimmer's testing history in
the flume.
Brief Overview of Study
High school swimmers (N=33) were matched for skill,
age, and competitive trait anxiety. Each was tested on
two trials in the motorized flume (i.e., "swimming
treadmill"). Prior to each trial, swimmers were given
self-report measures to assess their competitive state
anxiety, including cognitive and somatic anxiety, and had
their heart rate taken. During both trials, the subjects
were videotaped underwater to determine their swimming
efficiency using computer-aided biomechanical analyses.
A baseline efficiency was obtained during the first swim
while the swimmer was unaware of being filmed. The
second trial was conducted under one of three anxiety


I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Jam
H. Jo,
ison, Chair
Professor ofjciinical and
Health Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of-poctor^o£^hilosophy.
'EJrxice A. Crosson
Professor of Clinical and
Health Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Michael E. Geisser
Assistant Professor of Clinical
and Health Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Anthony f. (Greene
Assistant Professor of Clinical
and Health Psychology


97
Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological Reactions
to the Flume by Prior Testing History
MEASURE GROUP
NFlumed Filmed
State Anxiety (SAI)
Pre
41.4 (9.4)
34.7
(7.1)
Post
36.2 (9.5)
33.7
(8.6)
Cognitive Anxiety (CSAI-Cog)
Pre
17.6 (4.3)
14.2
(3.6)
Post
15.1 (4.2)
14.3
(4.3)
Somatic Anxiety
(CSAI-Som)
Pre
19.3 (6.3)
13.6
(4.1)
Post
14.1 (4.7)
13.2
(4.8)
Self-Confidence
(CSAI-SC)
Pre
23.0 (5.1)
26.8
(4.4)
Post
26.5 (5.9)
27.1
(5.3)


48
There have been more productive investigations
utilizing authentic competitive situations. These have
focused on the relationship between competitive trait
anxiety, competitive state anxiety, and athletic
performance on the field, in the pool, and so forth. For
example, Klavora (1978) reported that high school
basketball players had different "optimal arousal" levels
which correlated with their self-reported competitive
trait anxiety, where optimal arousal is defined as the
level of self-reported state anxiety at which the athlete
performs most successfully. Thus, low-trait anxious
players performed better when reporting low state
anxiety, while high-trait anxious players actually did
better when reporting a higher amount of state anxiety.
Smith and Smoll (1990) interpret Klavora's results as
suggesting "the possibility that optimal performance may
occur at a level of arousal that is similar to athletes'
customary level of anxiety rather than at a normative
level defined by the anxiety distribution for all
subjects" (p. 440).
Sonstroem and Bernardo (1982) investigated the
inverted-U theory with female collegiate basketball
players who had been assessed on both competitive trait
and state anxiety. Competitive trait anxiety was not
found to have a significant main effect on performance;
however, their results suggested that after controlling
for individual differences in competitive A-state, an


99
appear to be related to group membership and indeed the
interaction term approached significance [F=3.43, p=.06].
Table 6 reports the means of these variables, and that of
Ratings of Perceived Exertion which also demonstrated a
significant Time effect [F=6.33, pc.05] in a repeated
measures ANOVA. Swimming efficiency is also reported in
this table although no significant difference among
groups was discovered for this subset of the sample
(using a repeated measures ANOVA).
Finally, regression analyses identical to those
conducted on the entire sample were similarly
unproductive in providing a model predictive of swimming
efficiency. As before, a mixed model of regression was
used, first forcing the swimmers' best time in the 100
yard freestyle and scores on the SAS into the equation
(thus controlling for skill level and competitive trait
anxiety). Then a stepwise approach was used in an
attempt to enter state anxiety (SAI), competitive
cognitive anxiety (CSAI-Cog), competitive somatic anxiety
(CSAI-Som), competitive self-confidence (CSAI-SC), and/or
resting heart rate (RHR). Again, in this novice subset
of the sample, none of these variables accounted for a
significant portion of the variance in baseline swimming
efficiency when controlling for skill level and trait
sport anxiety. Finally, correlational analyses in this
subset were similar to the overall sample, except that
resting heart rate prior to the first swim was


70
(5) The swimmer warmed up in the flume for 2V2 min,
then was assessed for baseline freestyle efficiency at
approximately 80% of his or her maximum swimming speed.
(6) Exertional heart rate (EHR) and Ratings of Perceived
Exertion (RPE; Borg, 1962) were taken immediately
following the baseline swim.
(7) Instructions were provided regarding task demands
for the upcoming flume test. Instructions were designed
to create three anxiety conditions, and therefore three
groups (low, moderate, and high anxiety), prior to being
evaluated on the flume test.
(8) Psychological questionnaires (SAI, CSAI-2) were
administered to assess state anxiety following the
instructional manipulation.
(9) Resting heart rate was taken following a brief
recapitulation of the instructional manipulation.
(10) The swimmer warmed up in the flume for 1 min, and
then was assessed for freestyle efficiency at
approximately 80% of his or her maximum swimming speed.
It was during this phase that the swimmer was aware of
the filming.
(11) Exertional heart rate and Ratings of Perceived
Exertion were taken immediately following the evaluated
swim.
(12) Swimmers were debriefed after all had completed
their tests.


29
anxiety can be aroused without eliciting self-evaluation,
while certain conditions which are highly evaluative
elicit cognitive anxiety but not somatic state anxiety
(Burton, 1988; Morris, Harris, and Rovins, 1981).
Competitive anxiety can be further delineated using
state and trait anxiety terms, which have been described
previously. Hence, competitive state anxiety can be
defined as a condition prior to or during a competitive
situation "characterized by feelings of apprehension and
tension and associated with activation of the organism"
(Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990, p. 9), while
competitive trait anxiety is defined as a "situation-
specific modification of the more general A-trait
construct ... a tendency to perceive competitive
situations as threatening and to respond to these
situations with A-state" (p. 11).
Although it may be true that it cannot yet be
adequately explained why some athletes perceive threat in
the sport environment while others regard their sport
experiences as positive or benign (Lewthwaite, 1990) we
can at least define the stress/anxiety terms in a more
straightforward and consistent way. An appropriate
summary of the stress process which has four interrelated
stages is given by Gould and Krane (in press) who adapted
McGrath's (1970) process model of stress to sports.
First, an environmental situation or demand is placed on
the athlete. Second, the athlete must interpret this


28
Martens (1977) suggests that cognitive and somatic
anxiety are two separate components of competitive
anxiety. Burton (1988) writes that
Cognitive anxiety is the mental component of anxiety
caused by negative expectations about success or
negative self-evaluation, whereas somatic anxiety is
the physiological or affective component of anxiety
that is directly related to autonomic arousal.
Cognitive anxiety is characterized by worry,
negative self-talk, and unpleasant visual imagery,
whereas somatic anxiety is reflected in such
responses as rapid heart rate, shortness of breath,
clammy hands, butterflies in the stomach, and tense
muscles. (Burton, 1988, p. 46)
It has been proposed that these two components have
differential effects on performance (e.g., Burton, 1988;
Smith & Smoll, 1990; Weinberg, 1990) and thus the
comprehensive term "competitive anxiety" may not have
exclusively negative or positive effects (see a later
section entitled Relationship between Competitive Anxiety
and Performance).
Although the two components of anxiety are
hypothetically independent, Morris, Davis, and Hutchings
(1981) have suggested that they probably covary in
stressful situations since these situations contain
elements related to the stimulation of both somatic and
cognitive responses. A modest dependence has been
demonstrated in a number of studies (Deffenbacher, 1980;
Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990; Morris & Liebert, 1973).
However, conflicting evidence exists that suggests that
cognitive and somatic anxiety are independent, depending
on the situational stressor. That is, high somatic


83
television monitor of the flume was activated and
displayed.)
Upon receiving one of the set of instructions
swimmers were then administered the state anxiety
component (SAI) of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and
the Competition State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2) for the
second time. These questionnaires were to be used to
determine the level of anxiety that swimmers reported
directly prior to the flume session, and compared to
their baseline report. Resting heart rate was taken
subsequently to obtain a physiological measure of arousal
(this was following a standardized period of 10 min from
the end of the 30 sec swim). Each swimmer then underwent
the standard freestyle assessment in the flume to
evaluate propelling efficiency (knowing that he or she
would be filmed). The subject warmed up again for 1 min
at 50% of best time, then paused as the flume's speed was
increased to 80% of best time. Each subject then swam
for 30 secs, during which time he or she was videotaped.
The filming and digitization procedures (biomechanical
analysis) were identical to the baseline procedure as
described earlier. Immediately after the swimmer
completed this swim, exertional heart rate was taken and
the subject completed the Ratings of Perceived Exertion
scale (RPE).
Since the swimmers performed in the flume alone,
they were told not to discuss the study with any other


INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Both research and practice in the area of sport
psychology has increased during the last 10 years. This
is illustrated in the United States by a recent surge in
the formation of sport psychology-related organizations,
such as the Association for the Advancement of Applied
Sport Psychology and Division 47 of the American
Psychological Association (Exercise and Sport
Psychology), in addition to the North American Society
for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity. New
sport psychology journals are being published. These
include the Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. The
Sport Psychologist, and the Sport Psychology Training
Bulletin, in addition to the Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology.
Further, it appears that sport psychology services
are being used more frequently in a variety of sectors.
For example, in the mid-1970s there was isolated
involvement of a few national governing bodies (NGBs)
with sport psychologists, but by 1987 over half of the
NGBs in the U.S. were provided with some sport psychology
services for athletes and coaches (Murphy, 1988). A
recent survey documented that 16 of the NGBs now have
formal sport psychology programs, and that all of these
1


26
potentially harmful event; and (2) It is mediated by
psychological activities (e.g., perception, thought,
memory, and judgement) which are involved in the
appraisal process. An example comes from some
competitive sports in which athletes strive to perform at
peak levels under circumstances in which an opposing side
aims to restrict such performance (Madden et al., 1990).
The athlete must appraise the potential threat using
mental processing (i.e., accurate perception, careful
thought, recollections of previous interactions, etc.)
and must arrive at a reasonable judgement.
The concept of stress has also been described as an
intervening variable, linking two sets of factors
(stressors and stress reactions) together. Thus, the
stressfulness for an individual of any stressor varies,
depending on how he or she perceives the situation and on
how he or she perceives available coping resources
(Kimble, Garmezy, & Zigler, 1984). Stress has also been
defined very generally as "any behavioral response of an
organism to environmental stimulation" (Fenz, 1988, p.
223) .
With regard to sports, Scanlan (1984) states that
competition can be "stressful" due to extensive
evaluation of ability and competence, and that
competitive stress is a negative emotional reaction an
athlete feels when self-esteem is threatened. "It is
his/her perceptions of inadequacy in successfully meeting


114
Implications for Future Research
Although this study was designed to elicit anxiety in a
controlled measurable setting, the swimmers did not report
excessive anxiety prior to either swim. Thus, the situation
in which testing took place and/or the instructional sets
may not have been threatening enough to the swimmers' self
esteem to impact on performance. Here, it can be noted that
threat to self-esteem appears to be the most important
aspect of cognitive anxiety in sports performance
(Lewthwaite, 1990; Scanlan et al., 1991). The problem
appears to be that the flume, despite its being a practical
and useful setting to obtain quantifiable data on swimming
efficiency, is apparently only threatening before one has
warmed-up in it. It could be suggested that underwater
filming which takes place in a regular pool during a
competitive swim would be a more realistic assessment of a
swimmer in a potentially anxiety-provoking situation. While
this can be done relatively easily for qualitative
assessment of stroke performance, it would be much more
difficult to calculate propelling efficiency via this method
(due to the necessity of having a large three dimensional
figure underwater as a reference point).
In this study, anecdotal information obtained during
the debriefing suggested that the manipulation and flume
testing were not a major threat to self-esteem. In fact,
several subjects indicated that the testing situation was
not challenging enough. Thus, it could be suggested that


50
potential consequences); and the personal meaning
that the consequences have for the individual.
(Smith & Smoll, 1990, p. 422)
It is clear that higher levels of competitive state
anxiety are typically found under competitive conditions
as compared to practice conditions (Bird & Horn, 1990;
Klavora, 1978). However, it is not clear how competitive
anxiety actually affects performance. In an attempt to
clarify this situation, an additional conceptualization
is examined.
Cognitive and somatic anxiety
As described earlier, multidimensional anxiety
theory postulates that competitive anxiety is comprised
of two major components: cognitive anxiety and somatic
anxiety. Cognitive anxiety may be composed of worry,
negative self-talk, fear of evaluation, and so forth. As
such, and in its strict sense, cognitive anxiety is
experienced as a negative emotion. Thus, some have
postulated the relationship of competitive state anxiety
to performance as one of a negative, linear nature
(Burton, 1988; Martens et al., 1983), whereas the somatic
component of competitive anxiety (considered similar to
"arousal") may demonstrate an inverted-U relationship to
performance. This may be because "somatic anxiety" is
simply a perception of physiological arousal. Adopting
this conceptualization, an athlete who feels the classic
"butterflies in the stomach" may perform better than when
he or she either perceives no physiological arousal (and


Ill
(and the other psychological variables) were not significant
predictors of efficiency in the flume, they were
significantly related to the swimmers7 best time. That is,
the best swimmers reported the lowest anxiety and highest
self-confidence prior to the flume evaluation. This
correlational finding makes intuitive sense and is likely
due to a combination of experience level and mastery. That
is, the better swimmers have likely had more experience and
success in competitive situations as compared to those with
worse times. Therefore, they may approach competitive
situations (or a simulated competitive experience such as
the flume) with more confidence and less anxiety.
Interestingly, though, there was no significant relationship
between the swimmers7 skill level (best time) and their
immediate performance (propelling efficiency) in the flume.
It is unclear as to why a significant relationship was not
demonstrated. As suggested earlier, it is possible that the
biomechanical efficiency measures obtained during an 80%
flume speed test are less related to skill level than are
those obtained at a higher flume speed (e.g., 95%).
Summary and Conclusions
It was intended that the current study would contribute
to knowledge regarding the anxiety-sports performance
relationship in two important ways. First, the flume
provided a unique setting in which to examine the anxiety-
performance relationship. There are no existing studies


107
low. It is possible that propelling efficiency measures
obtained during an 80% flume speed test are less prone to
effects of anxiety than are those obtained at a higher flume
speed (e.g., 95%). This latter speed was not utilized in
the present study because it was deemed more important to
obtain one and only one trial per flume test. That is, if
the speed of the flume had been set to 95% of the swimmer's
maximum speed (a more difficult and potentially more
anxiety-inducing level), more than one trial would have
likely been needed to obtain a clean trial (i.e., not
affected by false starts and multiple practice).
Differences in the number of trials needed to obtain a clean
trial would likely have influenced effects of evaluative
anxiety. It would have been difficult to determine whether
changes in anxiety and efficiency were related more to how
many trials it took the swimmer to get used to the full-
speed flume, or more dependent on the instructional
manipulation.
Thus, under the 80% flume speed testing protocol,
swimmers may have felt that they could accomplish the task
without much problem regardless of the instructions that
they received and thus demonstrated minimal anxiety. This
may also have been the case with those swimmers who had
never been in the flume before. That is, there were
probably no anxiety-inducing instructions that could have
overcome the anxiety-reducing effect of having swum
successfully in the flume once, and realizing that it was


TABLE OF CONTENTS
gage
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT V
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1
Statements of the Problem 12
Brief Overview of Study 12
Hypotheses 13
Definitions of Terms 15
Assumptions 18
Limitations 19
Significance of the Study 20
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 22
Concepts and Definitions 22
Anxiety and Stress 22
Arousal and Activation 3 0
Summary of Concepts 34
Relationship of Anxiety and Arousal to Performance. 35
Arousal 3 6
Competitive Anxiety 46
Problems with the Literature and Researchers'
Recommendations 58
Summary of Literature Review and Restatement
of Need for Current Study 63
PROCEDURES 67
Subjects 67
Procedural Overview 68
Measures 71
Methodology 79
RESULTS 85
Subjects 85
Effects of Anxiety Manipulations 86
Swimming Efficiency 90
Within-Subject Analyses 93
Effects of Prior Flume Testing 94
Separate Examination of Subjects New to the Flume.. 98
iii


7
suggested that these two anxiety components have
different effects on competitive performance. They
suggest that somatic state anxiety will reach its peak at
the onset of competition and will dissipate once the
contest starts. Thus, they argue, somatic anxiety
(unless very high and attentionally distracting) should
influence performance less than should cognitive anxiety.
Cognitive anxiety, consisting of negative expectations
about success in performing a task, appears to occur both
before and throughout a performance, and thus may be more
important to the outcome (Martens, Vealey, & Burton,
1990).
The principle question regarding anxiety and sports
performance is how athletes react (cognitively,
physiologically, emotionally, behaviorally) to
"stressful" situations (e.g., competing in a loud,
hostile stadium; competing against an opponent that the
athlete knows nothing about; adjusting to a different
climate and race course). Despite definitional,
methodological, and conceptual problems surrounding
athletes' reactions to anxiety, there exists sufficient
research to suggest that anxiety affects athletic
performance. Although this topic will be addressed fully
in the literature review, it is important to briefly
present information on what is known about the potential
effects of anxiety on performance directly, as well as on


60
Thus, the manner in which individuals organize their
motions in the execution of motor skills is the crux of
the investigation (cf. Beuter & Duda, 1985; Weinberg &
Hunt, 1976; Weinberg, 1978). Martens, Vealey, and Burton
(1990) concur and recommend that one way to improve the
predictive ability for the relationship between anxiety
and performance is to focus on qualitative aspects of
performance as opposed to quantitative. Thus, using
electromyographic or kinematic measures, for example, may
more sufficiently address the question of how sport
performance is affected by anxiety.
A study specifically relevant to this recommendation
(and to the current investigation) involved examining the
effects of anxiety on the motor performance of children
during a stepping task over three obstacles (Beuter &
Duda, 1985). The investigators created two conditions
for each subject during the stepping task: (1) an
informal assessment or low anxiety condition, and (2) a
high anxiety condition which involved creating a
stressful social situation that incorporated evaluation,
competition, and threat to self-esteem. Using digitized
videotaped recordings of the subjects' stepping motions
to examine the kinematic characteristics of motion and a
within-subjects design, it was demonstrated that the two
anxiety conditions created significantly different
movements in the ankle joint.


27
the performance demands, and his/her perceptions of the
consequences of failure, that create the threat to self
esteem which triggers the stress reaction" (Scanlan,
1984, p. 119).
In a more recent paper, Scanlan and her colleagues
(1991) define competitive stress as an encompassing
condition where the athlete experiences negative
emotions, feelings, and thoughts that might occur with
respect to a competitive experience. "These would
include feelings of apprehension, anxiety, muscle
tension, nervousness, physical reactions (such as
butterflies in the stomach, shaking, or nervous
sweating), thoughts centered on worry and self-doubt, and
negative statements to yourself" (Scanlan et al., 1991,
p. 105). Martens, Vealey, and Burton (1990) comment on
how stress is related to anxiety suggesting that stress
occurs under conditions in which failure to meet demands
is perceived as having important consequences and is thus
responded to with increased levels of state anxiety.
Competitive anxiety appears to be solely defined as
a response variable (i.e., an athlete can respond to a
competitive stressor with competitive anxiety).
Competitive anxiety is the more prevalent term in the
literature to describe the reaction to a "stressful"
competitive situation. Utilizing Spielberger's (1966,
1972) and others (Borkovek, 1976; Liebert & Morris, 1967)
suggestions that anxiety is a multidimensional construct,


38
narrowly to detect receivers open in the periphery,
or more important, a blitzing outside linebacker.
Some feel that the inverted-U hypothesis is not very
useful in understanding the arousal-performance
relationship (Cooke, 1982; Kerr, 1989; Welford, 1976).
It appears that this stance has been taken since
"performance-degrading dysphoric psychobiological states
and performance-enhancing euphoric ones can occur at
equal arousal levels. Global arousal, then, could only
serve to obscure the profound individual differences with
which humans approach important motor performances"
(Neiss, 1988b, p. 154). Eysenck (1982) points out that
the singular notion of arousal is inadequate and must be
replaced by more complex conceptualizations. Kerr (1989)
similarly feels that the optimal arousal theory is
limited in its singular optimal state and homeostatic
basis. He cites several notable psychologists who are
opposed to the basic principles of the homeostatic
construct (cf. Allport, 1960; Buhler, 1959; Frankl, 1969;
Harlow, 1953; Maslow, 1954). Apter (1982), for example,
identifies four terms (anxiety, excitement, boredom, and
relaxation), "which are reflections of pleasant,
unpleasant, and high and low arousal, questioning the
ability of optimal arousal theory to distinguish between
them" (Kerr, 1989, p. 140).
In a recent series of articles, Neiss and Anderson
(Anderson, 1990; Neiss, 1988a, 1990) engage in the debate


REFERENCES
Abdel-Aziz, Y. I., & Karara, H. M. (1971). Direct linear
transformation: From comparator coordinates into
object coordinates in close-range photogrammetry.
Proceedings of the ASPUI Symposium of the American
Society of Photogrammetry, Church Falls, VA.
Albrecht, R. R., & Felt, D. L. (1987). Generality and
specificity of attention related to competitive
anxiety and sport performance. Journal of Sport
Psychology. 9, 231-248.
Allison, M. T. (1991). Role conflict and the female
athlete: Preoccupations with little grounding.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 2 49-60.
Allport, G. W. (1960). Personality and social encounter.
Boston: Beacon Press.
American Psychiatric Association (1987). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders, third edition
revised. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric
Association.
Anderson, K. J. (1990). Arousal and the inverted-U
hypothesis: A critique of Neiss's "Reconceptualizing
Arousal." Psychological Bulletin. 107. 96-100.
Apter, M. J. (1982). The experience of motivation: The
theory of psychological reversals. London: Academic
Press.
Apter, M. J. (1984). Reversal theory and personality: A
review. Journal of Research in Personality. 18, 265-
288.
Baddeley, A. D. (1972). Selective attention and
performance in dangerous environments. British
Journal of Psychology. 63. 537-546.
Bahrick, H. P, Fitts, P. M., & Rankin, R. E. (1952).
Effect of incentives upon reactions to peripheral
stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 44.,
400-406.
119


120
Barnes, M. W. Sime, W. Dienstbier, R., & Plake, B.
(1986). A test of construct validity of the CSAI-2
questionnaire on male elite college swimmers.
International Journal of Sport Psychology. 17. 364-
374.
Beuter, A., & Duda, J. L. (1985). Analysis of the
arousal/motor performance relationship in children
using movement kinematics. Journal of Sport
Psychology. 7, 229-243.
Bird, A. M., & Horn, M. A. (1990). Cognitive anxiety and
mental errors in sport. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology. 12, 217-222.
Blinde, E. M., & Tierney, J. E. (1990). Diffusion of
sport psychology into elite U.S. Swimming programs.
The Sport Psychologist. 4, 130-144.
Borg, G. (1962). Physical performance and perceived
exertion. Lund, Sweden: Gleerup.
Borg, G., & Noble, B. J. (1974). Perceived exertion. In
J. Wilmore (Ed.), Exercise and sport sciences reviews
(pp. 131-153). New York: Academic Press.
Borkovek, T. D. (1976). Physiological and cognitive
processes in the regulation of anxiety. In G.
Schwartz & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self
regulation: Advances in research (Vol. 1, pp. 261-
312). New York: Plenum Press.
Brewer, B. W., Van Raalte, J. L., & Linder, D. E. (1991).
Role of the sport psychologist in treating injured
athletes: A survey of sports medicine providers.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 3, 183-190.
Broadbent, D. E. (1971). Decision and stress. London:
Academic Press.
Broadhurst, P. L. (1957). Emotionality and the Yerkes-
Dodson law. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 54,
345-352.
Brodkin, P., & Weiss, M. R. (1990). Developmental
differences in motivation for partipating in
competitive swimming. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology. 12, 248-263.
Brustad, R., & Weiss, M. R. (1987). Competence
perceptions and sources of worry in high, medium and
low competitive trait-anxious young athletes.
Journal of Sport Psychology. 9, 97-105.


58
Problems with the Literature and Researchers'
Recommendations
Bird and Horn (1990) address the question of why
there has been such inconclusive research in the area of
competitive anxiety and sport performance. They
entertain the notion that there could be problems with
the assessment of competition anxiety. However, they
conclude that the CSAI-2 has been the most extensively
used instrument and has been well-validated as measuring
the three constructs of cognitive anxiety, somatic
anxiety, and self-confidence. Next, there could be
problems with the methodology of the field studies. This
was evident in studies in which external validity was
questionable (Gould et al., 1987), opponents varied
(Gould, Petlichkoff, & Weinberg, 1984), and in which
situational characteristics differed (McCauley, 1985).
In addition to the comments from Bird and Horn
(1990) regarding the inconsistent anxiety/performance
relationship findings, Gould and his colleagues have
addressed this issue (Gould et al., 1987; Gould & Krane,
in press). Gould and Krane propose that investigators
must meet four conditions in an attempt to explain the
arousal/performance relationship. In these
recommendations, Gould and Krane use the term "arousal"
where "anxiety" is the more appropriate term. In the
present discussion, the term "anxiety" is substituted.
It is recommended that the investigators must (1)


34
anxiety. However, only the second individual will report
cognitive anxiety. This distinction is vital, as will be
shown in the following section, in determining the
effects of anxiety and arousal on sports performance.
Summary of Concepts
Activation and arousal are assumed to be synonymous
constructs. The term arousal will be used in this paper
and is defined as a general indicator of physiological
energy and intensity. It is not synonymous with anxiety
as a whole, but is similar to the subcomponent, somatic
anxiety. However, somatic anxiety is not a well-
understood construct. In this paper, somatic anxiety is
operationally defined as (measured by) an individual's
perception of physiological arousal (e.g., how hard my
heart is beating). Further, the definition of somatic
anxiety is not exclusive of cognitive anxiety since an
individual's perceptions of physiological arousal may be
greatly affected by anxious thoughts.
Cognitive anxiety, while able to cause increases in
physiological arousal, is not synonymous with arousal.
Cognitive anxiety can be determined to be either a cause
or result of increased physiological arousal, and in some
cases may be independent of arousal. It is defined in
this paper in terms of negative thoughts associated with
perceptions about success or thoughts involving negative
self-evaluation.


90
Swimming Efficiency
The next major analysis was the comparison of
freestyle swimming efficiency in the flume by group. For
this analysis, the freestyle arm stroke was examined to
determine its efficiency to propel the swimmer forward
through the water. First, overall propelling efficiency
was examined. As described in the measures section,
propelling efficiency can be defined as the amount of arm
force used to propel the body forward (RE, or effective
force) divided by the total force that the swimmer's arm
is producing (R, or total force), and is expressed as a
percentage. In this analysis, video data for one subject
in the Moderate anxiety group was missing for the post
swim.
There was no significant difference among the groups
on baseline propelling efficiency as determined by a one
way ANOVA [F(2,29)=.07, p=.93]. A repeated measures
ANOVA was then conducted to examine the effect of the
experimental manipulation on changes in freestyle
propelling efficiency across the three groups. Thus,
changes in efficiency from baseline (unevaluated swim) to
the second swim (which followed the instructional
manipulation) were determined and compared across the
three groups. This analysis was designed to determine
the extent to which performance was a function of group
membership (i.e., different anxiety conditions). The
analysis revealed neither a significant between-subjects


I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Robert N.^E&ftger
Professor of Exercise and
Sport Sciences
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the College of Health Related Professions and to the
Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
August 1992
y
Dean, College of Health Related
Professions
Dean, Graduate School


118
worthwhile to attempt this study under more advantageous
circumstances. Perhaps the implementation of a more
powerful anxiety manipulation, combined with the use of all
naive subjects, would provide more valuable data. It is
maintained, then, that conducting research within the
anxiety-performance area is a viable and justifiable
endeavor, with the potential for the gathering and
evaluating of valuable information.


21
In addition to providing information that could be
useful to swimming, this study was expected to contribute
to the body of knowledge associated with the potential
relationship between anxiety and sports performance. As
will be demonstrated in the following section, there are
significant questions as to how athletes respond to
anxiety in a competitive context. It was expected that a
significant contribution of this study would be to expand
upon and clarify the anxiety-performance relationship.
The current investigation also constituted an
attempt to pool the resources of a sport-specific sports
science team (U.S. Swimming, International Center for
Aquatic Research) with sport psychology in a joint effort
to investigate a specific question (i.e., examining the
accuracy of flume assessments with anxious subjects) and
a larger issue (i.e., investigating the relationship
between anxiety and sports performance). As such, it
reflected an integration of different disciplines within
the sports sciences (e.g., biomechanics, motor control,
physiology, and sport psychology) and was expected to
provide a useful model for future multidisciplinary
projects. In general, then, it was expected that this
study would contribute to the literature concerning the
relationship between anxiety and a specific type of
athletic performance (swimming).


80
what was described as a "familiarizing practice session"
in the flume. Here, swimmers were instructed to swim
freestyle to warm-up at a very easy pace (50% of maximum
speed for a 100 yard freestyle event) for approximately
21/2 min.
The swimmers were then instructed that the speed of
the flume would be increased (to 80% of the swimmer's
best time) "so that you can get the feel of the flume's
speed as it will be when you are tested." They were then
instructed to swim for 30 secs at this speed. In this
phase, no mention was made of videotaping, although the
swimmers were filmed to provide the experimenter a
reliable baseline assessment of freestyle mechanics which
was as unaffected as possible by evaluative performance
anxiety. As stated in the measures section, the segment
of the video which was digitized for hydrodynamic
biomechanical analysis was approximately five strokes
from the end of the swim, providing an accurate and
stable baseline assessment (J. M. Cappaert, Sport Science
Biomechanist, personal communication, 1990). Immediately
after the swimmer completed the 80% swim, exertional
heart rate (EHR) was taken and the subject completed the
Ratings of Perceived Exertion scale (RPE).
Following the baseline filming phase, the
experimenter read to each subject one of three sets of
instructions designed to experimentally manipulate the
amount of anxiety that the swimmer experienced. The


54
experimenter designed competition and "may have lacked
sufficient external validity" (Burton, 1988, p. 49).
McCauley (1985) found no relationship between either
cognitive or somatic competitive anxiety and golf
performance over 10 rounds of tournament golf. However,
as Bird and Horn (1990) and Gould et al. (1987) point
out, McCauley's findings of nonsignificance may have been
confounded by changing task demands (i.e., different golf
courses). A recent study also did not demonstrate any
significant relationship between competitive state
anxiety (both cognitive and somatic) and cycling
performance on stationary bicycles (Caruso, Dzewaltowski,
Gill, & McElroy, 1990). Once again, the authors admit
that "the task in the present study was not cognitively
demanding nor did it require complex motor skills that
would lead to performance impairment as a result of
anxiety. Additionally, the contrived competition did not
induce high levels of anxiety" (p. 18).
Karteroliotis and Gill (1987) examined the
relationships of cognitive worry, somatic anxiety, and
self-confidence to motor performance during a simulated
laboratory competition on a pegboard task. This study
revealed little support for their predicted inverse
relationship between cognitive worry and performance. It
was also concluded that both self-reported somatic
anxiety and physiological arousal were unrelated to motor
performance at any stage of the experiment. However,


101
significantly related to overall propelling efficiency
(r=.52, p<.01).


134
11. My heart races.
12. I feel my stomach sinking.
13. I'm concerned about performing poorly.
14. I have lapses in concentration during competition
because of nervousness.
15. I sometimes find myself trembling before or during
a competitive event.
16. I'm worried about reaching my goal.
17. My body feels tight.
18. I'm concerned that others will be disappointed
with my performance.
19. My stomach gets upset before or during
competition.
20. I'm concerned I won't be able to concentrate.
21. My heart pounds before competition.


136
Competitive State Anxiety Inventory 2
Directions: A number of statements which athletes have used
to describe their feelings before undergoing testing in the
flume are given below. Read each statement and indicate how
you feel right now at this moment, using the following
scale. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend
too much time on any one statement, but choose the answere
which describes you feelings right now.
1 = Not at all
2 = Somewhat
3 = Moderately so
4 = Very much so
1. I am concerned about the flume testing.
2. I feel nervous.
3. I feel at ease.
4. I have self-doubts.
5. I feel jittery.
6. I feel comfortable.
7. I am concerned that I may not do as well in
this testing as I could.
8. My body feels tense.
9. I feel self-confident.
10. I am concerned about doing worse than others.
11. I feel tense in my stomach.
12. I feel secure.
13. I am concerned about choking under pressure.
14. My body feels relaxed.
15. I'm confident I can meet the challenge.
16. I'm concerned about performing poorly.
17. My heart is racing.
18. I'm confident about performing well.


42
Saslow, 1955; Stennett, 1957). For example, Broadhurst
(1957) suspected that rats placed in a situation of
intense motivation (oxygen deprivation) would
consequently demonstrate fear and arousal affecting the
learning task. He hypothesized that under the stressful
condition, rats would learn faster on the easy task, but
more slowly on the hard task. His results confirmed the
task complexity aspect of the Yerkes-Dodson law in that
"the optimum motivation for a discrimination task
demonstrably decreases with increasing difficulty of the
task" (p. 348) .
In addition to changes with task complexity,
increases in "drive" (emotional arousal or general covert
excitement) are associated with a reduction in the range
of cue use (Easterbrook, 1959). Bahrick, Fitts, and
Rankin (1952) tested the hypothesis that an increase in
incentive causes increased perceptual selectiveness
favoring those parts of the stimulus field deemed by the
subject as most relevant to the expected reward. The
researchers utilized a continuous central-tracking task,
with intermittent stimuli detectable in the periphery.
It was discovered that while increasing motivation with
incentives (monetary bonuses) was beneficial for tracking
the central task, peripheral proficiency declined.
Easterbrook explained that "the effect of added drive
cannot be described unequivocally as either facilitation
or disruption, but it can certainly be described as a


73
training and supervision of the Biomechanics Department
of the Sports Science Division of the United States
Olympic Committee. The director of the Biomechanics
Department of United States Swimming also provided
assistance to the digitizer and to the principal
investigator. The utilization of only one digitizer was
designed to increase the reliability of the biomechanical
analyses across and within subjects. The digitizer was
blind to the conditions of the study, and only worked for
2-3 hour sessions. PEAK Performance equipment was used
for the digitizing.
Heart rate
Heart rate was assessed by the principal
investigator by palpating the radial or carotid artery
for 15 secs and extrapolating to obtain heart rate as the
number of beats per minute (bpm). To obtain resting
heart rates, subjects sat quietly for 10 min prior to a
reading, and remained motionless while their heart rate
was assessed. To obtain exertional heart rates, the
swimmers' carotid artery was palpated for the 15 secs
directly following a swim in the flume (while the swimmer
was still in the water). Heart rate was used for two
purposes. The first was to compare resting heart rates
prior to the "unevaluated" warm-up and prior to the post-
instructional flume evaluation. This was to provide an
indicator of reactivity to different evaluative and
stressful conditions. The second was to monitor heart


93
Within-Subiect Analyses
Regression analyses were used to examine the
relationship between freestyle swimming efficiency and
the anxiety measures (independent of group membership),
while controlling for swimming skill and competitive
trait anxiety. A multiple regression model was
constructed to determine the individual and interactive
effects of anxiety (state measures of anxiety) and
physiological arousal (resting heart rate prior to
baseline swim) on swimming stroke efficiency. A mixed
model of regression was used, first forcing the swimmers7
best time in the 100 yard freestyle and scores on the SAS
into the equation (thus controlling for skill level and
competitive trait anxiety). Then a stepwise approach was
used in an attempt to enter state anxiety (SAI),
competitive cognitive anxiety (CSAI-Cog), competitive
somatic anxiety (CSAI-Som), competitive self-confidence
(CSAI-SC), and/or resting heart rate (RHR). However,
none of these variables accounted for a significant
portion of the variance in baseline swimming efficiency
when controlling for skill level and trait sport anxiety.
This same analysis was conducted using the post-scores
and second swim, but also did not provide a useful
predictive model.
Simple Pearson's correlation coefficients were also
calculated for baseline variables. Most of the
significant correlations are between the self-report


19
1. Subjects would be able to swim the freestyle
stroke in the flume during a testing procedure.
2. The flume would provide an adequate assessment
of swimming technique in high school swimmers.
3. The anxiety manipulations and flume testing
procedure would present a significantly stressful
situation to swimmers (especially for those naive to the
flume). This assumption was made on the basis of
literature which suggests that evaluative situations
involving some threat to perceived ability or skills are
highly anxiety-producing (Beuter & Duda, 1985; Brustad &
Weiss, 1987; Burton, 1988; Gould et al., 1987;
Lewthwaite, 1990; Scanlan, 1984). It was assumed that
subjects' reactions to the flume testing procedures would
be fairly representative of how high school swimmers
react (psychologically, physiologically, and
biomechanically) to varying stressful conditions.
4. Subjects would be able to accurately respond to
paper and pencil questionnaires which assess thoughts of
anxiety.
Limitations
1. Due to limitations placed on the investigator
for data collection by U.S. Swimming, the flume testing
procedure was not novel to approximately one-third of the
subjects. The original intention was to include only
subjects who had not previously experienced the flume.


108
not as difficult as it may have appeared. This appears to
be the main reason that the instructional manipulations were
ineffective. Post-study interviews and debriefings
confirmed that many of the swimmers (primarily those novice
to the flume) had felt a bit anxious prior to the first
swim, but that they had not worried much about who was
watching them or about the use of the videotapes during the
second swim, since they felt that they had quickly mastered
swimming in the flume.
It has been suggested that task difficulty is an
important component of the arousal-motor performance
relationship. According to the Yerkes-Dodson law: "The
optimum level of arousal is a decreasing monotonic function
of the difficulty of the task" (Hockey, 1979, p. 143). This
function has not been demonstrated to apply to the
relationship between anxiety and motor performance, although
some have suggested that task difficulty is important in
determining the nature of the relationship in sports (Hanin,
1980, 1986; Jones & Hardy, 1989; Oxendine, 1970, 1980). In
the current study, a case could be made that the task
difficulty was low and that the subjects were neither
aroused greatly nor anxious, as suggested by the normative
data presented earlier.
Another factor which potentially diminished any effects
was the skill level of the subjects (average high school
swimmer). It is clear that their freestyle strokes are not
as finely tuned as a swimmer of Olympic-caliber (whose


56
a timely and appropriate measure of anxiety; the
Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) was given
10 min prior to the road race. (2) An adequate aspect
of performance was assessed. (3) Subjects were fairly
homogeneous in skill level and ability. (4) The meaning
and significance of the field setting task was probably
quite high to the subjects since it involved a time trial
race. A drawback to the study was its correlational
design, making an empirical test of the nature of the
anxiety-performance relationship unfeasible.
Additionally, the authors acknowledge that even stronger
results may have been obtained had an intraindividual
design and analysis been utilized.
Another pertinent study was conducted by Burton
(1988), who administered the CSAI-2 to collegiate
swimmers prior to different situations (e.g., early
season meet, mid-season meet, and conference
championships), using race event times as performance
outcome measures. Burton, in drawing from the cognitive
psychology literature (e.g., Easterbrook, 1959; Wine,
1971) hypothesized that cognitive anxiety would misdirect
attention from task-relevant cues to irrelevant cues
(e.g., social evaluative cues), and thus would cause
performance to decrease linearly. On the other hand,
somatic anxiety was hypothesized to demonstrate the more
traditional inverted-U relationship with performance
(although it is difficult to discern whether Burton's


57
"low arousal" division was truly underarousal, a
necessary component for fully supporting an inverted-U
relationship between anxiety and performance, or whether
it was simply a lack of reported anxiety). The results
of Burton's investigation indicated that cognitive
anxiety was more consistently and strongly (negatively
and linearly) related to swimmers' performance than was
somatic anxiety (i.e., self-reported arousal).
A slightly different approach was taken by Bird and
Horn (1990) who tested the relationship between level of
competitive anxiety and mental errors in a sport setting
(i.e., softball game). Prior to a game, the athletes
completed the CSAI-2. Their anxiety levels were examined
after classifying the players into two groups as a
function of mental errors committed during the game (as
assessed by their coach). The investigators found that
players in the two groups (high vs. low mental errors)
differed only on pre-game cognitive anxiety, and not on
somatic anxiety. This finding is not surprising as the
outcome measure of mental errors seems intuitively most
related to cognitive anxiety. Comprehensive performance
was not examined in which certain aspects (e.g.,
overrunning a fly ball) may be more related to somatic
anxiety.


64
response to a threatening situation. This threat can be
an objective or subjective one, and can be of
environmental, social or intrapersonal origin. The
dimensions of anxiety include state and trait, and
cognitive and somatic. Each of the dimensions has been
suggested to have different effects on competing
athletes.
For example, competitive trait anxiety is primarily
an intervening variable which directly affects the amount
of state anxiety that an athlete may perceive in a
specific sport situation. Cognitive and somatic anxiety
(as interrelated components of competitive state anxiety)
are also thought to have different effects on
performance. Competitive cognitive anxiety in its strict
sense will generally be detrimental to performance. As
an athlete's cognitive anxiety rises during a
competition, it is suggested that his or her performance
will suffer accordingly and in a linear fashion. This
seems to be due primarily to a focus on irrelevant cues
(e.g., negative self-talk, the spectators).
The relationship between somatic anxiety and sport
performance is often thought to be one of an inverted-U
nature. This hypothesis is drawn from the research that
suggests that this type of relationship exists between
arousal and performance. Somatic anxiety and arousal,
though not identical, can be seen as similar constructs.
The primary difference is that somatic anxiety appears to


14
Bird and Horn (1990) who found that cognitive anxiety was
positively related to mental errors, and Burton (1988)
who concluded that cognitive anxiety was negatively
related to swimming performance). Cognitive psychology
research (e.g., Wine, 1971, 1980) also lends support and
suggests that with increasing cognitive anxiety,
individuals become more preoccupied with self-evaluation
and possible failure thus disrupting performance.
2. Independent of the groups, performance
decrements will be most pronounced in those swimmers who
demonstrate the greatest increases in cognitive anxiety
from baseline to evaluated swims (determined by
correlational and regression analyses). For these
swimmers, an evaluated flume swim may seem more difficult
and be associated with a greater perceived threat, a more
negative anxiety reaction, and thus a greater decrement
in swimming efficiency (cf. Beuter & Duda, 1985; Brustad
& Weiss, 1987; Lewthwaite, 1990). Testing of this
hypothesis is supported by researchers who suggest that
intra-individual analyses in anxiety-performance research
is meaningful and needed (Gould & Krane, in press;
Sonstroem & Bernardo, 1982; Weinberg, 1990).
3. Cognitive state anxiety will have a more
profound negative effect on performance than somatic
state anxiety. As a result of previous research (Burton,
1988; Feltz, Landers, & Raeder, 1979; Gould et al., 1987;
Martens et al., 1983; Rosenthal, 1968; Sarason, 1975;


65
have a perceptual component. That is, an individual's
arousal level is basically a measurable entity (e.g.,
EMG, EEG, palmar sweating, heart rate, respiration) while
somatic anxiety is assessed by self-report and thus is a
subjective measure of the individual's perceived arousal.
It has been suggested that there exists an optimal level
of physiological arousal (and the related somatic
anxiety) for athletes, which is dependent on the sport's
tasks (e.g., attention demands, strength requirements),
and on individual differences.
As demonstrated in this review, the manner in which
anxiety and arousal are related to sport and motor
performance has not been consistently demonstrated.
Although the inverted-U hypothesis has been a prevalent
theory in explaining the relationship between arousal
(and somatic anxiety) and motor performance, it has its
detractors (cf. Eysenck, 1982; Karteroliotis & Gill,
1987; Kerr, 1989; Neiss 1988a, 1988b, 1990; Powell &
Verner, 1982). Similarly, although the relationship of
cognitive anxiety or worry to performance has been
suggested to be a linear, negative one, this has been by
no means established.
In this author's view, many of the problems with
this literature are related to the faulty methodology and
conceptualization of the issue. This is an unfortunate
state of the literature and field since there is a need
for both basic researchers and sport psychology consumers


79
Methodology
Prior to the study in the flume, the experimenter
traveled to the swimmers' training pools and obtained
informed consent from each of them indicating that during
the study he or she would be videotaped at various times
in the flume, complete several self-report
questionnaires, and have their heart rate taken. They
were then administered the Sport Anxiety Scale (SAS) to
determine sport-specific trait anxiety. At this time,
skill level was determined by obtaining each swimmer's
best 100 yd freestyle time during the past competitive
season by self-report and cross validation with the
swimmer's coach. These two variables were used along
with age for group assignment such that the three groups
(i.e., low, moderate, and high anxiety; described
subsequently) were equivalent on three variables (SAS,
best freestyle time, and age). Additionally, subjects
were assigned so that each group would have two or three
males and eight or nine females (11 total in each group).
Upon arriving at the U.S. Swimming center, each
swimmer was administered the State Anxiety Inventory
(SAI), the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2),
and the one-item measure of the importance that the
swimmer attributed to the upcoming flume test. After the
completion of these measures, heart rate was taken as
specified in the measures section to provide a resting
heart rate (RHR) measure. Next, swimmers participated in


100
Table 6
Means and Standard Deviations of Reactions to the Flume
by Group
MEASURE
Low
GROUP
Moderate
Hiah
State Anxiety (SAI)
Pre
43.7
(6.2)
41.3
(13.8)
39.4
(6.7)
Post
32.0
(6.4)
38.4
(11.4)
37.6
(10.0)
Cognitive
Anxiety (CSAI-Cog)
Pre
18.0
(3.9)
19.0
(5.9)
15.7
(2.1)
Post
12.8
(2.4)
16.0
(5.1)
16.1
(4.3)
Somatic Anxiety (CSAI
-Som)
Pre
19.5
(5.2)
20.3
(8.6)
18.0
(5.0)
Post
13.0
(2.1)
14.4
(5.0)
14.6
(6.4)
Self-Confidence (CSAI
-SC)
Pre
21.8
(3.9)
22.6
(7.1)
24.3
(3.9)
Post
27.7
(4.5)
26.6
(7.2)
25.4
(6.3)
Ratings of
Perceived
Exertion
(RPE)
Pre
11.5
(0.5)
11.0
(2.5)
11.6
(1.6)
Post
12.5
(2.3)
11.9
(2.5)
12.4
(1.5)
Swimming Efficiency (%)
Pre
57.4
(8.0)
53.2
(17.4)
58.3
(10.5)
Post
60.6
(4.8)
60.5
(10.0)
58.9
(9.2)


41
postulated by the inverted-U: "Response simply fails to
occur on occasions when it should do so. The typical
decrement produced by sleeplessness is that of the pause
in which no reaction occurs" (p. 425). Yet aside from
research examining sleep-deprived individuals (Kjellberg,
1977; Wilkinson, 1961) there have been few examinations
of subjects' performances under conditions of low
arousal. Moreover, many researchers report that the
inverted-U relationship was validated in their study,
when in actuality, only the component suggesting that
excessive arousal is detrimental to performance is
validated. This is especially important in sport
psychology investigations, where much of the research
regarding the arousal-sport relationship examines
athletes' experience of anxiety and overarousal. There
is much ancillary and anecdotal evidence suggesting that
a team that plays "flat" or "without emotion" will
experience a decrease in performance. This might easily
be described under the inverted-U model and yet has not
been fully examined under empirical conditions.
Despite these criticisms of the inverted-U as a
useful and accurate description of the relationship
between arousal and performance, there are many studies
that have examined this theory. Early researchers,
conducting primarily laboratory studies, seemingly
support the inverted-U and Yerkes-Dodson hypotheses
(Broadhurst, 1957; Duffy, 1962; Matarazzo, Ulett, &


86
covariate-based analyses. Statistical equivalency of the
group assignment variables was confirmed utilizing three
one-way ANOVAs to assess best time (F=.03, p=ns), trait
anxiety (SAS; F=.20, p=ns), and age (F=1.08, p=ns). (See
Table 1 for means and standard deviations by group.)
It was also determined that each group of swimmers
perceived an equal amount of importance for the flume
testing. Finally, the groups were almost equivalent by
sex (two groups had nine females and two males, and the
other group had eight females and three males).
Effects of Anxiety Manipulations
Before examining the anxiety-performance
relationship, it was important to first determine the
effects of the anxiety manipulations on the swimmers'
cognitive/affective and physiological reactions to the
flume testing. This analysis was conducted to test the
argument for and efficacy of the experimental
manipulation. First, a multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) revealed no significant differences at baseline
between groups on the four psychological variables (A-
state, cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-
confidence) [F(2,30)=.50, p=ns]. A one-way ANOVA also
indicated that there were no significant differences
between groups on resting heart rate [F(2,30)=2.6, p=ns].
The next analyses determined the effect of group
membership on changes in the five variables following the


23
heart rate; trembling or shaking; sweating; nausea
or abdominal distress; depersonalization
orderealization; numbness or tingling sensations
(parasthesias); flushes (hot flashes) or chills;
chest pain or discomfort; fear of dying; and fear of
going crazy or of doing something uncontrolled
during the attack. (American Psychiatric
Association, 1987, p. 236)
Smith and Smoll (1990) define anxiety as a
multidimensional construct which involves an "aversive
emotional response and an avoidance motive characterized
by worry and apprehension concerning the possibility of
physical or psychological harm, together with increased
physiological arousal resulting from the appraisal of
threat" (Smith & Smoll, 1990, p. 419). Gould and Krane
(in press) report that anxiety has been viewed as
feelings of nervousness and tension associated with
activation or arousal of the organism.
Eysenck (1982) postulates that the strength of an
individual's anxiety state depends on two main factors:
(1) the degree of external threat and (2) the
individual's susceptibility to anxiety (i.e., anxiety
proneness). It is the second factor that is defined as
trait anxiety or
A motive or acquired behavioral disposition that
predisposes an individual to perceive a wide range
of objectively nondangerous circumstances as
threatening and to respond to these with state
anxiety reactions disproportionate in intensity to
the magnitude of the objective danger. (Spielberger,
1966, p. 17)
Thus, individuals who have a high amount of trait anxiety
will tend to perceive more situations as anxiety-


62
The final recommendation to create at least three
levels of anxiety when investigating the anxiety-
performance relationship is one that has been made by
several researchers (Eysenck, 1982; Gould & Krane, in
press; Martens, 1977). Gould and Krane correctly assert
that not only do the levels of anxiety need to be
statistically significantly different, but also
conceptually or clinically distinct. For example, three
scores on an anxiety measure could be statistically
different, and yet fall within a clinically
indistinguishable range of anxiety. Typically,
researchers have not created anxiety levels, but have
either relied upon self-report anxiety scores to place
subjects in different anxiety levels or have performed
strictly correlational analyses (cf. Brustad & Weiss,
1987; Burton, 1988; Madden, Summers, & Brown, 1990;
Martin & Gill, 1991; McCann, Murphy, & Raedeke, in press;
Raglin, Wise, & Morgan, 1990). However, these two
methods may be unavoidable when conducting field research
during actual competitions.
The preceding recommendations appear to be
appropriate and necessary. It is clear from the existing
literature that researchers have usually fallen short in
one or more areas. Even the relatively superior studies
in this area (e.g., Beuter & Duda, 1985; Burton, 1988;
McCann et al., in press; Sonstroem & Bernardo, 1982) are
diminished by specific and acknowledged shortcomings. It


51
may be unmotivated) or when he perceives his heart to be
pounding so hard that he becomes too distracted to
perform successfully.
Research in cognitive psychology supports the
contention that the effect of competitive anxiety on
performance may be described using a negative, linear
function. For example, Easterbrook's (1959) hypothesis
regarding the peripheral narrowing which occurs as
arousal increases (although generally cited to support
the inverted-U relationship between arousal and
performance) can be applied in understanding the
cognitive anxiety/performance relationship. Here, any
increase in worry or cognitive anxiety is associated with
attention to irrelevant cues (e.g., "I'm not going to do
well; All these people are watching me"). Thus, as
cognitive anxiety increases, more internal, irrelevant
cues and negative self-statements are created, and there
is an increased tendency for the individual to pay
attention to his own internal thoughts and cues rather
than to the task (Mandler, 1975). This would
theoretically affect performance in a negative linear
fashion.
This issue has been examined in the test anxiety
literature. Sarason (1975), for example, argues that
test anxiety is primarily a function of cognitive worry
(e.g., "I am stupid; I'll never pass this test") and
physiological reactivity. Sarason writes that saying the


Table 4
Baseline Correlations
BESTTIME
SAS
SAI
CSAICOG
CSAISOM
CSAISC
RHR
SAS
.16
SAI
.42*
. 17
CSAICOG
.26
. 13
.71**
CSAISOM
.35
.22
.90**
.63**
CSAISC
-.54**
-.28
-.82**
-.68**
-.71**
RHR
-.06
.16
. 05
. 01
-.09
-.17
RPE
.05
-.12
. 16
. 07
.03
-.08
.27
EFI
-.16
-.10
-.04
-.27
-.13
.15
.26
Note. p<. 01 ** pc.001
BESTTIME =
SAS =
SAI =
CSAICOG =
CSAISOM =
CSAISC =
RHR =
RPE =
EFI =
fastest time in 100 yard freestyle
Sport Anxiety Scale (competitive trait anxiety)
State Anxiety Scale
competitive cognitive anxiety (from CSAI-2)
competitive somatic anxiety (from CSAI-2)
competitive self-confidence (from CSAI-2)
resting heart rate
ratings of perceived exertion
freestyle swimming efficiency


123
Gould, D., Petlichkoff, L., Simons, J., & Vevera, M.
(1987). Relationship between Competitive State
Anxiety Inventory-2 subscale scores and pistol
shooting performance. Journal of Sport Psychology,
9, 33-42.
Gould, D., Tammen, V. Murphy, S., & May, J. (1989). An
examination of U.S. Olympic sport psychology
consultants and the services they provide. The Sport
Psychologist. 3., 300-312.
Hackfort, D., & Schwenkmezger, P. (1989). Measuring
anxiety in sports: Perspectives and problems. In D.
Hackfort & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Anxiety in
sports: An international perpective (pp. 55-74).
New York: Hemisphere.
Hanin, Y. L. (1980). A study of anxiety in sports. In
W. F. Straub (Ed.), Sport psychology: An analysis of
athlete behavior (pp. 236-249). Ithaca, NY:
Mouvement Publications.
Hanin, Y. L. (1986). State-trait anxiety research on
sports in the USSR. In C. D. Spielberger and R. Diaz
(Eds.), Cross-cultural anxiety (Vol. 3) (pp. 45-64).
New York: Hemisphere.
Harlow, M. F. (1953) Motivation as a factor in the
acquisition of new responses. In M. R. Jones (Ed.),
Current theory and research in motivation: A
symposium (pp. 24-29). Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press.
Hockey, R. (1979). Stress and the cognitive components
of skilled performance. In V. Hamilton & D.
Warburton (Eds.), Human stress and cognition: An
information processing approach (pp. 141-177).
Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York:
Appleton-Century.
Jones, J. G., & Cale, A. (1989). Relationships between
multidimensional competitive state anxiety and
cogntive and motor subcomponents of performance.
Journal of Sports Sciences. 7, 229-240.
Jones, J. G., & Hardy, L. (1989). Stress and cognitive
functioning in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences. 7,
41-63.
Jones, J. G., & Hardy, L. (1990). Anxiety and sport.
London: Wiley & Sons.


109
propelling efficiency is significantly greater). It is
possible that anxiety might have affected a more finely
tuned stroke. However, in one study examining the effects
of anxiety on kinematic measures of performance (Beuter &
Duda, 1985; see p. 59), deleterious effects were noted in
children who did not have "finely tuned" motor skills.
The subjects in this study also did not exert
themselves to fatigue. It is well-known that fatigue is a
major factor in longer-distance events in swimming. It has
been suggested that anxiety affects performance more at
times when subjects are fatigued (Krane & Stanford, 1991).
To date, there have been no experimental studies examining
the differential effects of anxiety on fatigued vs. non
fat igued athletes. However, it could be that when fatigued,
an athlete's attentional focus wanes, and that this
condition may be amplified by cognitive anxiety (e.g., self
statements such as "I'll never be able to finish this race,"
"I'm so tired that everyone will see that I'm out of
shape").
Because there were no increases in state anxiety
resulting from the experimental manipulation, the first
three hypotheses could not be tested. Restated, these were
that (1) competitive cognitive state anxiety would
demonstrate a negative linear relationship with freestyle
swimming performance as a function of group membership. It
had been expected that swimming performance during the
second swim would become less efficient by group as the


15
Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979), it was hypothesized
that somatic A-state would likely be greatest before the
swimmer entered the flume and then would dissipate as the
testing began, but that cognitive A-state (especially
anxiety related to evaluation) would likely continue into
the testing and be associated with measurable decrements
in swimming efficiency.
4. If decrements are found in the freestyle stroke,
the most likely stage will be during the "finish" phase
(see below in Definitions of Terms). The finish is the
most powerful stage of the freestyle stroke and is the
stage during which many young swimmers have difficulty
fully completing the armstroke. It is thought that if a
swimmer becomes affected by excessive anxiety he or she
may become less efficient and have to work harder. It
was hypothesized that the finish phase would be the most
affected by evaluative anxiety, in that the swimmer would
have to compensate for the decrease in efficiency using a
higher stroke turnover rate (and thus compromise the
finish phase). This will be assessed by examining
changes in efficiency of the finish phase as a function
of group membership (using a repeated measures ANOVA).
Definitions of Terms
Although within the Review of Literature definitions
and concepts are addressed, the following terms are
defined briefly in order to assist in understanding the


72
six landmarks were digitized in both cameras of the
underwater video during one stroke cycle: fingertip,
wrist, thumb, little finger, elbow, and shoulder. Three-
dimensional arm and hand coordinates were calculated
using the Direct Linear Transformation method (Abdel-Aziz
& Karara, 1971).
This analysis was then used to determine propulsive
forces of the swimmers. From the arm position data, hand
reaction forces were calculated (Schleihauf, 1979). This
method calculates lift and drag forces based upon hand
orientation and hand velocity. The resultant force is
calculated by the addition of the lift and drag forces.
The effective (or propulsive) component of the stroke is
the projection of the resultant force on the forward
direction.
For more detailed information, the stroke was
divided into the catch phase (from hand entry to the
widest point of the initial outsweep), the insweep phase
(from the widest point of the outsweep to the narrowest
point under the body), and the finish phase (the
narrowest point until hand exit). During these phases,
the resultant force, effective force, hand velocity and
angle of pitch were averaged, and a phase-specific
propelling efficiency was calculated. An overall
propelling efficiency of the swimmer was also calculated.
The digitization of the videotapes was performed by
an undergraduate psychology major student under the


52
negative self-statements "during a test might interfere
considerably with attention to the task at hand, be it
one that requires learning or figuring out the answers to
certain questions. Worry is unmistakably an
attentionally demanding and emotionally arousing
cognitive activity" (p. 28). In a review of selective
attention, Wine (1971) indicated that high test anxious
individuals respond with personalized task-irrelevant
responses. Furthermore, Deffenbacher (1980) and Morris,
Davis, and Hutchings (1981) have shown in their review of
the literature that cognitive anxiety is more
consistently and strongly related to test performance
than is somatic anxiety.
Utilizing the theories from cognitive psychology
(e.g., test anxiety research), sport psychology and motor
performance researchers have hypothesized that cognitive
anxiety is more strongly related to sport and motor
performance than is somatic anxiety (Barnes, Sime,
Dienstbier, & Plake, 1986; Martens, Vealey, & Burton,
1990; Morris, Smith, Andrews, & Morris, 1975). One
explanation is that
Somatic anxiety should influence performance less
than cognitive anxiety because it reaches its peak
at the onset of a competitive event and dissipates
over the course of the competition. Cognitive state
anxiety increases during competition, however,
because it is linked to increases in social and
self-evaluation that occur during the event and
hence causes stronger and more consistent
performance decrements. (Gould et al., 1987, p. 34)


25
As applied to participation in sport, anxiety is
frequently operationally defined in terms of "competitive
stress" or "competitive anxiety." Although stress has
been at times been used interchangeably with anxiety, it
is actually a broader term which can be defined at times
as a stimulus, an intervening, or a response variable
(whereas anxiety is almost exclusively described as a
response variable). Thus, these two terms may or may not
be analogous depending on the context in which they are
used.
As a stimulus, the term stressor is usually used to
refer to situations or stimuli that are objectively
characterized by some degree of physical or psychological
danger or threat (Spielberger, 1982). Spielberger
explains that reactions to a stressor are dependent on
whether a particular situation or stimulus is threatening
(i.e., potentially dangerous or harmful). Of course,
this can be both objective and subjective "danger."
Thus, objective dangers (e.g., hurricanes, illness) are
appraised by most people as threatening, whereas for
subjective dangers the same stimulus may be seen as a
threat, a challenge, or as largely irrelevant, depending
on the person's estimation of the threat value of the
stimulus.
Spielberger concludes then that the experience of
threat has two main characteristics: (1) It is future-
oriented, generally involving the anticipation of a


43
reduction in the range of cue utilization" (1959, p.
185) .
Bursill (1958) investigated subjects' attention to
peripheral stimuli while they were engaged in a
continuous central task under both normal conditions and
conditions of high temperature (thermal stress). He
reported that the subjects in the high stress condition
had a tendency to funnel their field of awareness towards
the center, and thus missed signals presented on the
periphery (i.e., signals presented at greater eccentric
angles had a greater probability of being missed in the
hotter condition). Stennett (1957) also studied the
relationship of performance level to level of arousal.
Using EMG recordings as a measure of arousal, and an
auditory tracking task as a performance measure, Stennett
obtained results supporting the inverted-U relationship.
Oxendine (1970, 1980) has been a proponent of
applying these hypotheses to sport. He indicates that a
high level of arousal is optimal in gross motor
activities involving strength, endurance, and speed
(e.g., many track events, weight lifting, football
blocking). Alternatively, a high level of arousal should
interfere with performance involving complex skills, fine
muscle movements, steadiness, and general concentration
(e.g., archery, shooting, golf putting).
Hanin (1980, 1986) has extended the inverted-U
theory and reported that arousal is related to athletic


88
anxiety manipulation. A repeated measures MANOVA
(examining A-state, cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety,
and self-confidence) revealed no significant main effect
for anxiety-induced conditions [Wilk's Lambda = .89;
F(2,30)=.40, p=ns] or significant interaction effect
(i.e., Group X Time) [Wilk's Lambda = .61; F(2,30)=1.9,
p=ns]. However, a significant effect for Time was
revealed [Wilk's Lambda = .69; F(2,30)=3.1, p<.05] as
subjects generally reported feeling less anxious and more
self-confident after performing the first flume swim
(i.e., directly prior to the second evaluated swim).
Follow-up univariate repeated measures ANOVAs indicated
no significant interaction effects. However, these
ANOVAs showed time effects indicating that CSAI-Cog
[F=4.0, p=.05] and CSAI-Som [F=9.2, p<.01] decreased
following the baseline swim, while self-confidence (CSAI-
SC) increased [F=7.1, p=.01].
A repeated measures ANOVA conducted on resting heart
rate revealed a significant time effect, as resting heart
rate increased prior to the second flume swim [F=5.1,
E<.05]. A repeated measures ANOVA conducted on ratings
of perceived exertion (RPE; i.e., how difficult the flume
swim was perceived to be) revealed a significant time
effect and indicated that RPE increased significantly for
the second (evaluated) flume swim [F=8.8, pc.01]. Table
2 presents the means of these variables before and after
the instructional manipulation by group.


24
provoking, and/or experience stronger feelings of anxiety
under a threatening condition. Marten, Vealey, and
Burton (1990) concur and suggest that trait anxiety is
the predisposition to perceive various environmental
stimuli as threatening or nonthreatening and to respond
to these stimuli with corresponding levels of state
anxiety.
An additional differentiation in the definition of
anxiety is that of physiological and cognitive
components. Liebert and Morris (1967) addressed this
point in their examination of test anxiety, which they
contended was a composite of worry and emotionality.
They defined worry as the component of anxiety which is
principally "cognitive concern about the consequences of
failure" (p. 975). Emotionality was described as the
more physiological aspects of anxiety (e.g., the
unpleasant physical feelings of nervousness and tension).
This classification has been supported widely, and is
seen as an important feature of anxiety (Barnes, Sime,
Dienstbier, & Plake, 1986; Borkovek, 1976; Burton, 1988;
Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990; Morris, Harris, &
Rovins, 1981; Taylor, 1987). Generally, the
worry/emotionality distinction is described in terms of
cognitive and somatic anxiety. As will be demonstrated,
these two concepts have been examined as to their
independence and interrelatedness.


11
generating self-statements, and/or as a result of
excessive physiological arousal. Thus, the effects of
arousal and anxiety on swimming performance in the flume
may prevent the most accurate assessment of the swimmers'
techniques. Furthermore, if anxiety-responses could be
experimentally manipulated, then the flume might provide
an ideal setting to study the reactions of athletes to
competitive anxiety. (Data routinely obtained on those
assessed in the flume represent highly quantifiable
dependent measures.)
In the present investigation, the flume was used to
provide a potentially stressful testing situation for
swimmers where psychological, physiological, and
biomechanical variables could be carefully assessed.
Swimmers were chosen as subjects for two main reasons.
First, the flume provides a unique setting for a
controlled assessment of performance (i.e., one in which
an externally valid situation can simultaneously provide
precise performance measurement). Second, swimming is of
a primarily individual nature and allows for direct
assessment of intra-individual effects of anxiety. It
was felt that an investigation with swimmers assessed in
this sort of facility would be ideally suited to provide
useful information regarding the nature of the
relationship between anxiety and sports performance. A
secondary goal of the study was to examine an existing


138
Ratings of Perceived Exertion
Please point to a number on the scale which describes how
you are feeling at this time about the intensity of the swim
that you just completed.
6
7 Very, very light
8
9 Very light
10
11 Fairly light
12
13 Somewhat hard
14
15 Hard
16
17 Very hard
18
19 Very, very hard
20


112
examining this relationship that have employed such an ideal
performance outcome measure (i.e., flume-assessed propelling
efficiency). Previous sport psychology investigations have
relied upon outcome measures (e.g., times, accuracy,
distance) which can be affected by many and diverse external
factors, and which may provide less precise information.
Martens, Burton, and Vealey (1990) suggest that many studies
which examine the anxiety-performance relationship have
likely accounted for such a small amount of total variance
in performance (e.g., 10% combining somatic and cognitive
anxiety) due to the problems associated with measuring
performance accurately.
Thus, a goal of this study was to facilitate a more
valid and compelling description of the anxiety-sport
performance relationship, utilizing state-of-the-art
performance measures. It satisfied both Gould and Krane's
(in press) and Weinberg's (1990) recommendations to assess
performance with process-oriented measures (e.g., propelling
efficiency) rather than outcome-oriented markers (e.g.,
time). However, despite using a process-oriented
performance measure, between-group and intraindividual
analyses, and a multidimensional assessment of anxiety, a
goal of the study which was a prerequisite for hypothesis
testing was not met. That is, differing levels of anxiety
were not found to result from the instructional
manipulation, thus precluding an assessment of the
relationship between experimentally induced anxiety and


66
(e.g., coaches, parents, athletes, clinical sport
psychologists) to understand the relationship between
anxiety and competitive performance. Therefore, the
current investigation has attempted to more clearly
assess the effects of anxiety on sport performance
(swimming), specifically examining the influence of
cognitive and somatic factors. Consistent with the
recommendations of Gould and Krane (in press) and
Weinberg (1990), the current study used an adequate
assessment of anxiety and related states, measured
athletic performance accurately and in a process-oriented
fashion, employed intra-individual analyses, and
attempted to create three distinct ranges of anxiety.
Also to overcome the limitation of poor external validity
(cf. Caruso et al., 1990; Gould et al., 1987;
Karteroliotis & Gill, 1987) the current investigation
utilized an externally valid setting which was expected
to induce high ego-involvement, while not sacrificing the
controlled nature of the experiment. It was hoped that
the current investigation would fulfill the need for more
consistent and useful information regarding the anxiety-
performance relationship.


efficiency measure was obtained during the first swim while
the swimmer was unaware of being filmed. The second trial
was conducted under one of three anxiety conditions (High,
Moderate, or Low anxiety). An attempt to create these
conditions experimentally was made through the use of
different instructions given to the swimmer prior to his or
her second trial.
The results of the study did not confirm a significant
relationship between anxiety and motor performance. This
was primarily due to the probability that the anxiety
manipulations were ineffective in raising the swimmers'
anxiety levels prior to the second testing trial. On the
contrary, the swimmers reported feeling less anxious and
more self-confident after performing their first flume swim.
Not surprisingly, their efficiency in the flume was slightly
improved during the second swim. This improvement appears
to be related to becoming accustomed to swimming in the
flume during the first trial. Thus, the original hypotheses
were not successfully tested. However, it was revealed that
swimmers who had never been tested in the flume reported
more anxiety and less self-confidence than those who had
been previously tested.
vi


32
It has been suggested and demonstrated empirically
that the neurophysiological indicators of increased
arousal have poor intercorrelations and low correlations
with self-report scales of arousal (Fahrenberg,
Walschburger, Foerster, Myrtek, & Muller, 1983; Venables
1984; Zaichkowsky & Takenaka, in press). It is not
clearly understood why this is the case although
suggested reasons are autonomic response stereotypy
(Lacey & Lacey, 1958), differing expectancies (Kirsch &
Weixel, 1988; Neiss, 1990), learning history (Borkovek,
1976; Landers, 1980), and construct validation problems
with arousal (e.g., Neiss, 1988).
In discussing the different measures of arousal,
Hackfort and Schwenkmezger (1989) propose that
physiological indicators of arousal are difficult to
apply in sport psychology research, in that these
parameters often change more as a result of physical
activity than as a result of anxiety-inducing situations
Behavioral assessments of arousal (e.g., pacing,
avoidance) are less seldom reported in the sport
psychology literature, although Hackfort and
Schwenkmezger (1989) suggest that this is an area which
is particularly important in sport.
Arousal and anxiety are generally discussed in the
same context, but are not necessarily related to each
other. For example, excessive physiological arousal may
be associated with a range of diverse feelings such as


13
conditions (High, Moderate, or Low anxiety). An attempt
to create these conditions experimentally was made
through the use of different instructions given to the
swimmer prior to his or her second trial. Comparisons of
swimming efficiency were made between the two swims based
on group membership and on intra-individual changes in
self-report measures.
Hypotheses
The following research hypotheses were tested:
1. Competitive cognitive state anxiety will be
significantly and negatively related to freestyle
swimming performance (i.e., stroke efficiency). This
relationship is expected to manifest itself such that
swimming performance during the second swim becomes less
efficient as a function of group membership (determined
by repeated measures analyses of variance). That is,
swimmers in the high-anxiety group should show the
greatest decrement in swimming performance, followed by
those in the moderate-anxiety group, and then the low-
anxiety group (whose members are expected to show the
slightest performance decrement during the second
evaluated swim).
It is thus expected that any increase in cognitive
anxiety will have a negative effect on the biomechanical
efficiency of the swimmer. This hypothesis is based in
part on recent sport psychology research findings (e.g.,


137
19. I'm worried about reaching my goal.
20. I feel my stomach sinking.
21. I feel mentally relaxed.
22. I'm concerned that others will be disappointed
with my performance.
23. My hands are clammy.
24. I'm confident because I mentally picture
myself reaching my goal.
25. I'm concerned I won't be able to concentrate.
26. My body feels tight.
27. I'm confident of coming through under
pressure.
28. The flume apparatus appears confining.
29. I am worried about swimming at the correct
speed in the flume.


74
rates following the two swims allowing a comparison of
exertion. Since the time and speed were identical for
the two swims, any changes in exertional heart rate could
help determine the contributions of anxiety and/or
differences in swim stroke technique.
Psychological Questionnaires
Sport Anxiety Scale (SAS; Smith et al., 1990).
This 21-item scale is designed to measure sport-
specific trait anxiety. It is composed of three
subscales: somatic anxiety, worry, and concentration
disruption. The SAS scale and its subscales have high
internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = .92, .86, and
.81, for the three subscales) despite the relatively
small number of items. The scales also appear to have
adequate reliability (7-day test-retest reliabilities
exceeded .85 for all three scales). In a study of 71
football players, the SAS successfully discriminated
between groups of athletes who differed in performance
level, with the poorer performers having higher total
scores than the best performers [F(l,46) = 4.93, p<.05]
(Smith et al., 1990).
This scale was chosen as a measure of trait anxiety
because of its capacity to determine the tendency of
individuals to experience anxiety within a particular
class of situations, i.e., competitive sport situations
(Smith & Smoll, 1990). Smith and Smoll (1990) report
that research strongly suggests that "situation-specific


46
inverted-U hypotheses are primarily those of a more basic
research nature (e.g., Bursill, 1958; Stennett, 1957).
It appears that the question of the effects of
arousal on sports performance has not been addressed
adequately. Adapting Neiss' (1988a) position, one could
argue that it is fairly obvious that athletes who are
unmotivated (and underaroused) will not achieve their
competitive potential. However, it is not as simple with
the highly-aroused athlete. Just as high arousal in an
individual can be manifested similarly by two very
different stimulus situations (e.g., sexual excitement
versus fear), an athlete could demonstrate high arousal
when thrilled about the potential of catching a touchdown
pass or when terrified of missing a field goal in front
of 85,000 spectators. These two similar arousal levels
may have quite different effects on the performance
outcome. What appears to be more important than
physiological arousal is the athlete's interpretation of
this arousal and the competitive situation. The
following studies address this issue by examining the
relationship between competitive anxiety and sports
performance.
Competitive Anxiety
In this section, the relationship of competitive
anxiety to sports performance is highlighted. Again,
some of the researchers who have investigated this
relationship have done so from the perspective of


Table 4
Baseline Correlations
BESTTIME
SAS
SAI
CSAICOG
CSAISOM
CSAISC
RHR
SAS
.16
SAI
.42*
. 17
CSAICOG
.26
. 13
.71**
CSAISOM
.35
.22
.90**
.63**
CSAISC
-.54**
-.28
-.82**
-.68**
-.71**
RHR
-.06
.16
. 05
. 01
-.09
-.17
RPE
.05
-.12
. 16
. 07
.03
-.08
.27
EFI
-.16
-.10
-.04
-.27
-.13
.15
.26
Note. p<. 01 ** pc.001
BESTTIME =
SAS =
SAI =
CSAICOG =
CSAISOM =
CSAISC =
RHR =
RPE =
EFI =
fastest time in 100 yard freestyle
Sport Anxiety Scale (competitive trait anxiety)
State Anxiety Scale
competitive cognitive anxiety (from CSAI-2)
competitive somatic anxiety (from CSAI-2)
competitive self-confidence (from CSAI-2)
resting heart rate
ratings of perceived exertion
freestyle swimming efficiency


115
future studies of this nature would benefit from a more
potent anxiety-inducing manipulation. However, the current
manipulations were thought to be as strong a potential
verbal manipulation as possible (and which would still be
ethically permissible and believable to the subjects).
Furthermore, the manipulation took into account input from
the subjects of the pilot study. For example, an aspect of
the high anxiety condition (having an observer watch through
the underwater windows) was directly taken from the
suggestions of pilot subjects who indicated that live
observation of the underwater stroke by a U.S.S. official
would be most anxiety-inducing. In subsequent
investigations, believability ratings might also be included
in the main study as a check on the manipulation.
As noted earlier, it appears that a problem with the
current study was the relatively slow speed of the flume.
The speed had been assessed in the pilot study during which
the subjects had to attempt multiple trials at approximately
90% of maximum speed. On consultation with the U.S.
Swimming Staff, it was determined that 80% would be a
reasonably challenging speed which all subjects should be
able to achieve on one and only one trial. Unfortunately,
it appears that the baseline swim buffered the effects of
the anxiety manipulation. As stated earlier, the swimmers
likely gained a mastery experience during the baseline swim
such that the attempt to create anxiety for the second swim
was ineffectual.


PROCEDURES
Subjects
Subjects were 33 swimmers assessed at the
International Center for Aquatic Research (ICAR), United
States Swimming, Colorado Springs, Colorado. The
subjects, males (N=7) and females (N=26) ranged in age
from 13-18 years (M=15.30) and were recruited from two
local high school swim teams. An attempt was made to
recruit female subjects exclusively. However, only 26
were able to participate and thus seven males were
recruited to increase the sample to at least a minimum of
30.
A goal of assessing 45 swimmers (to obtain 15
swimmers per group) was not met because of time
limitations placed on the principal investigator by U.S.
Swimming (due to the heavy use of the flume). The
principal investigator was therefore given approval to
assess approximately 30 subjects. Additionally, there
was a very short time period in which to recruit
subjects. In this recruiting period, the principal
investigator was unable to obtain only swimmers naive to
the flume and thus 13 of the subjects had undergone
previous testing.
67


THE EFFECTS OF ANXIETY ON SWIMMING PERFORMANCE
By
ROBERT ANDREW SWOAP
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1992


35
Relationship of Anxiety and Arousal to Performance
In examining the relationship of anxiety and arousal
to skilled motor performance, and more specifically, to
sports performance, researchers have often used terms
(e.g., stress, anxiety, arousal) interchangeably and
inappropriately. According to Gould and Krane (in
press), the inconsistent use of these terms has been a
long-standing problem for this body of literature. A
review of the literature is difficult when trying to
grasp what is being assessed, and whether authors are
referring to arousal or anxiety when they present their
findings. Thus, in this review of the arousal-anxiety /
performance relationship, efforts are made to distinguish
between terms where possible.
Despite the conceptual and definitional
inconsistencies in this area of research, analyses of the
relationships among anxiety, arousal, and sports
performance constitute a large part of the sport
psychology literature (e.g., Jones & Hardy, 1989; Krane &
Williams, 1987; Landers & Boutcher, 1986; Madden,
Summers, & Brown, 1990; Meacci & Price, 1985; Murphy &
Woolfolk, 1987; Poteet & Weinberg, 1980; Raglin, Wise, &
Morgan, 1990; Sonstroem & Bernardo, 1982). This section
of the literature review will examine the various
theories which seek to describe the anxiety-arousal-
performance relationship with a focus on those studies
most relevant to the research in this dissertation.


105
competition (Martens, Vealey, & Burton, 1990). This
suggests that the flume testing may have not provided a
sufficiently anxiety-provoking situation. Following the
warm-up swim, these subjects may have been even less
concerned, having experienced the flume swim. They perhaps
achieved a mastery experience and had little reason to
experience anxiety in response to a task which they realized
they could perform with relative ease.
A second possibility exploring why the subjects as a
group may not have been significantly anxious in the flume
testing situation is because approximately one-third had
been tested in the flume before. This was an unplanned
aspect of the study in that it had originally been intended
to use only subjects naive to the flume. However,
limitations placed on the investigator by U.S. Swimming
necessitated a compromise so that to obtain a minimum number
of subjects (i.e., 30), some were drawn from a group of
swimmers who had been previously tested. While this had not
been originally planned, it is noteworthy that the inclusion
of experienced (previously Flumed) swimmers created an
opportunity to examine prior experience in the flume as it
related to anxiety. Exploratory univariate analyses
(conducted following a nearly significant MANOVA, p<.06 (see
p. 92}) suggested that when facing the initial flume
testing, subjects naive to the flume reported more state
anxiety [SAI; F(1,31)=4.8, g<.05], more competitive
cognitive anxiety [CSAI-Cog; F(1,31)=5.5, pc.05], more


10
ideal context within which to investigate many of the
issues discussed here, involves the examination of
swimming speed, efficiency, and stroke mechanics at the
United States Swimming International Center for Aquatic
Research. This facility is unique in providing state of
the art assessments of stroke technique, propelling
efficiency, and swimming economy, while swimmers perform
in a swimming flume (a kind of "swimming treadmill").
Swimmers from around the nation and world come for
testing at the flume at the Olympic Training Center in
Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Despite the excellent information that this facility
can provide to athletes and coaches, it seems likely that
some swimmers approach the somewhat novel procedure of
the flume experience with excessive anxiety and become
unable to reliably demonstrate their characteristic
strokes. The anxiety may derive from varied sources:
performance or evaluative anxiety (e.g., fear of
performing poorly in view of U.S. Swimming coaches or
researchers), anxiety related to the unfamiliarity of the
flume, or anxiety related to swimming in the confined
space of the flume. Thus, the assessment situation may
provide a significant source of anxiety for some
swimmers.
It is possible that the anxious swimmer may not
perform to the best of his or her ability as a result of
focusing on inappropriate cognitions and anxiety-


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE EFFECTS OF ANXIETY ON SWIMMING PERFORMANCE
By
ROBERT ANDREW SWOAP
AUGUST, 1992
Chairman: James H. Johnson, Ph.D.
Major Department: Clinical and Health Psychology
It was the purpose of this study to examine the effects
of anxiety on skilled motor performance. More specifically,
assessed were the reactions of swimmers to an evaluative
competitive testing situation. It was hypothesized that
swimmers would demonstrate an increase in anxiety under a
stressful evaluative condition as compared to a baseline
assessment. It was also hypothesized that the swimmers'
propelling efficiency would decrease under increasing states
of anxiety.
High school swimmers (N=33) were matched for skill,
age, and competitive trait anxiety. They were tested in a
motorized flume (i.e., a "swimming treadmill") under two
trials. Prior to each trial, swimmers were given self-
report measures to assess their competitive state anxiety,
including cognitive and somatic anxiety, and had their heart
rate taken. During both trials, the subjects were
videotaped underwater to determine their swimming efficiency
using computer-aided biomechanical analyses. A baseline
v


8
physiological, cognitive, and other mediators of athletic
performance.
There is research to suggest that individuals in
competitive situations, including children (Beuter &
Duda, 1985; Lewthwaite, 1990), adolescents (Crocker,
Alderman, & Smith, 1988), adults (Rodrigo, Lusiardo, &
Pereira, 1990), and elite athletes (Scanlan, Stein, &
Ravizza, 1991), are susceptible to "evaluation stress" in
which the resultant anxiety may interfere with
performance. The anxiety reaction appears to be related
to a threat perception, and can be manifested in
behavioral, cognitive, and physiological responses.
It also appears that competitive state anxiety is
dependent upon the nature of the competition, upon the
athlete's tendency to experiece anxiety in general (trait
anxiety), and upon the coping skills developed by the
athlete to deal with the anxiety-arousing competition
(Smith & Smoll, 1990). Thus, a major state championship
is potentially more anxiety-provoking than a weekly local
contest, and therefore may present the athlete with a
greater challenge of coping with "nerves" and
"butterflies" surrounding the competition. Similarly, an
athlete with a high amount of competitive trait anxiety
(and poor coping skills) would be more likely to
experience decrements in performance in an important
competition than an athlete who has less trait anxiety,
or than one who has developed effective coping strategies


20
Therefore, data analyses were somewhat altered and
compromised.
2. In that only high school swimmers were tested,
there may be limited generalizability to a more
competitive group of swimmers (e.g., collegiate or
Olympic-caliber swimmers).
Significance of the Study
A recent survey by Blinde and Tierney (1990)
indicated that U.S. Swimming coaches as a group possess a
moderate to large degree of receptivity to the field of
sport psychology. As the authors correctly point out,
this degree of receptivity is critical in the process of
disseminating applied sport psychology research
information to a sport and its coaches and athletes.
However, a clear obstacle to receptivity is a "limited
knowledge base disseminated from the researcher to the
practitioner" (p. 137). The authors recommend that
researchers focus their attention on practical and
applied studies. Accordingly, a potential contribution
of this study was to conduct research that could be
readily received and used by coaches as well as athletes.
It was expected that this study would have implications
for providing applied research knowledge to the consumer
(e.g., coaches and athletes) through the U.S. Swimming
organization via publications and coaches and athletes'
clinics.


124
Karteroliotis, C. & Gill, D. G.. (1987). Temporal
changes in psychological and physiological components
of state anxiety. Journal of Sport Psychology. 9,
261-274.
Kerr, J. H. (1989). Anxiety, arousal, and sport
performance: An application of reversal theory. In
D. Hackfort & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Anxiety in
sports: An international perpective (pp. 137-151).
New York: Hemisphere.
Kimble, G. A., Garmezy, N., & Zigler, E. (1984).
Principles of psychology (6th ed.). New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Kirsch, I., & Weixel, L. J. (1988). Double-blind versus
deceptive administration of a placebo. Behavioral
Neuroscience. 102, 319-323.
Kjellberg, A. (1977). Sleep deprivation and some aspects
of performance: Problems of arousal changes. Waking
Sleeping. 1, 139-143.
Klavora, P. (1978). An attempt to derive inverted-U
curves based on the relationship between anxiety and
athletic performance. In D. Landers & R. Christina
(Eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport1977
(pp. 369-377). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Krane, V., & Stanford, A. (1991, October). A
Quantitative investigation of mental states of
competitive swimmers. Poster presented at the
meeting of the Association for the Advancement of
Applied Sport Psychology, Savannah, GA.
Krane, V., & Williams, J. M. (1987). Performance and
somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and confidence
changes prior to competition. Journal of Sport
Behavior. 10, 47-56.
Lacey, J. I., & Lacey, B. (1958). Verification and
extension of the principle of autonomic response-
stereotypy. American Journal of Psychology. 71, 50-
73.
Landers, D. M. (1980). The arousal-performance
relationship revisited. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport. 51, 77-90.
Landers, D. M., & Boutcher, S. H. (1986). Arousal-
performance relationships. In J. M. Williams (Ed.),
Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak
performance (pp. 163-184). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.


82
up swim. Do not be concerned with the cameras; the video
will only be used for your benefit."
(2) Moderate anxiety. "During this flume test, you will
be videotaped as you swim freestyle. The taping and
analysis of your stroke will be discussed with you and
your coach(s), and will be used to determine your
relative strength in freestyle as compared to your
teammates. The test will be quite similar to your warm
up swim. However, please try to swim your best, as it is
important that we get an accurate measurement of your
skills." (During these instructions, the cameras in the
flume were displayed to the swimmer, as were the VCRs for
the recording of the subject's swim.)
(3) High Anxiety. "During this flume test, you will be
videotaped as you swim freestyle. The taping and
analysis of your stroke will be analyzed and evaluated by
the U.S. Swimming Biomechanics staff, officials, and
coaches. Also, during this swim a U.S. Swimming official
will be examining your stroke through the underwater
observation windows. Please attempt to swim your very
best, as the evaluation will be important in determining
your relative standing among other swimmers at your level
who have previously been evaluated in the flume. We will
use the test analysis to decide the areas in which you
need the most improvement." (During these instructions,
the cameras in the flume, the VCRs, and the underwater
observation window were displayed to the swimmer; also, a


47
assessing arousal. These studies are included in this
section rather than the previous one because of the
actual measurements conducted (i.e., primarily self-
reported anxiety), and not how the researchers identified
the constructs (arousal vs. anxiety). The issue of the
nature of the relationship that exists between anxiety
and sports performance (e.g., inverted-U, linear
negative, unrelated) is thus presented.
Trait and state anxiety
The relationship between competitive trait anxiety
and sports performance has been investigated under both
laboratory and field conditions. According to Martens,
Vealey, and Burton (1990), laboratory studies have
generally failed to demonstrate a consistent relationship
between competitive A-trait and sports performance (e.g.,
Martens, Gill, & Scanlan, 1976; Murphy & Woolfolk, 1987;
Poteet & Weinberg, 1980). Indeed, some studies which
purport to analyze the relationship between trait anxiety
and performance are not interpretable since there is an
inappropriate use of the trait measure (i.e., the Sport
Competition Anxiety Test (SCAT); Martens, 1977). For
example, administering the SCAT as a precompetitive
measure of anxiety is incorrect (cf. Gerson & Deshaies,
1978; Thirer & O'Donnell, 1980) and assesses the
relationship between state anxiety and performance rather
than trait anxiety and performance.


59
adequately assess anxiety and related states, (2) utilize
more adequate measures of athletic performance, (3)
employ intraindividual anxiety analyses, and (4) create
at least three distinct levels of anxiety when testing
nonlinear predictions.
Gould and Krane's first recommendation is a broad
one, but basically involves carefully defining what one
is measuring, utilizing conceptual frameworks (e.g.,
multidimensional components of anxiety), and using
reliable and valid measures of anxiety. The second plea
is for the investigator to adequately measure athletic
performance. Many studies have relied upon
nonstandardized performance measures (cf. Gould et al.,
1984, McCauley, 1985) which fluctuated according to task
demands. Furthermore, the utilization of outcome
measures (e.g., win-loss, comparing game scores) is
discouraged. Gould and Krane cite Burton (1988) as a
positive example in which the author assessed best times
in a swimming event relative to previous times in that
event. However, even an assessment such as this has
limitations. True, it may provide a general idea of
variations in performance associated with changes in
anxiety. However, this type of outcome measure may not
adequately provide information regarding the process of
performance change in a particular sport.
Instead of focusing on the outcome of a competitive
performance, a more process-oriented focus is desirable.


87
TABLE 1
Equivalency of Groups on Three Variables Used for Group
Assignment
GROUP
M
Best
(SD) .
Time
M
Trait
(SD) **
Anxietv
M (SD)
Age
Low
59.6
(3.0)
46.5
(7.1)
15.2
(1.8)
Mod
60.1
(4.5)
46.5
(11.2)
15.5
(1.8)
High
59.6
(2.8)
47.3
(11.2)
15.3
(1.4)
TOTAL
59.8
(3.4)
46.8
(9.7)
15.3
(1.6)
Fastest time (in seconds) in a 100 yard freestyle
race (current season).
As measured by the Sport Anxiety Scale.


126
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New
York: Harper & Row.
Matarazzo, J. D., Ulett, G. A., & Saslow, G. (1955).
Human maze performance as a function of increasing
levels of anxiety. Journal of General Psychology.
53, 79-95.
McCauley, E. (1985). State anxiety: Antecedent or result
of sport performance? Journal of Sport Behavior. 8,
71-77.
McCann, S., Murphy, S., & Raedeke, T. (in press). The
effect of performance setting and individual
differences on the anxiety-performance relationship
for elite cyclists. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping; An
International Journal.
McGrath, J. E. (1970). Major methodological issues. In
J. E. McGrath (Ed.), Social and psychological factors
in stress (pp. 19-49). New York: Holt, Reinhart &
Winston.
Meacci, W. G., & Price, E. E. (1985). Acquisition and
retention of golf putting skill through the
relaxation, visualization, and body rehearsal
intervention. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport. 56, 176-179.
Morgan, W. P., & Ellickson, K. A. (1989). Health,
anxiety, and physical exercise. In In D. Hackfort &
C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Anxiety in sports: An
international perpective (pp. 165-182). New York:
Hemisphere.
Morris, L. W., & Liebert, R. M. (1970). Relationship of
cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety to
physiological arousal and academic performance.
Journal of Counsultinq and Clinical Psychology. 35,
332-337.
Morris, L., & Liebert, R. M. (1973). Effects of negative
feedback, threat of shock, and level of trait anxiety
on the arousal of two components of anxiety. Journal
of Counseling Psychology. 20. 321-326.
Morris, L., Brown, N. R., & Halbert, B. (1977). Effects
of symbolic modeling on the arousal of cognitive and
affective components of anxiety in preschool
children. In C.D. Spielberger and I.G. Sarason
(Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 4). Washington, DC:
Hemisphere.


128
Poteet, D., & Weinberg, R. (1980). Competition trait
anxiety, state anxiety, and performance. Perceptual
and Motor Skills. 50, 651-654.
Powell, F., & Verner, J. (1982). Anxiety and performance
relationships in first time parachutists. Journal of
Sport Psychology. 4, 184-188.
Prapavessis, H., & Grove, J. R. (1991). Precompetitive
emotions and shooting performance: The mental health
and zone of optimal function models. The Sport
Psychologist. 5, 223-234.
Raglin, J. S., & Morgan, W. P.. (1988). Predicted and
actual pre-competition anxiety college swimmers.
Journal of Swimming Research. 4, 5-7.
Raglin, J. S., Wise, K. J., & Morgan, W. P. (1990).
Predicted and actual pre-competition anxiety in high
school girl swimmers. Journal of Swimming Research.
6, 5-8.
Reilly, M. F., Kame, V. D., Termin, B., Tendesco, M. E.,
& Pendergast, D. R. (1990). Relationship between
freestyle swimming speed and stroke mechanics to
isokinetic muscle function. Journal of Swimming
Research. 6, 16-21.
Rejeski, W. J., & Brawley, L. R. (1988). Defining the
boundaries of sport psychology. The Sport
Psychologist. 2, 231-242.
Rodgers, W., Hall, C., & Buckholz, E. (1991). The effect
of an imagery training program on imagery ability,
imagery use, and figure skating performance. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology. 2, 109-125.
Rodrigo, G., Lusiardo, M., & Pereira, G. (1990).
Relationship between anxiety and performance in
soccer players. International Journal of Sport
Psychology. 21. 112-120.
Rosenthal, R. (1968). Experimenter expectancy and the
reassuring nature of the self hypothesis decision
procedure. Psychological Bulletin. 70 (Monograph
supplement), 30-47.
Sage, G. H. (1984). Motor learning and control: A
neurophysiological approach. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
Sarason, I. G. (1975). Anxiety and self-preoccupation.
In I. Sarason & C. Spielberger (Eds.), Stress and
anxiety (Vol. 2, pp. 27-44). New York: Wiley &
Sons.


45
theory implies that a moderate level of anxiety is best
for performance" (p. 5). Yet, clearly the inverted-U
hypothesis is one describing the relationship between
arousal and performance, not anxiety and performance. It
becomes confusing to the reader when a group of
researchers appears to inappropriately use these two
terms (anxiety and arousal) as synonymous. In a recent
chapter, Morgan (an author of the previously-reported
studies) and Ellickson (1989) write that Hanin's theory
should not be dismissed as a reiteration of the inverted-
U explanation, in that "ZOF theory does not argue that a
moderate level of arousal is superior to low or high
levels... [but] predicts that some individuals will have
their best performances when highly aroused, others when
deeply relaxed, and others when moderately aroused" (p.
168). In this case, Morgan discusses the inverted-U
hypothesis in terms of arousal.
There is a common problem in sport psychology
research examining the relationship among anxiety,
arousal, and performance. There are many investigations
which claim to investigate the relationship between
arousal and sports performance which are misleading since
the measurement of "arousal" is typically a measurement
of competitive anxiety (as the studies conducted by
Raglin and his associates exemplify). In fact, there are
very few studies which examine the arousal-sports
performance relationship. The studies that support the


106
competitive somatic anxiety [CSAI-Som; F(l,31)=8.1, p<.01],
and less self-confidence [CSAI-SC; F(1,31)=4.9, pc.05] than
did those subjects who had been previously tested.
Still, the possibility that the nonsignificant findings
for the pre-post changes were due to the inclusion of
experienced subjects needs to be considered. That is, did
their inclusion dilute any significant effects in the
overall sample? Separate analyses of swimmers naive to the
flume demonstrated that this subset did not report increases
in anxiety following the instructions. Indeed, there was an
absence of a trend that one would have predicted if the
anxiety manipulation had been effective. Thus, while one
might question whether the absence of significant findings
were due to a lack of power (due to a smaller naive sample),
this was not the case. (Further, there were no significant
relationships between the psychological variables and
swimming performance either at baseline or during the second
swim.) Only a significant interaction effect was revealed
demonstrating that naive subjects reported a significantly
greater decrease in somatic anxiety than did experienced
subjects from the baseline to the evaluated swim. This
suggests that the mastery experience (baseline swim) was
indeed relevant, especially for swimmers naive to the flume.
Third, during the debriefing session, several swimmers
indicated that they felt the swims had not been challenging
enough, and that the flume speed was slower than they had
expected it to be. Thus, the task difficulty may have been


92
Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations of Swimming Efficiency
MEASURE
GROUP
Low Moderate
Overall Efficiency (%)
Pre 57.2 (11.8)
Post 60.0 (6.3)
Finish Phase Efficiency (%)
Pre 84.6 (12.0)
Post 82.1 (10.2)
55.4 (14.7)
63.4 (8.7)
85.2 (11.2)
86.4 (5.2)
High
55.1 (17.0)
59.4 (9.9)
86.5 (6.1)
87.0 (9.1)


40
the medium level of arousal is associated with the worst
performance). Similarly, Baddeley (1972) is critical of
the optimal arousal theory and suggests it can account
for almost any result so long as the exact location on
the inverted-U curve is not specified in advance.
Anderson (1990) takes issue with Neiss' suggestion
to abandon arousal, the inverted-U, and the Yerkes-Dodson
law. She writes that Neiss' objections are neither
logically nor empirically warranted, challenging his
evidence as limited. However, she focuses primarily on
the relationship between arousal and cognition, not motor
performance. Indeed, her documentation of studies
supporting the inverted-U relationship between
information processing and arousal appears to be less
relevant to Neiss' stance. In a rebuttal, Neiss (1990)
indicates that an abundance of empirical findings from
diverse research areas challenges the conception of
unidimensional arousal, and that methodological advances
permit the investigation of discrete psychobiological
states in their cognitive, affective, and physiological
manifestations.
An additional problem with the arousal literature is
that a major aspect of the inverted-U hypothesis has
largely been ignored. The hypothesis suggests that at
low levels of arousal, performance should suffer.
Broadbent (1971) argued that there is no difficulty in
explaining why low arousal leads to poor performance as


130
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Schtz, R. W. (1990).
Measurement and correlates of sport-specific
cognitive and somatic trait anxiety: The Sport
Anxiety Scale. Anxiety Research, 2, 263-280.
Sonstroem, R. J., & Bernardo, B. (1982). Intraindividual
pregame state anxiety and basketball performance: A
reexamination of the inverted-U curve. Journal of
Sport Psychology. 4, 235-245.
Spence, K. W. (1951). Theoretical interpretations of
learning. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of
experimental psychology (pp. 690-729). New York:
Wiley.
Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Theory and research on
anxiety. In C.D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and
behavior (pp. 3-20). New York: Academic Press.
Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Conceptual and methodological
issues in anxiety research. In C. D. Spielberger
(Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends in theory and
research (Vol. 2, pp. 481-493). New York: Academic
Press.
Spielberger, C. D. (April, 1982). State-trait anxiety
and sports psychology. Paper presented at the First
Israeli National Congress on Psychology and Sociology
of Sport and Physical Education. Natanya, Israel.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E.
(1970). Manual for the state-trait anxiety
inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Stennett, R. G. (1957). The relationship of performance
level to level of arousal. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. 54, 54-61.
Taylor, J. (1987). Predicting athletic performance with
self-confidence and somatic and cognitive anxiety as
a function of motor and physiological requirements in
six sports. Journal or Personality. 55, 139-153.
Thirer, J., & O'Donnell, L. A. (1980). Female
intercollegiate athletes' trait-anxiety level and
performance in a game. Perceptual and Motor Skills.
50, 18.
Vealey, R. S. (1988). Future directions in psychological
skills training. The Sport Psychologist. 2, 318-336.


135
State Anxiety Inventory
Directions: A number of statements which people use to
describe themselves are given below. Read each statement
and then using the scale below, indicate how you feel RIGHT
NOW, that is, AT THIS MOMENT. There are no right or wrong
answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement,
but give the answer which seems to describe your present
feelings best.
1 = Not at all
2 = Somewhat
3 = Moderately so
4 = Very much so
1. I feel calm.
2. I feel secure.
3. I am tense.
4. I feel regretful.
5. I feel at ease.
6. I feel upset.
7. I am presently worrying over possible misfortunes.
8. I feel rested.
9. I feel anxious.
10. I feel comfortable.
11. I feel self-confident.
12. I feel nervous.
13. I am jittery.
14. I feel "high strung".
15. I am relaxed.
16. I feel content.
17. I am worried.
18. I am over-excited and rattled.
19. I feel joyful.
20. I feel pleasant.


117
The swimmer would then be exposed to a video which
demonstrated a swimmer struggling to keep up with an
increasing flume speed. In actuality, the subject would be
filmed following the tone which supposedly signifies that
the flume speed will increase momentarily. The speed would
remain at 80% (comparable to the baseline swim) but under a
potentially anxiety-inducing situation (i.e., the threat of
an inability to keep up with the supposed increase in flume
speed). This could potentially be a high anxiety condition
in that the swimmers would anticipate that they would be
subjected to a very difficult task during which they would
be filmed and evaluated. Hitting the gate with one's feet
is a potentially embarrasing situation and one which might
pose a threat to self-esteem.
Additionally, one might increase the speed of the flume
for both baseline and evaluated swims to create a more
difficult (and potentially more anxiety-inducing) situation.
This was considered in the current study and rejected for
previously discussed reasons of obtaining a reliable one
time trial.
To conclude, the examination of the anxiety-performance
relationship in sports is a relevant and interesting one.
However, as has been shown, this area of research is fraught
with difficulties. The challenge to obtain reliable
process-oriented performance measures in a realistic context
is a formidable one. Still, it is thought that the flume
provides such a good measure of performance that it is


76
predictors of elevation in A-state [state anxiety] for a
particular class of stress situations than are general A-
trait [trait anxiety] measures" (p. 490).
Competitive State Anxiety Inventory (CSAI-2; Martens,
Vealey, & Burton, 1990)
This 27-item measure is designed to assess sport-
specific state anxiety and has three subscales: cognitive
anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence. One study
examining the construct validity of this test with male
elite college swimmers indicated that cognitive anxiety
(but not somatic anxiety) was a significant predictor of
performance levels (Barnes, Sime, Dienstbier, & Plake,
1986). The reliability (i.e., internal consistency) of
each of the subscales is satisfactory (Cronbach's alpha
ranging from .79 .90). Evidence supporting the
construct validity of the CSAI-2 as a measure of sport
specific state anxiety (cognitive and somatic) and self-
confidence was demonstrated by the authors in a series of
four studies (Martens et al., 1990). Finally, the
authors provide extensive norms for the CSAI-2 by
competitive level, gender, and sport.
In the current experiment, the scale was slightly
modified in that the items relevant to a "competition"
were altered to refer to a procedure (i.e., the flume
evaluation). There were also two additional items which
assessed anxiety associated with the swimmers' reactions
to the flume apparatus itself. These slight


REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Concepts and Definitions
Anxiety and Stress
Anxiety can be differentiated in terms of whether it
is manifested as a transitory experience (state anxiety)
or as a proclivity towards feeling anxious (trait
anxiety). State anxiety has been defined as
Transitory emotional states that consist of
subjective, consciously-experienced feelings of
tension, apprehension, nervousness and worry, and
heightened arousal or activation of the autonomic
nervous systems. These states vary in intensity and
fluctuate over time as a function of the amount of
perceived threat. Thus, perceived threat mediates
the relationship between stressors and the intensity
of state anxiety reactions. (Spielberger, 1982, p.
3)
The anxiety state may consist of a combination of
some of the following characteristics: tension,
nervousness, unpleasant thoughts (worries), and
physiological changes (e.g., dry mouth, pupil dilation,
faster and more intense breathing, tense muscles)
associated with the increased sympathetic activity of the
autonomic nervous system (Burton, 1988; Spielberger,
1982). In more severe instances of anxiety, as during a
panic attack, symptoms experienced may include:
Shortness of breath (dyspnea) or smothering
sensations; dizziness, unsteady feelings, or
faintness; choking; palpitations or accelerated
22


61
Beuter and Duda (1985) suggested that under the high
anxiety condition, what was once automatic and smooth
came under volitional control (likely due to the
evaluative and competitive anxiety) and became less
smooth and efficient. Once again, a problem with the
study is that Beuter and Duda created different anxiety
conditions, but described them as arousal levels, and
used a general measure of arousal (heart rate taken prior
to the two trials) to assess the manipulation. That is,
self-report measures of anxiety were not utilized (e.g.,
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children) to assess the
anxiety manipulation.
The third recommendation of Gould and Krane is to
employ intraindividual analyses (e.g., Beuter & Duda,
1985). They write that Sonstroem and Bernardo's (1982)
study of basketball players is an excellent example of
this method. Without having controlled for each player's
own state anxiety scores, the researchers would have
mistakenly concluded that there was no significant
relationship between competitive anxiety and basketball
performance. Instead, as mentioned previously, Sonstroem
and Bernardo discovered that an inverted-U relationship
existed between state anxiety and performance across all
subjects. Furthermore, other investigators (Landers &
Boutcher, 1986; Neiss, 1988b) have suggested that there
is a need to analyze intra-individual changes in arousal
and anxiety measures when relating them to performance.


39
as to whether arousal is a useful concept. Neiss (1988a)
conducted a review of the research which demonstrated the
effects of various psychobiological arousal states on
motor performance. He reported that their is little
support for the inverted-U hypothesis especially due to
difficulties in interpreting the actual influence of
arousal on an unsuccessful performance. He also states
that
The inverted-U hypothesis [as a causal hypothesis]
has not received clear support from a single
study... If, recast in psychological terms, the
inverted-U hypothesis reveals only that the
motivated outperform the apathetic and the
terrified, it should be consigned to the true-but-
trivial category. (Neiss, 1988a, p. 355)
Neiss claimed that the inverted-U hypothesis is
basically irrefutable due to the inability to specify its
parameters and the variability of optimal arousal across
tasks, and that the global term arousal is thus a
hindrance to understanding the relationship of human
motor performance to emotional states. This criticism is
not dissimilar to Eysenck's (1982) claim that one is
hard-pressed to disprove the predicted inverted-U
relationship because two-thirds of studies investigating
this relationship (and utilizing three distinct arousal
levels) would obtain supportive evidence by chance alone.
Eysenck explains that if three levels of arousal are
compared, there are six possible orderings of the three
levels with respect to performance, only two of which are
inconsistent with the Yerkes-Dodson law (the two in which


84
swimmers who had not yet undergone their testing.
Swimmers were fully debriefed at the end of the study so
that the nature of the study could be explained without
affecting other swimmers approach to the testing. During
this debriefing, technical feedback was provided to each
swimmer by U.S. Swimming. Questions about freestyle
stroke technique, racing strategies, and so forth were
answered at this time.



PAGE 1

7+( ())(&76 2) $1;,(7< 21 6:,00,1* 3(5)250$1&( %\ 52%(57 $1'5(: 6:2$3 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

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nV FRQVWDQW VXSSRUW DGYLVHPHQW DQG HQWKXVLDVP ZHUH LQGLVSHQVDEOH IRU WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKLV SURMHFW )LQDOO\ H[WHQG WKDQNV DQG DSSUHFLDWLRQ WR P\ GHDU IULHQGV DQG IDPLO\ ZKR PHDQ VR PXFK WR PH DQG WR ZKRP GHGLFDWH WKLV ZRUN LL

PAGE 3

7$%/( 2) &217(176 JDJH $&.12:/('*(0(176 LL $%675$&7 9 ,1752'8&7,21 $1' 29(59,(: 6WDWHPHQWV RI WKH 3UREOHP %ULHI 2YHUYLHZ RI 6WXG\ +\SRWKHVHV 'HILQLWLRQV RI 7HUPV $VVXPSWLRQV /LPLWDWLRQV 6LJQLILFDQFH RI WKH 6WXG\ 5(9,(: 2) /,7(5$785( &RQFHSWV DQG 'HILQLWLRQV $Q[LHW\ DQG 6WUHVV $URXVDO DQG $FWLYDWLRQ 6XPPDU\ RI &RQFHSWV 5HODWLRQVKLS RI $Q[LHW\ DQG $URXVDO WR 3HUIRUPDQFH $URXVDO &RPSHWLWLYH $Q[LHW\ 3UREOHPV ZLWK WKH /LWHUDWXUH DQG 5HVHDUFKHUVn 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV 6XPPDU\ RI /LWHUDWXUH 5HYLHZ DQG 5HVWDWHPHQW RI 1HHG IRU &XUUHQW 6WXG\ 352&('85(6 6XEMHFWV 3URFHGXUDO 2YHUYLHZ 0HDVXUHV 0HWKRGRORJ\ 5(68/76 6XEMHFWV (IIHFWV RI $Q[LHW\ 0DQLSXODWLRQV 6ZLPPLQJ (IILFLHQF\ :LWKLQ6XEMHFW $QDO\VHV (IIHFWV RI 3ULRU )OXPH 7HVWLQJ 6HSDUDWH ([DPLQDWLRQ RI 6XEMHFWV 1HZ WR WKH )OXPH LLL

PAGE 4

',6&866,21 ([SODQDWLRQ RI )LQGLQJV 6XPPDU\ DQG &RQFOXVLRQV ,OO ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU )XWXUH 5HVHDUFK 5()(5(1&(6 $33(1',; %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+

PAGE 5

$EVWUDFW RI 'LVVHUWDWLRQ 3UHVHQWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ 3DUWLDO )XOILOOPHQW RI WKH 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH 'HJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 7+( ())(&76 2) $1;,(7< 21 6:,00,1* 3(5)250$1&( %\ 52%(57 $1'5(: 6:2$3 $8*867 &KDLUPDQ -DPHV + -RKQVRQ 3K' 0DMRU 'HSDUWPHQW &OLQLFDO DQG +HDOWK 3V\FKRORJ\ ,W ZDV WKH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ WR H[DPLQH WKH HIIHFWV RI DQ[LHW\ RQ VNLOOHG PRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH 0RUH VSHFLILFDOO\ DVVHVVHG ZHUH WKH UHDFWLRQV RI VZLPPHUV WR DQ HYDOXDWLYH FRPSHWLWLYH WHVWLQJ VLWXDWLRQ ,W ZDV K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW VZLPPHUV ZRXOG GHPRQVWUDWH DQ LQFUHDVH LQ DQ[LHW\ XQGHU D VWUHVVIXO HYDOXDWLYH FRQGLWLRQ DV FRPSDUHG WR D EDVHOLQH DVVHVVPHQW ,W ZDV DOVR K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW WKH VZLPPHUVn SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\ ZRXOG GHFUHDVH XQGHU LQFUHDVLQJ VWDWHV RI DQ[LHW\ +LJK VFKRRO VZLPPHUV 1 f ZHUH PDWFKHG IRU VNLOO DJH DQG FRPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\ 7KH\ ZHUH WHVWHG LQ D PRWRUL]HG IOXPH LH D VZLPPLQJ WUHDGPLOOf XQGHU WZR WULDOV 3ULRU WR HDFK WULDO VZLPPHUV ZHUH JLYHQ VHOI UHSRUW PHDVXUHV WR DVVHVV WKHLU FRPSHWLWLYH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ LQFOXGLQJ FRJQLWLYH DQG VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ DQG KDG WKHLU KHDUW UDWH WDNHQ 'XULQJ ERWK WULDOV WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH YLGHRWDSHG XQGHUZDWHU WR GHWHUPLQH WKHLU VZLPPLQJ HIILFLHQF\ XVLQJ FRPSXWHUDLGHG ELRPHFKDQLFDO DQDO\VHV $ EDVHOLQH Y

PAGE 6

HIILFLHQF\ PHDVXUH ZDV REWDLQHG GXULQJ WKH ILUVW VZLP ZKLOH WKH VZLPPHU ZDV XQDZDUH RI EHLQJ ILOPHG 7KH VHFRQG WULDO ZDV FRQGXFWHG XQGHU RQH RI WKUHH DQ[LHW\ FRQGLWLRQV +LJK 0RGHUDWH RU /RZ DQ[LHW\f $Q DWWHPSW WR FUHDWH WKHVH FRQGLWLRQV H[SHULPHQWDOO\ ZDV PDGH WKURXJK WKH XVH RI GLIIHUHQW LQVWUXFWLRQV JLYHQ WR WKH VZLPPHU SULRU WR KLV RU KHU VHFRQG WULDO 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ GLG QRW FRQILUP D VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DQ[LHW\ DQG PRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH 7KLV ZDV SULPDULO\ GXH WR WKH SUREDELOLW\ WKDW WKH DQ[LHW\ PDQLSXODWLRQV ZHUH LQHIIHFWLYH LQ UDLVLQJ WKH VZLPPHUVn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

PAGE 7

,1752'8&7,21 $1' 29(59,(: %RWK UHVHDUFK DQG SUDFWLFH LQ WKH DUHD RI VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ KDV LQFUHDVHG GXULQJ WKH ODVW \HDUV 7KLV LV LOOXVWUDWHG LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV E\ D UHFHQW VXUJH LQ WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\UHODWHG RUJDQL]DWLRQV VXFK DV WKH $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU WKH $GYDQFHPHQW RI $SSOLHG 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ DQG 'LYLVLRQ RI WKH $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRORJLFDO $VVRFLDWLRQ ([HUFLVH DQG 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\f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f ZLWK VSRUW SV\FKRORJLVWV EXW E\ RYHU KDOI RI WKH 1*%V LQ WKH 86 ZHUH SURYLGHG ZLWK VRPH VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ VHUYLFHV IRU DWKOHWHV DQG FRDFKHV 0XUSK\ f $ UHFHQW VXUYH\ GRFXPHQWHG WKDW RI WKH 1*%V QRZ KDYH IRUPDO VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ SURJUDPV DQG WKDW DOO RI WKHVH

PAGE 8

SURJUDPV DUH LQWHJUDWHG ZLWKLQ DQ RYHUDOO VSRUWV VFLHQFH SURJUDP *RXOG 7DPPHQ 0XUSK\ t 0D\ f 6LOYD f ZULWHV WKDW WKHUH KDV EHHQ PHWHRULF JURZWK RI WKH SURIHVVLRQDOL]DWLRQ RI VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ S f ZLWKLQ FROOHJLDWH SURIHVVLRQDO DQG 2O\PSLF VSRUWV $FFRUGLQJ WR 6LQJHU f VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ LV HPHUJLQJ DW D VZLIW UDWH DOO DURXQG WKH ZRUOG ZLWK LQWHUYHQWLRQV DQG LQVWUXFWLRQDO SURJUDPV EHLQJ RIIHUHG E\ VSRUW SV\FKRORJLVWV WR DWKOHWHV DQG FRDFKHV LQ LQFUHDVLQJ QXPEHUV 2WKHUV FRQFXU WKDW WKH JURZWK RI VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ KDV EHHQ VXEVWDQWLDO LQ WKH ODVW GHFDGH EXW H[SUHVV FRQFHUQ DERXW ZKDW WKH\ VHH DV D ODFN RI LGHQWLW\ LQ WKH ILHOG 5HMHVNL t %UDZOH\ f 7KHUH KDV DOVR EHHQ DQ LQFUHDVH LQ VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ UHVHDUFK 7KLV FDQ EH SDUWLDOO\ DWWULEXWHG WR D JURZLQJ UHFRJQLWLRQ WKDW DQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI UHOHYDQW SV\FKRORJLFDO IDFWRUV LV HVVHQWLDO WR EULQJLQJ DERXW LPSURYHG VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH 5HVHDUFK LQ WKLV DUHD KDV LQFOXGHG WKH DQDO\VLV RI DWWHQWLRQDO IDFWRUV HJ 6LQJHU HW DO f EXUQRXW HJ 'DOH t :HLQEHUJ f GHYHORSPHQWDO LVVXHV HJ %URGNLQ t :HLVV f JHQGHU LVVXHV HJ $OOLVRQ f JRDOV HJ /HZWKZDLWH f LPDJHU\ HJ 5RGJHUV +DOO t %XFNKRO] f LQMXU\ HJ %UHZHU 9DQ 5DDOWH t /LQGHU f PHQWDO HUURUV HJ %LUG t +RUQ f PRWLYDWLRQ HJ 'DYLV f VHOIFRQILGHQFH DQG HIILFDF\ HJ 0DUWLQ t *LOO f VNLOO DFTXLVLWLRQ

PAGE 9

HJ 6LQJHU )ORUD t $ERXUH]N f DQG VRFLDO VXSSRUW HJ 6DUDVRQ 6DUDVRQ t 3LHUFH f $QRWKHU PDMRU WRSLF ZKLFK KDV UHFHLYHG PXFK DWWHQWLRQ LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH GHDOV ZLWK WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH FRQVWUXFWV RI DQ[LHW\ DQG DURXVDO DQG VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH HJ %XUWRQ &URFNHU $OGHUPDQ t 6PLWK (EEHFN t :HLVV )HQ] -RQHV t &DOH /DQGHUV t %RXWFKHU 0DGGHQ 6XPPHUV t %URZQ 3UDSDYHVVLV t *URYH 5RGULJR /XVLDUGR t 3HUHLUD :LOOLDPV 7RQ\PRQ t $QGHUVHQ f 7KH GHJUHH RI DWWHQWLRQ JLYHQ WR WKLV WRSLF LV KLJKOLJKWHG E\ D UHFHQW FRQWHQW DQDO\VLV RI VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ ERRNV IRU DWKOHWHV 9HDOH\ f ZKLFK UHYHDOHG WKDW DQ[LHW\DURXVDO FRQWURO WHFKQLTXHV ZHUH WKH VHFRQG PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ GLVFXVVHG IDFWRUV UHODWHG WR WKH HQKDQFHPHQW RI PHQWDO VNLOOV LQ VSRUW $WWHQWLRQDO FRQWURO WHFKQLTXHV ZHUH PRVW IUHTXHQWf )XUWKHUPRUH 0XUSK\ f DQG 2JLOYLH HW DO f KDYH LQGLFDWHG WKDW SUHFRPSHWLWLYH WHQVLRQ LV WKH QXPEHU RQH SUREOHP IRU ZKLFK DWKOHWHV UHTXHVW DVVLVWDQFH :LWKLQ DSSOLHG VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ LQ WKH 86 LW KDV EHHQ VXJJHVWHG WKDW VRPH IRUP RI DQ[LHW\ PDQDJHPHQW LV XVHG LQ WKH PDMRULW\ RI LQWHUYHQWLRQV ZLWK DWKOHWHV 6LQJHU f :LWKLQ WKH JHQHUDO FRQVHQVXV UHJDUGLQJ WKH QHJDWLYH HIIHFWV RI H[FHVV DQ[LHW\ RU DURXVDO RQ DWKOHWLF SHUIRUPDQFH WHFKQLTXHV GHVFULEHG DV DQ[LHW\ PDQDJHPHQW DQG DURXVDO FRQWURO DUH DSSOLHG IUHTXHQWO\ E\ VSRUW

PAGE 10

SV\FKRORJLVWV ZLWK DWKOHWHV +RZHYHU OHVV LV NQRZQ UHJDUGLQJ WKH HIILFDF\ RI WKHVH YDULRXV LQWHUYHQWLRQV 2EYLRXVO\ IURP D OD\SHUVRQnV SHUVSHFWLYH WKHUH LV D FRPPRQ RFFXUUHQFH RI DWKOHWHV FKRNLQJ XQGHU SUHVVXUH 0RVW VSRUWV IDQV FDQ UHFLWH VHYHUDO LQFLGHQWV LQ ZKLFK DQ DWKOHWH RU WHDP KDV QRW SHUIRUPHG DV ZHOO DV H[SHFWHG DQG ZKLFK PD\ EH DWWULEXWHG WR WKH DWKOHWHnV LQDELOLW\ WR FRSH HIIHFWLYHO\ ZLWK D SUHVVXUH VLWXDWLRQ HJ PLVVLQJ D WZRIRRW SXWW WR ZLQ D PDMRU JROI FKDPSLRQVKLS IDOVH VWDUWLQJ DQG GLVTXDOLILFDWLRQ LQ WKH ILQDOV RI D VZLP PHHWf 8QGHUVWDQGLQJ WKHVH IDLOXUHV WR SHUIRUP LV LQWHUHVWLQJ WR VSRUWV IDQV DQG VFLHQWLVWV DOLNH 6XFK XQGHUVWDQGLQJ LV HVSHFLDOO\ LPSRUWDQW IRU WKH DWKOHWH ZKR LV VHHNLQJ KLV RU KHU EHVW SHUIRUPDQFH ,I WKHUH H[LVWV IRU H[DPSOH D ]RQH RI DQ[LHW\ RU DURXVDO ZLWKLQ ZKLFK DWKOHWHV DFKLHYH RSWLPDO FRPSHWLWLYH SHUIRUPDQFH FI +DQLQ f WKHQ WKLV NQRZOHGJH KDV VSHFLDO UHOHYDQFH IRU DWKOHWHV FRDFKHV DQG VSRUW SV\FKRORJLVWV ,I KRZHYHU DQ\ LQFUHDVH LQ DQ[LHW\ RU DURXVDO LV GHWULPHQWDO WR SHUIRUPDQFH FI %LUG t +RUQ %XUWRQ f WKLV KDV GLIIHUHQW UDPLILFDWLRQV IRU DWKOHWHV DQG WKRVH ZRUNLQJ ZLWK WKHP 'HVSLWH WKH IDFW WKDW FRPSHWLWLRQVSHFLILF DQ[LHW\ LV D PDMRU FRQFHUQ IRU PDQ\ DWKOHWHV FRDFKHV DQG VSRUW SV\FKRORJLVWV WKH UHVHDUFK OLWHUDWXUH GHDOLQJ ZLWK WKLV WRSLF OLNH WKDW UHODWHG WR RWKHU IRUPV RI DQ[LHW\ LV LQVXIILFLHQW WR H[SODLQ WKH SUHFLVH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ

PAGE 11

FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ DQG VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH 7R GDWH UHVHDUFK LQ WKLV DUHD KDV EHHQ KDPSHUHG E\ PHWKRGRORJLFDO SUREOHPV HJ *RXOG 3HWOLFKNRII 6LPRQV t 9HYHUD 0F&DXOH\ f VWDWLVWLFDO SUREOHPV FI 6PLWK f WKH XVH RI SRRU RXWFRPH PHDVXUHV FI 0DUWHQV 9HDOH\ t %XUWRQ f DQG GHILQLWLRQDO LQFRQVLVWHQFLHV FI *RXOG t .UDQH LQ SUHVV :HLQEHUJ f &OHDUO\ PRUH PHWKRGRORJLFDOO\ VRSKLVWLFDWHG UHVHDUFK LQ WKLV DUHD LV QHHGHG DV VHYHUDO FXUUHQW VRXUFHV UHFRPPHQG HJ *RXOG t .UDQH LQ SUHVV -RQHV t +DUG\ 0DUWHQV 9HDOH\ t %XUWRQ :HLQEHUJ f 6RPH RI WKH FRQIXVLRQ LQ WKLV DUHD VWHPV IURP GHILQLWLRQDO SUREOHPV 7KH WHUPV DQ[LHW\ DURXVDO VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ DQG VWUHVV IRU H[DPSOH KDYH RIWHQ EHHQ XVHG LQWHUFKDQJHDEO\ LQ WKH EDVLF DQG DSSOLHG UHVHDUFK OLWHUDWXUH *RXOG t .UDQH LQ SUHVV :HLQEHUJ f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

PAGE 12

QDWXUH RI VSRUWUHODWHG DQ[LHW\ DQG KRZ GLIIHUHQW GLPHQVLRQV RI DQ[LHW\ PD\ UHODWH WR VNLOOHG VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH )RFXV RQ WKLV WRSLF KDV PDLQO\ UHVXOWHG IURP WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI D UHYLVHG IRUP RI WKH &RPSHWLWLYH 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ ,QYHQWRU\ &6$, 0DUWHQV %XUWRQ 9HDOH\ %XPS t 6PLWK f ZKLFK LV GHVLJQHG WR DVVHVV FRJQLWLYH DQG VRPDWLF FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ DQG VHOI FRQILGHQFH 6LQFH WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH &6$, LW KDV EHFRPH D SURPLQHQW LQVWUXPHQW LQ WKH DVVHVVPHQW RI VSRUWV UHODWHG VWDWH DQ[LHW\ 7KH DXWKRUV FLWH SXEOLVKHG HPSLULFDO VWXGLHV IURP ZKLFK KDYH LQFOXGHG WKH &6$, 0DUWHQV 9HDOH\ t %XUWRQ f DQG WKHUH KDYH EHHQ DW OHDVW WKLV PDQ\ VWXGLHV XWLOL]LQJ WKH &6$, LQ WKH ODVW IRXU \HDUV ,Q FUHDWLQJ WKH &6$, 0DUWHQV HW DO f ZLWK UHJDUG WR SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK HJ %RUNRYHN 'RFWRU t $OWPDQ /LHEHUW t 0RUULV 0RUULV 'DYLV t +XWFKLQJV f KDYH VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ FRJQLWLYH DQG VRPDWLF VWDWH DQ[LHW\ LV ERWK FRQFHSWXDOO\ DQG SUDFWLFDOO\ LPSRUWDQW LQ WKH DVVHVVPHQW RI FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ /LNHZLVH 0RUULV DQG KLV FROOHDJXHV 0RUULV %URZQ t +DOEHUW 0RUULV +DUULV t 5RYLQV 0RUULV t /LHEHUW f KDYH DUJXHG WKDW FRJQLWLYH DQG VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ FDQ EH HOLFLWHG LQGHSHQGHQWO\ E\ GLIIHUHQW DQWHFHGHQWV DQG DUH VHSDUDWH DOEHLW UHODWHG FRPSRQHQWV 0DUWHQV DQG KLV FROOHDJXHV KDYH DSSOLHG WKHVH QRWLRQV WR VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ DQG KDYH

PAGE 13

VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKHVH WZR DQ[LHW\ FRPSRQHQWV KDYH GLIIHUHQW HIIHFWV RQ FRPSHWLWLYH SHUIRUPDQFH 7KH\ VXJJHVW WKDW VRPDWLF VWDWH DQ[LHW\ ZLOO UHDFK LWV SHDN DW WKH RQVHW RI FRPSHWLWLRQ DQG ZLOO GLVVLSDWH RQFH WKH FRQWHVW VWDUWV 7KXV WKH\ DUJXH VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ XQOHVV YHU\ KLJK DQG DWWHQWLRQDOO\ GLVWUDFWLQJf VKRXOG LQIOXHQFH SHUIRUPDQFH OHVV WKDQ VKRXOG FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ &RJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ FRQVLVWLQJ RI QHJDWLYH H[SHFWDWLRQV DERXW VXFFHVV LQ SHUIRUPLQJ D WDVN DSSHDUV WR RFFXU ERWK EHIRUH DQG WKURXJKRXW D SHUIRUPDQFH DQG WKXV PD\ EH PRUH LPSRUWDQW WR WKH RXWFRPH 0DUWHQV 9HDOH\ t %XUWRQ f 7KH SULQFLSOH TXHVWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ DQ[LHW\ DQG VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH LV KRZ DWKOHWHV UHDFW FRJQLWLYHO\ SK\VLRORJLFDOO\ HPRWLRQDOO\ EHKDYLRUDOO\f WR VWUHVVIXO VLWXDWLRQV HJ FRPSHWLQJ LQ D ORXG KRVWLOH VWDGLXP FRPSHWLQJ DJDLQVW DQ RSSRQHQW WKDW WKH DWKOHWH NQRZV QRWKLQJ DERXW DGMXVWLQJ WR D GLIIHUHQW FOLPDWH DQG UDFH FRXUVHf 'HVSLWH GHILQLWLRQDO PHWKRGRORJLFDO DQG FRQFHSWXDO SUREOHPV VXUURXQGLQJ DWKOHWHVn UHDFWLRQV WR DQ[LHW\ WKHUH H[LVWV VXIILFLHQW UHVHDUFK WR VXJJHVW WKDW DQ[LHW\ DIIHFWV DWKOHWLF SHUIRUPDQFH $OWKRXJK WKLV WRSLF ZLOO EH DGGUHVVHG IXOO\ LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ LW LV LPSRUWDQW WR EULHIO\ SUHVHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ ZKDW LV NQRZQ DERXW WKH SRWHQWLDO HIIHFWV RI DQ[LHW\ RQ SHUIRUPDQFH GLUHFWO\ DV ZHOO DV RQ

PAGE 14

SK\VLRORJLFDO FRJQLWLYH DQG RWKHU PHGLDWRUV RI DWKOHWLF SHUIRUPDQFH 7KHUH LV UHVHDUFK WR VXJJHVW WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV LQ FRPSHWLWLYH VLWXDWLRQV LQFOXGLQJ FKLOGUHQ %HXWHU t 'XGD /HZWKZDLWH f DGROHVFHQWV &URFNHU $OGHUPDQ t 6PLWK f DGXOWV 5RGULJR /XVLDUGR t 3HUHLUD f DQG HOLWH DWKOHWHV 6FDQODQ 6WHLQ t 5DYL]]D f DUH VXVFHSWLEOH WR HYDOXDWLRQ VWUHVV LQ ZKLFK WKH UHVXOWDQW DQ[LHW\ PD\ LQWHUIHUH ZLWK SHUIRUPDQFH 7KH DQ[LHW\ UHDFWLRQ DSSHDUV WR EH UHODWHG WR D WKUHDW SHUFHSWLRQ DQG FDQ EH PDQLIHVWHG LQ EHKDYLRUDO FRJQLWLYH DQG SK\VLRORJLFDO UHVSRQVHV ,W DOVR DSSHDUV WKDW FRPSHWLWLYH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ LV GHSHQGHQW XSRQ WKH QDWXUH RI WKH FRPSHWLWLRQ XSRQ WKH DWKOHWHnV WHQGHQF\ WR H[SHULHFH DQ[LHW\ LQ JHQHUDO WUDLW DQ[LHW\f DQG XSRQ WKH FRSLQJ VNLOOV GHYHORSHG E\ WKH DWKOHWH WR GHDO ZLWK WKH DQ[LHW\DURXVLQJ FRPSHWLWLRQ 6PLWK t 6PROO f 7KXV D PDMRU VWDWH FKDPSLRQVKLS LV SRWHQWLDOO\ PRUH DQ[LHW\SURYRNLQJ WKDQ D ZHHNO\ ORFDO FRQWHVW DQG WKHUHIRUH PD\ SUHVHQW WKH DWKOHWH ZLWK D JUHDWHU FKDOOHQJH RI FRSLQJ ZLWK QHUYHV DQG EXWWHUIOLHV VXUURXQGLQJ WKH FRPSHWLWLRQ 6LPLODUO\ DQ DWKOHWH ZLWK D KLJK DPRXQW RI FRPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\ DQG SRRU FRSLQJ VNLOOVf ZRXOG EH PRUH OLNHO\ WR H[SHULHQFH GHFUHPHQWV LQ SHUIRUPDQFH LQ DQ LPSRUWDQW FRPSHWLWLRQ WKDQ DQ DWKOHWH ZKR KDV OHVV WUDLW DQ[LHW\ RU WKDQ RQH ZKR KDV GHYHORSHG HIIHFWLYH FRSLQJ VWUDWHJLHV

PAGE 15

IRU SUHVVXUHILOOHG FRPSHWLWLYH VLWXDWLRQV /HZWKZDLWH 6PLWK t 6PROO f ,W DOVR DSSHDUV WKDW DQ[LHW\ SULPDULO\ DIIHFWV WKH DWKOHWH LQ SHUIRUPDQFHGHJUDGLQJ ZD\V HJ %XUWRQ 0F&DQQ 0XUSK\ t 5DHGHNH LQ SUHVVf WKURXJK FRJQLWLYH DQG DWWHQWLRQDO IDFWRUV HJ PHQWDO HUURUVf $OEUHFKW t )HOW] %LUG t +RUQ 6LQJHU HW DO f DQG WKURXJK VRPDWLF HIIHFWV HJ WRR SXPSHGXSf 3RZHOO t 9HUQHU 6PLWK t 6PROO f $Q[LHW\ DOVR DSSHDUV WR DIIHFW LQGLYLGXDOV QHJDWLYHO\ LQ D FRPSHWLWLYH VLWXDWLRQ YLD DOWHUHG PRWRULF UHDFWLRQV HJ %HXWHU t 'XGD :HLQEHUJ f $V ZLOO EH GHPRQVWUDWHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ LW LV FXUUHQWO\ QRW FOHDU ZKLFK IDFWRUV RI FRPSHWLWLRQ HJ LQWUDLQGLYLGXDO SUHVVXUH FRPSHWLWRUV FRDFKHVf DQG ZKLFK PHGLDWLQJ IDFWRUV HJ DWWHQWLRQ SK\VLRORJLFDO DURXVDO FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\f DUH PRVW UHOHYDQW WR SHUIRUPDQFH LQ UHJDUGV WR FRPSHWLWLRQ DQ[LHW\ 6SRUW SV\FKRORJLVWV ZKR DUH HYDOXDWLQJ DWKOHWHV DQG WKH DWKOHWHV WKHPVHOYHV ZRXOG EHQHILW IURP PRUH FRPSHOOLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ KRZ DWKOHWHV UHDFW XQGHU SRWHQWLDOO\ VWUHVVIXO FRPSHWLWLYH VLWXDWLRQV $ PRUH SUHFLVH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH QDWXUH RI DWKOHWHVn UHVSRQVHV WR VWUHVVIXO VLWXDWLRQV DQG KRZ WKHLU SHUIRUPDQFHV DUH DIIHFWHG LV QHHGHG 2QH VSHFLILF H[DPSOH RI D VLWXDWLRQ ZKLFK PD\ EH DQ[LHW\SURGXFLQJ WR DWKOHWHV DQG ZKLFK PD\ UHSUHVHQW DQ

PAGE 16

LGHDO FRQWH[W ZLWKLQ ZKLFK WR LQYHVWLJDWH PDQ\ RI WKH LVVXHV GLVFXVVHG KHUH LQYROYHV WKH H[DPLQDWLRQ RI VZLPPLQJ VSHHG HIILFLHQF\ DQG VWURNH PHFKDQLFV DW WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 6ZLPPLQJ ,QWHUQDWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU $TXDWLF 5HVHDUFK 7KLV IDFLOLW\ LV XQLTXH LQ SURYLGLQJ VWDWH RI WKH DUW DVVHVVPHQWV RI VWURNH WHFKQLTXH SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\ DQG VZLPPLQJ HFRQRP\ ZKLOH VZLPPHUV SHUIRUP LQ D VZLPPLQJ IOXPH D NLQG RI VZLPPLQJ WUHDGPLOOf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f DQ[LHW\ UHODWHG WR WKH XQIDPLOLDULW\ RI WKH IOXPH RU DQ[LHW\ UHODWHG WR VZLPPLQJ LQ WKH FRQILQHG VSDFH RI WKH IOXPH 7KXV WKH DVVHVVPHQW VLWXDWLRQ PD\ SURYLGH D VLJQLILFDQW VRXUFH RI DQ[LHW\ IRU VRPH VZLPPHUV ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW WKH DQ[LRXV VZLPPHU PD\ QRW SHUIRUP WR WKH EHVW RI KLV RU KHU DELOLW\ DV D UHVXOW RI IRFXVLQJ RQ LQDSSURSULDWH FRJQLWLRQV DQG DQ[LHW\

PAGE 17

JHQHUDWLQJ VHOIVWDWHPHQWV DQGRU DV D UHVXOW RI H[FHVVLYH SK\VLRORJLFDO DURXVDO 7KXV WKH HIIHFWV RI DURXVDO DQG DQ[LHW\ RQ VZLPPLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH LQ WKH IOXPH PD\ SUHYHQW WKH PRVW DFFXUDWH DVVHVVPHQW RI WKH VZLPPHUVn WHFKQLTXHV )XUWKHUPRUH LI DQ[LHW\UHVSRQVHV FRXOG EH H[SHULPHQWDOO\ PDQLSXODWHG WKHQ WKH IOXPH PLJKW SURYLGH DQ LGHDO VHWWLQJ WR VWXG\ WKH UHDFWLRQV RI DWKOHWHV WR FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ 'DWD URXWLQHO\ REWDLQHG RQ WKRVH DVVHVVHG LQ WKH IOXPH UHSUHVHQW KLJKO\ TXDQWLILDEOH GHSHQGHQW PHDVXUHVf ,Q WKH SUHVHQW LQYHVWLJDWLRQ WKH IOXPH ZDV XVHG WR SURYLGH D SRWHQWLDOO\ VWUHVVIXO WHVWLQJ VLWXDWLRQ IRU VZLPPHUV ZKHUH SV\FKRORJLFDO SK\VLRORJLFDO DQG ELRPHFKDQLFDO YDULDEOHV FRXOG EH FDUHIXOO\ DVVHVVHG 6ZLPPHUV ZHUH FKRVHQ DV VXEMHFWV IRU WZR PDLQ UHDVRQV )LUVW WKH IOXPH SURYLGHV D XQLTXH VHWWLQJ IRU D FRQWUROOHG DVVHVVPHQW RI SHUIRUPDQFH LH RQH LQ ZKLFK DQ H[WHUQDOO\ YDOLG VLWXDWLRQ FDQ VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ SURYLGH SUHFLVH SHUIRUPDQFH PHDVXUHPHQWf 6HFRQG VZLPPLQJ LV RI D SULPDULO\ LQGLYLGXDO QDWXUH DQG DOORZV IRU GLUHFW DVVHVVPHQW RI LQWUDLQGLYLGXDO HIIHFWV RI DQ[LHW\ ,W ZDV IHOW WKDW DQ LQYHVWLJDWLRQ ZLWK VZLPPHUV DVVHVVHG LQ WKLV VRUW RI IDFLOLW\ ZRXOG EH LGHDOO\ VXLWHG WR SURYLGH XVHIXO LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKH QDWXUH RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DQ[LHW\ DQG VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH $ VHFRQGDU\ JRDO RI WKH VWXG\ ZDV WR H[DPLQH DQ H[LVWLQJ

PAGE 18

DVVHVVPHQW SURFHGXUH LH WKH IOXPHf WR GHWHUPLQH LWV HIIHFWV RQ VZLPPHUVn DQ[LHW\ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH 6WDWHPHQWV RI WKH 3UREOHP 7KHUH ZHUH WKUHH SULPDU\ SXUSRVHV IRU FRQGXFWLQJ WKLV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ f WR H[DPLQH DQG FRPSDUH WKH HIIHFWV RI WKH FRPSRQHQWV RI DQ[LHW\ LH VRPDWLF YV FRJQLWLYHf RQ VZLPPLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH f WR GHWHUPLQH KRZ WKH VZLPPLQJ VWURNH IURP D ELRPHFKDQLFDO SHUVSHFWLYHf LV DIIHFWHG E\ GLIIHUHQW OHYHOV RI H[WHUQDOO\LQGXFHG DQ[LHW\ DQG f WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU FXUUHQW DVVHVVPHQW SURFHGXUHV DW WKH ,QWHUQDWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU $TXDWLF 5HVHDUFK DUH DIIHFWHG E\ D VZLPPHUnV WHVWLQJ KLVWRU\ LQ WKH IOXPH %ULHI 2YHUYLHZ RI 6WXG\ +LJK VFKRRO VZLPPHUV 1 f ZHUH PDWFKHG IRU VNLOO DJH DQG FRPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\ (DFK ZDV WHVWHG RQ WZR WULDOV LQ WKH PRWRUL]HG IOXPH LH VZLPPLQJ WUHDGPLOOf 3ULRU WR HDFK WULDO VZLPPHUV ZHUH JLYHQ VHOIUHSRUW PHDVXUHV WR DVVHVV WKHLU FRPSHWLWLYH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ LQFOXGLQJ FRJQLWLYH DQG VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ DQG KDG WKHLU KHDUW UDWH WDNHQ 'XULQJ ERWK WULDOV WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH YLGHRWDSHG XQGHUZDWHU WR GHWHUPLQH WKHLU VZLPPLQJ HIILFLHQF\ XVLQJ FRPSXWHUDLGHG ELRPHFKDQLFDO DQDO\VHV $ EDVHOLQH HIILFLHQF\ ZDV REWDLQHG GXULQJ WKH ILUVW VZLP ZKLOH WKH VZLPPHU ZDV XQDZDUH RI EHLQJ ILOPHG 7KH VHFRQG WULDO ZDV FRQGXFWHG XQGHU RQH RI WKUHH DQ[LHW\

PAGE 19

FRQGLWLRQV +LJK 0RGHUDWH RU /RZ DQ[LHW\f $Q DWWHPSW WR FUHDWH WKHVH FRQGLWLRQV H[SHULPHQWDOO\ ZDV PDGH WKURXJK WKH XVH RI GLIIHUHQW LQVWUXFWLRQV JLYHQ WR WKH VZLPPHU SULRU WR KLV RU KHU VHFRQG WULDO &RPSDULVRQV RI VZLPPLQJ HIILFLHQF\ ZHUH PDGH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR VZLPV EDVHG RQ JURXS PHPEHUVKLS DQG RQ LQWUDLQGLYLGXDO FKDQJHV LQ VHOIUHSRUW PHDVXUHV +\SRWKHVHV 7KH IROORZLQJ UHVHDUFK K\SRWKHVHV ZHUH WHVWHG &RPSHWLWLYH FRJQLWLYH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ ZLOO EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ DQG QHJDWLYHO\ UHODWHG WR IUHHVW\OH VZLPPLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH LH VWURNH HIILFLHQF\f 7KLV UHODWLRQVKLS LV H[SHFWHG WR PDQLIHVW LWVHOI VXFK WKDW VZLPPLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH GXULQJ WKH VHFRQG VZLP EHFRPHV OHVV HIILFLHQW DV D IXQFWLRQ RI JURXS PHPEHUVKLS GHWHUPLQHG E\ UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV DQDO\VHV RI YDULDQFHf 7KDW LV VZLPPHUV LQ WKH KLJKDQ[LHW\ JURXS VKRXOG VKRZ WKH JUHDWHVW GHFUHPHQW LQ VZLPPLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH IROORZHG E\ WKRVH LQ WKH PRGHUDWHDQ[LHW\ JURXS DQG WKHQ WKH ORZ DQ[LHW\ JURXS ZKRVH PHPEHUV DUH H[SHFWHG WR VKRZ WKH VOLJKWHVW SHUIRUPDQFH GHFUHPHQW GXULQJ WKH VHFRQG HYDOXDWHG VZLPf ,W LV WKXV H[SHFWHG WKDW DQ\ LQFUHDVH LQ FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ ZLOO KDYH D QHJDWLYH HIIHFW RQ WKH ELRPHFKDQLFDO HIILFLHQF\ RI WKH VZLPPHU 7KLV K\SRWKHVLV LV EDVHG LQ SDUW RQ UHFHQW VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ UHVHDUFK ILQGLQJV HJ

PAGE 20

%LUG DQG +RUQ f ZKR IRXQG WKDW FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ ZDV SRVLWLYHO\ UHODWHG WR PHQWDO HUURUV DQG %XUWRQ f ZKR FRQFOXGHG WKDW FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ ZDV QHJDWLYHO\ UHODWHG WR VZLPPLQJ SHUIRUPDQFHf &RJQLWLYH SV\FKRORJ\ UHVHDUFK HJ :LQH f DOVR OHQGV VXSSRUW DQG VXJJHVWV WKDW ZLWK LQFUHDVLQJ FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ LQGLYLGXDOV EHFRPH PRUH SUHRFFXSLHG ZLWK VHOIHYDOXDWLRQ DQG SRVVLEOH IDLOXUH WKXV GLVUXSWLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH ,QGHSHQGHQW RI WKH JURXSV SHUIRUPDQFH GHFUHPHQWV ZLOO EH PRVW SURQRXQFHG LQ WKRVH VZLPPHUV ZKR GHPRQVWUDWH WKH JUHDWHVW LQFUHDVHV LQ FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ IURP EDVHOLQH WR HYDOXDWHG VZLPV GHWHUPLQHG E\ FRUUHODWLRQDO DQG UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHVf )RU WKHVH VZLPPHUV DQ HYDOXDWHG IOXPH VZLP PD\ VHHP PRUH GLIILFXOW DQG EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK D JUHDWHU SHUFHLYHG WKUHDW D PRUH QHJDWLYH DQ[LHW\ UHDFWLRQ DQG WKXV D JUHDWHU GHFUHPHQW LQ VZLPPLQJ HIILFLHQF\ FI %HXWHU t 'XGD %UXVWDG t :HLVV /HZWKZDLWH f 7HVWLQJ RI WKLV K\SRWKHVLV LV VXSSRUWHG E\ UHVHDUFKHUV ZKR VXJJHVW WKDW LQWUDLQGLYLGXDO DQDO\VHV LQ DQ[LHW\SHUIRUPDQFH UHVHDUFK LV PHDQLQJIXO DQG QHHGHG *RXOG t .UDQH LQ SUHVV 6RQVWURHP t %HUQDUGR :HLQEHUJ f &RJQLWLYH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ ZLOO KDYH D PRUH SURIRXQG QHJDWLYH HIIHFW RQ SHUIRUPDQFH WKDQ VRPDWLF VWDWH DQ[LHW\ $V D UHVXOW RI SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK %XUWRQ )HOW] /DQGHUV t 5DHGHU *RXOG HW DO 0DUWHQV HW DO 5RVHQWKDO 6DUDVRQ

PAGE 21

:HLQEHUJ *RXOG t -DFNVRQ f LW ZDV K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW VRPDWLF $VWDWH ZRXOG OLNHO\ EH JUHDWHVW EHIRUH WKH VZLPPHU HQWHUHG WKH IOXPH DQG WKHQ ZRXOG GLVVLSDWH DV WKH WHVWLQJ EHJDQ EXW WKDW FRJQLWLYH $VWDWH HVSHFLDOO\ DQ[LHW\ UHODWHG WR HYDOXDWLRQf ZRXOG OLNHO\ FRQWLQXH LQWR WKH WHVWLQJ DQG EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK PHDVXUDEOH GHFUHPHQWV LQ VZLPPLQJ HIILFLHQF\ ,I GHFUHPHQWV DUH IRXQG LQ WKH IUHHVW\OH VWURNH WKH PRVW OLNHO\ VWDJH ZLOO EH GXULQJ WKH ILQLVK SKDVH VHH EHORZ LQ 'HILQLWLRQV RI 7HUPVf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f 7KLV ZLOO EH DVVHVVHG E\ H[DPLQLQJ FKDQJHV LQ HIILFLHQF\ RI WKH ILQLVK SKDVH DV D IXQFWLRQ RI JURXS PHPEHUVKLS XVLQJ D UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV $129$f 'HILQLWLRQV RI 7HUPV $OWKRXJK ZLWKLQ WKH 5HYLHZ RI /LWHUDWXUH GHILQLWLRQV DQG FRQFHSWV DUH DGGUHVVHG WKH IROORZLQJ WHUPV DUH GHILQHG EULHIO\ LQ RUGHU WR DVVLVW LQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH

PAGE 22

WHUPLQRORJ\ RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ 7R IDFLOLWDWH D EHWWHU FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI WKHVH WHUPV LW LV ILUVW QHFHVVDU\ WR SUHVHQW D EULHI RYHUYLHZ RI WKH IUHHVW\OH VZLPPLQJ DUPVWURNH 7KH VWURNH LV PDGH XS RI WKUHH SKDVHV FDWFK LQVZHHS DQG ILQLVKf 5HFRYHU\ LQ ZKLFK WKH KDQG WUDYHOV IURP WKH HQG RI WKH VWURNH WR UHHQWHU WKH ZDWHU LV WKH IRXUWK SKDVH RI WKH VWURNH EXW LV QRW DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH SURSXOVLRQ RI WKH VZLPPHUf 7KH SKDVHV DUH QRW GLVWLQFW EXW DUH FRQWLQXRXV SDUWV RI WKH VWURNH 7KXV WKH VZLPPHU ILUVW HQWHUV WKH ZDWHU FDWFKLQJ LW DQG SXOOLQJ EDFN DQG DZD\ IURP WKH ERG\ 1H[W WKH VZLPPHU EHJLQV WR EHQG WKH HOERZ PRUH DV KH RU VKH VZHHSV WKH ZDWHU ZLWK WKH KDQG LQ DQG XQGHUQHDWK WKH ERG\ 7R ILQLVK WKH VWURNH WKH VZLPPHU SXVKHV WKH ZDWHU ZLWK WKH KDQG RXW DQG EDFN IURP XQGHUQHDWK WKH ERG\f HYHQWXDOO\ OLIWLQJ WKH HOERZ DQG KDQG RXW RI WKH ZDWHU IRU UHFRYHU\ )URP WKH SHUVSHFWLYH RI WKH VZLPPHU WKH ULJKW DUP JHQHUDOO\ IROORZV WKH VKDSH RI DQ LQYHUWHG 6 ZKLOH WKH OHIW DUP DSSUR[LPDWHV DQ 6 $QJOH RI 3LWFK $3f LV WKH DQJOH RI WKH KDQG LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKH VZLPPHUnV ERG\ DW DQ\ RQH WLPH GXULQJ WKH DUPVWURNH r DSSUR[LPDWHV D KDQGVKDNLQJ SRVLWLRQf $Q[LHW\ UHIHUV WR WKH H[SHULHQFH RI QHJDWLYH WKRXJKWV HJ ZRUU\ VHOIGRXEWf DQG XVXDOO\ FRQFRPLWDQW SK\VLRORJLFDO VHQVDWLRQV HJ VZHDW\ SDOPV UDFLQJ KHDUW UDWHf ZKLFK DUH LQGXFHG LQ UHVSRQVH WR D

PAGE 23

WKUHDWHQLQJ VLWXDWLRQ REMHFWLYH RU VXEMHFWLYH RI HQYLURQPHQWDO VRFLDO RU LQWUDSHUVRQDO RULJLQf $URXVDO LV GHILQHG DV SV\FKRORJLFDO DQGRU SK\VLRORJLFDO DFWLYDWLRQ RI DQ RUJDQLVP RQ D FRQWLQXXP IURP GHHS VOHHS WR H[WUHPH DFWLYDWLRQ HJ LQWHQVH H[FLWHPHQW RU IHDUf &DWFK LV WKH ILUVW SKDVH RI WKH DUPVWURNH LQ ZKLFK WKH VZLPPHUnV KDQG HQWHUV WKH ZDWHU DQG EHJLQV WKH VWURNH )RU DQDO\WLFDO SXUSRVHV LW FRQWLQXHV WR WKH SRLQW DW ZKLFK WKH VZLPPHUnV KDQG LV DW LWV ZLGHVW SRLQW LH IXUWKHVW SRLQW ODWHUDOO\ IURP WKH ERG\f 'LJLWL]DWLRQ UHIHUV WR WKH SURFHVV RI FRQYHUWLQJ D YLGHR LPDJH RI DQ DFWLRQ HJ D VZLPPLQJ DUPVWURNHf LQWR WZR DQG WKUHH GLPHQVLRQDO FRRUGLQDWHV IRU TXDQWLWDWLYH FRPSXWHU DQDO\VLV 'UDJ LV GHILQHG DV DQ\ QHJDWLYH IRUFH FUHDWHG GXULQJ VZLPPLQJ ZKLFK DFWV WR VORZ WKH ERG\ WKURXJK ZDWHU UHVLVWDQFH HJ GXULQJ KDQG HQWU\f )LQLVK GHVFULEHV WKH WKLUG ILQDO DQG PRVW SRZHUIXO SKDVH RI WKH DUPVWURNH LQ ZKLFK WKH VZLPPHU FRPSOHWHV WKH VWURNH F\FOH )RU DQDO\WLFDO SXUSRVHV LW EHJLQV DW WKH SRLQW DW ZKLFK WKH VZLPPHUnV KDQG LV DW LWV QDUURZHVW SRLQW LH XQGHUQHDWK WKH ERG\f DQG HQGV ZLWK WKH KDQGnV H[LW IURP WKH ZDWHU )OXPH UHIHUV WR D VZLPPLQJ WUHDGPLOO LQ ZKLFK VXEMHFWV DUH HYDOXDWHG ILOPHG YLD XQGHUZDWHU YLGHR

PAGE 24

FDPHUDVf ZKLOH WKH\ VZLP DJDLQVW D VWHDG\ VWUHDP RI ZDWHU +DQG 9HORFLW\ &+9f LV WKH VSHHG RI WKH KDQG WKURXJK WKH ZDWHU LQ PHWHUV SHU VHFRQG +\GURG\QDPLF %LRPHFKDQLFDO $QDO\VLV LV DQ RYHUDOO SURFHVV RI ILOPLQJ D VZLPPHU ZLWK XQGHUZDWHU FDPHUDV DQG WKHQ GHWHUPLQLQJ IRUFHV DQG HIILFLHQF\ RI WKH VZLPPHU YLD GLJLWL]DWLRQf ,QVZHHS UHIHUV WR WKH PLGGOH VHFRQGf SKDVH RI WKH DUPVWURNH )RU DQDO\WLFDO SXUSRVHV LW EHJLQV ZKHUH WKH FDWFK HQGV LH DW WKH ZLGHVW SRLQWf DQG FRQWLQXHV XQWLO WKH KDQG LV DW WKH QDUURZHVW SRLQW LH XQGHUQHDWK WKH ERG\ DQG ZKHUH WKH ILQLVK EHJLQVf 3URSHOOLQJ (IILFLHQF\ 3(f LV D PHDVXUH RI KRZ HIILFLHQW D VZLPPHU LV LQ PRYLQJ WKURXJK WKH ZDWHU ,W LV WKH SURSXOVLYH IRUFH 5(f GLYLGHG E\ WKH WRWDO IRUFH 5f PXOWLSOLHG E\ DQG WKXV H[SUHVVHG DV D SHUFHQWDJH 3URSXOVLYH )RUFH 5(f LV WKH IRUFH PHDVXUHG LQ QHZWRQVf ZKLFK WKH VZLPPHU H[HUWV XSRQ WKH ZDWHU LQ RUGHU WR SURSHO KLPVHOI RU KHUVHOI WKURXJK WKH ZDWHU ,W LV D FRPSRQHQW RI WKH WRWDO IRUFH ZKLFK WKH VZLPPHU H[HUWV 7RWDO )RUFH 5f LV WKH WRWDO IRUFH PHDVXUHG LQ QHZWRQVf ZKLFK WKH VZLPPHU H[HUWV XSRQ WKH ZDWHU ZKLOH VZLPPLQJ $VVXPSWLRQV )RU WKH SXUSRVH RI WKLV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ WKH IROORZLQJ DVVXPSWLRQV ZHUH PDGH

PAGE 25

6XEMHFWV ZRXOG EH DEOH WR VZLP WKH IUHHVW\OH VWURNH LQ WKH IOXPH GXULQJ D WHVWLQJ SURFHGXUH 7KH IOXPH ZRXOG SURYLGH DQ DGHTXDWH DVVHVVPHQW RI VZLPPLQJ WHFKQLTXH LQ KLJK VFKRRO VZLPPHUV 7KH DQ[LHW\ PDQLSXODWLRQV DQG IOXPH WHVWLQJ SURFHGXUH ZRXOG SUHVHQW D VLJQLILFDQWO\ VWUHVVIXO VLWXDWLRQ WR VZLPPHUV HVSHFLDOO\ IRU WKRVH QDLYH WR WKH IOXPHf 7KLV DVVXPSWLRQ ZDV PDGH RQ WKH EDVLV RI OLWHUDWXUH ZKLFK VXJJHVWV WKDW HYDOXDWLYH VLWXDWLRQV LQYROYLQJ VRPH WKUHDW WR SHUFHLYHG DELOLW\ RU VNLOOV DUH KLJKO\ DQ[LHW\SURGXFLQJ %HXWHU t 'XGD %UXVWDG t :HLVV %XUWRQ *RXOG HW DO /HZWKZDLWH 6FDQODQ f ,W ZDV DVVXPHG WKDW VXEMHFWVn UHDFWLRQV WR WKH IOXPH WHVWLQJ SURFHGXUHV ZRXOG EH IDLUO\ UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI KRZ KLJK VFKRRO VZLPPHUV UHDFW SV\FKRORJLFDOO\ SK\VLRORJLFDOO\ DQG ELRPHFKDQLFDOO\f WR YDU\LQJ VWUHVVIXO FRQGLWLRQV 6XEMHFWV ZRXOG EH DEOH WR DFFXUDWHO\ UHVSRQG WR SDSHU DQG SHQFLO TXHVWLRQQDLUHV ZKLFK DVVHVV WKRXJKWV RI DQ[LHW\ /LPLWDWLRQV 'XH WR OLPLWDWLRQV SODFHG RQ WKH LQYHVWLJDWRU IRU GDWD FROOHFWLRQ E\ 86 6ZLPPLQJ WKH IOXPH WHVWLQJ SURFHGXUH ZDV QRW QRYHO WR DSSUR[LPDWHO\ RQHWKLUG RI WKH VXEMHFWV 7KH RULJLQDO LQWHQWLRQ ZDV WR LQFOXGH RQO\ VXEMHFWV ZKR KDG QRW SUHYLRXVO\ H[SHULHQFHG WKH IOXPH

PAGE 26

7KHUHIRUH GDWD DQDO\VHV ZHUH VRPHZKDW DOWHUHG DQG FRPSURPLVHG ,Q WKDW RQO\ KLJK VFKRRO VZLPPHUV ZHUH WHVWHG WKHUH PD\ EH OLPLWHG JHQHUDOL]DELOLW\ WR D PRUH FRPSHWLWLYH JURXS RI VZLPPHUV HJ FROOHJLDWH RU 2O\PSLFFDOLEHU VZLPPHUVf 6LJQLILFDQFH RI WKH 6WXG\ $ UHFHQW VXUYH\ E\ %OLQGH DQG 7LHUQH\ f LQGLFDWHG WKDW 86 6ZLPPLQJ FRDFKHV DV D JURXS SRVVHVV D PRGHUDWH WR ODUJH GHJUHH RI UHFHSWLYLW\ WR WKH ILHOG RI VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ $V WKH DXWKRUV FRUUHFWO\ SRLQW RXW WKLV GHJUHH RI UHFHSWLYLW\ LV FULWLFDO LQ WKH SURFHVV RI GLVVHPLQDWLQJ DSSOLHG VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ UHVHDUFK LQIRUPDWLRQ WR D VSRUW DQG LWV FRDFKHV DQG DWKOHWHV +RZHYHU D FOHDU REVWDFOH WR UHFHSWLYLW\ LV D OLPLWHG NQRZOHGJH EDVH GLVVHPLQDWHG IURP WKH UHVHDUFKHU WR WKH SUDFWLWLRQHU S f 7KH DXWKRUV UHFRPPHQG WKDW UHVHDUFKHUV IRFXV WKHLU DWWHQWLRQ RQ SUDFWLFDO DQG DSSOLHG VWXGLHV $FFRUGLQJO\ D SRWHQWLDO FRQWULEXWLRQ RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR FRQGXFW UHVHDUFK WKDW FRXOG EH UHDGLO\ UHFHLYHG DQG XVHG E\ FRDFKHV DV ZHOO DV DWKOHWHV ,W ZDV H[SHFWHG WKDW WKLV VWXG\ ZRXOG KDYH LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU SURYLGLQJ DSSOLHG UHVHDUFK NQRZOHGJH WR WKH FRQVXPHU HJ FRDFKHV DQG DWKOHWHVf WKURXJK WKH 86 6ZLPPLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQ YLD SXEOLFDWLRQV DQG FRDFKHV DQG DWKOHWHVn FOLQLFV

PAGE 27

,Q DGGLWLRQ WR SURYLGLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDW FRXOG EH XVHIXO WR VZLPPLQJ WKLV VWXG\ ZDV H[SHFWHG WR FRQWULEXWH WR WKH ERG\ RI NQRZOHGJH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH SRWHQWLDO UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DQ[LHW\ DQG VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH $V ZLOO EH GHPRQVWUDWHG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ VHFWLRQ WKHUH DUH VLJQLILFDQW TXHVWLRQV DV WR KRZ DWKOHWHV UHVSRQG WR DQ[LHW\ LQ D FRPSHWLWLYH FRQWH[W ,W ZDV H[SHFWHG WKDW D VLJQLILFDQW FRQWULEXWLRQ RI WKLV VWXG\ ZRXOG EH WR H[SDQG XSRQ DQG FODULI\ WKH DQ[LHW\SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS 7KH FXUUHQW LQYHVWLJDWLRQ DOVR FRQVWLWXWHG DQ DWWHPSW WR SRRO WKH UHVRXUFHV RI D VSRUWVSHFLILF VSRUWV VFLHQFH WHDP 86 6ZLPPLQJ ,QWHUQDWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU $TXDWLF 5HVHDUFKf ZLWK VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ LQ D MRLQW HIIRUW WR LQYHVWLJDWH D VSHFLILF TXHVWLRQ LH H[DPLQLQJ WKH DFFXUDF\ RI IOXPH DVVHVVPHQWV ZLWK DQ[LRXV VXEMHFWVf DQG D ODUJHU LVVXH LH LQYHVWLJDWLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DQ[LHW\ DQG VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFHf $V VXFK LW UHIOHFWHG DQ LQWHJUDWLRQ RI GLIIHUHQW GLVFLSOLQHV ZLWKLQ WKH VSRUWV VFLHQFHV HJ ELRPHFKDQLFV PRWRU FRQWURO SK\VLRORJ\ DQG VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\f DQG ZDV H[SHFWHG WR SURYLGH D XVHIXO PRGHO IRU IXWXUH PXOWLGLVFLSOLQDU\ SURMHFWV ,Q JHQHUDO WKHQ LW ZDV H[SHFWHG WKDW WKLV VWXG\ ZRXOG FRQWULEXWH WR WKH OLWHUDWXUH FRQFHUQLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DQ[LHW\ DQG D VSHFLILF W\SH RI DWKOHWLF SHUIRUPDQFH VZLPPLQJf

PAGE 28

5(9,(: 2) /,7(5$785( &RQFHSWV DQG 'HILQLWLRQV $Q[LHW\ DQG 6WUHVV $Q[LHW\ FDQ EH GLIIHUHQWLDWHG LQ WHUPV RI ZKHWKHU LW LV PDQLIHVWHG DV D WUDQVLWRU\ H[SHULHQFH VWDWH DQ[LHW\f RU DV D SURFOLYLW\ WRZDUGV IHHOLQJ DQ[LRXV WUDLW DQ[LHW\f 6WDWH DQ[LHW\ KDV EHHQ GHILQHG DV 7UDQVLWRU\ HPRWLRQDO VWDWHV WKDW FRQVLVW RI VXEMHFWLYH FRQVFLRXVO\H[SHULHQFHG IHHOLQJV RI WHQVLRQ DSSUHKHQVLRQ QHUYRXVQHVV DQG ZRUU\ DQG KHLJKWHQHG DURXVDO RU DFWLYDWLRQ RI WKH DXWRQRPLF QHUYRXV V\VWHPV 7KHVH VWDWHV YDU\ LQ LQWHQVLW\ DQG IOXFWXDWH RYHU WLPH DV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH DPRXQW RI SHUFHLYHG WKUHDW 7KXV SHUFHLYHG WKUHDW PHGLDWHV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VWUHVVRUV DQG WKH LQWHQVLW\ RI VWDWH DQ[LHW\ UHDFWLRQV 6SLHOEHUJHU S f 7KH DQ[LHW\ VWDWH PD\ FRQVLVW RI D FRPELQDWLRQ RI VRPH RI WKH IROORZLQJ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WHQVLRQ QHUYRXVQHVV XQSOHDVDQW WKRXJKWV ZRUULHVf DQG SK\VLRORJLFDO FKDQJHV HJ GU\ PRXWK SXSLO GLODWLRQ IDVWHU DQG PRUH LQWHQVH EUHDWKLQJ WHQVH PXVFOHVf DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH LQFUHDVHG V\PSDWKHWLF DFWLYLW\ RI WKH DXWRQRPLF QHUYRXV V\VWHP %XUWRQ 6SLHOEHUJHU f ,Q PRUH VHYHUH LQVWDQFHV RI DQ[LHW\ DV GXULQJ D SDQLF DWWDFN V\PSWRPV H[SHULHQFHG PD\ LQFOXGH 6KRUWQHVV RI EUHDWK G\VSQHDf RU VPRWKHULQJ VHQVDWLRQV GL]]LQHVV XQVWHDG\ IHHOLQJV RU IDLQWQHVV FKRNLQJ SDOSLWDWLRQV RU DFFHOHUDWHG

PAGE 29

KHDUW UDWH WUHPEOLQJ RU VKDNLQJ VZHDWLQJ QDXVHD RU DEGRPLQDO GLVWUHVV GHSHUVRQDOL]DWLRQ RUGHUHDOL]DWLRQ QXPEQHVV RU WLQJOLQJ VHQVDWLRQV SDUDVWKHVLDVf IOXVKHV KRW IODVKHVf RU FKLOOV FKHVW SDLQ RU GLVFRPIRUW IHDU RI G\LQJ DQG IHDU RI JRLQJ FUD]\ RU RI GRLQJ VRPHWKLQJ XQFRQWUROOHG GXULQJ WKH DWWDFN $PHULFDQ 3V\FKLDWULF $VVRFLDWLRQ S f 6PLWK DQG 6PROO f GHILQH DQ[LHW\ DV D PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO FRQVWUXFW ZKLFK LQYROYHV DQ DYHUVLYH HPRWLRQDO UHVSRQVH DQG DQ DYRLGDQFH PRWLYH FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ ZRUU\ DQG DSSUHKHQVLRQ FRQFHUQLQJ WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI SK\VLFDO RU SV\FKRORJLFDO KDUP WRJHWKHU ZLWK LQFUHDVHG SK\VLRORJLFDO DURXVDO UHVXOWLQJ IURP WKH DSSUDLVDO RI WKUHDW 6PLWK t 6PROO S f *RXOG DQG .UDQH LQ SUHVVf UHSRUW WKDW DQ[LHW\ KDV EHHQ YLHZHG DV IHHOLQJV RI QHUYRXVQHVV DQG WHQVLRQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DFWLYDWLRQ RU DURXVDO RI WKH RUJDQLVP (\VHQFN f SRVWXODWHV WKDW WKH VWUHQJWK RI DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV DQ[LHW\ VWDWH GHSHQGV RQ WZR PDLQ IDFWRUV f WKH GHJUHH RI H[WHUQDO WKUHDW DQG f WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV VXVFHSWLELOLW\ WR DQ[LHW\ LH DQ[LHW\ SURQHQHVVf ,W LV WKH VHFRQG IDFWRU WKDW LV GHILQHG DV WUDLW DQ[LHW\ RU $ PRWLYH RU DFTXLUHG EHKDYLRUDO GLVSRVLWLRQ WKDW SUHGLVSRVHV DQ LQGLYLGXDO WR SHUFHLYH D ZLGH UDQJH RI REMHFWLYHO\ QRQGDQJHURXV FLUFXPVWDQFHV DV WKUHDWHQLQJ DQG WR UHVSRQG WR WKHVH ZLWK VWDWH DQ[LHW\ UHDFWLRQV GLVSURSRUWLRQDWH LQ LQWHQVLW\ WR WKH PDJQLWXGH RI WKH REMHFWLYH GDQJHU 6SLHOEHUJHU S f 7KXV LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR KDYH D KLJK DPRXQW RI WUDLW DQ[LHW\ ZLOO WHQG WR SHUFHLYH PRUH VLWXDWLRQV DV DQ[LHW\

PAGE 30

SURYRNLQJ DQGRU H[SHULHQFH VWURQJHU IHHOLQJV RI DQ[LHW\ XQGHU D WKUHDWHQLQJ FRQGLWLRQ 0DUWHQ 9HDOH\ DQG %XUWRQ f FRQFXU DQG VXJJHVW WKDW WUDLW DQ[LHW\ LV WKH SUHGLVSRVLWLRQ WR SHUFHLYH YDULRXV HQYLURQPHQWDO VWLPXOL DV WKUHDWHQLQJ RU QRQWKUHDWHQLQJ DQG WR UHVSRQG WR WKHVH VWLPXOL ZLWK FRUUHVSRQGLQJ OHYHOV RI VWDWH DQ[LHW\ $Q DGGLWLRQDO GLIIHUHQWLDWLRQ LQ WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI DQ[LHW\ LV WKDW RI SK\VLRORJLFDO DQG FRJQLWLYH FRPSRQHQWV /LHEHUW DQG 0RUULV f DGGUHVVHG WKLV SRLQW LQ WKHLU H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WHVW DQ[LHW\ ZKLFK WKH\ FRQWHQGHG ZDV D FRPSRVLWH RI ZRUU\ DQG HPRWLRQDOLW\ 7KH\ GHILQHG ZRUU\ DV WKH FRPSRQHQW RI DQ[LHW\ ZKLFK LV SULQFLSDOO\ FRJQLWLYH FRQFHUQ DERXW WKH FRQVHTXHQFHV RI IDLOXUH S f (PRWLRQDOLW\ ZDV GHVFULEHG DV WKH PRUH SK\VLRORJLFDO DVSHFWV RI DQ[LHW\ HJ WKH XQSOHDVDQW SK\VLFDO IHHOLQJV RI QHUYRXVQHVV DQG WHQVLRQf 7KLV FODVVLILFDWLRQ KDV EHHQ VXSSRUWHG ZLGHO\ DQG LV VHHQ DV DQ LPSRUWDQW IHDWXUH RI DQ[LHW\ %DUQHV 6LPH 'LHQVWELHU t 3ODNH %RUNRYHN %XUWRQ 0DUWHQV 9HDOH\ t %XUWRQ 0RUULV +DUULV t 5RYLQV 7D\ORU f *HQHUDOO\ WKH ZRUU\HPRWLRQDOLW\ GLVWLQFWLRQ LV GHVFULEHG LQ WHUPV RI FRJQLWLYH DQG VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ $V ZLOO EH GHPRQVWUDWHG WKHVH WZR FRQFHSWV KDYH EHHQ H[DPLQHG DV WR WKHLU LQGHSHQGHQFH DQG LQWHUUHODWHGQHVV

PAGE 31

$V DSSOLHG WR SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ VSRUW DQ[LHW\ LV IUHTXHQWO\ RSHUDWLRQDOO\ GHILQHG LQ WHUPV RI FRPSHWLWLYH VWUHVV RU FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ $OWKRXJK VWUHVV KDV EHHQ DW WLPHV EHHQ XVHG LQWHUFKDQJHDEO\ ZLWK DQ[LHW\ LW LV DFWXDOO\ D EURDGHU WHUP ZKLFK FDQ EH GHILQHG DW WLPHV DV D VWLPXOXV DQ LQWHUYHQLQJ RU D UHVSRQVH YDULDEOH ZKHUHDV DQ[LHW\ LV DOPRVW H[FOXVLYHO\ GHVFULEHG DV D UHVSRQVH YDULDEOHf 7KXV WKHVH WZR WHUPV PD\ RU PD\ QRW EH DQDORJRXV GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH FRQWH[W LQ ZKLFK WKH\ DUH XVHG $V D VWLPXOXV WKH WHUP VWUHVVRU LV XVXDOO\ XVHG WR UHIHU WR VLWXDWLRQV RU VWLPXOL WKDW DUH REMHFWLYHO\ FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ VRPH GHJUHH RI SK\VLFDO RU SV\FKRORJLFDO GDQJHU RU WKUHDW 6SLHOEHUJHU f 6SLHOEHUJHU H[SODLQV WKDW UHDFWLRQV WR D VWUHVVRU DUH GHSHQGHQW RQ ZKHWKHU D SDUWLFXODU VLWXDWLRQ RU VWLPXOXV LV WKUHDWHQLQJ LH SRWHQWLDOO\ GDQJHURXV RU KDUPIXOf 2I FRXUVH WKLV FDQ EH ERWK REMHFWLYH DQG VXEMHFWLYH GDQJHU 7KXV REMHFWLYH GDQJHUV HJ KXUULFDQHV LOOQHVVf DUH DSSUDLVHG E\ PRVW SHRSOH DV WKUHDWHQLQJ ZKHUHDV IRU VXEMHFWLYH GDQJHUV WKH VDPH VWLPXOXV PD\ EH VHHQ DV D WKUHDW D FKDOOHQJH RU DV ODUJHO\ LUUHOHYDQW GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH SHUVRQnV HVWLPDWLRQ RI WKH WKUHDW YDOXH RI WKH VWLPXOXV 6SLHOEHUJHU FRQFOXGHV WKHQ WKDW WKH H[SHULHQFH RI WKUHDW KDV WZR PDLQ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV f ,W LV IXWXUH RULHQWHG JHQHUDOO\ LQYROYLQJ WKH DQWLFLSDWLRQ RI D

PAGE 32

SRWHQWLDOO\ KDUPIXO HYHQW DQG f ,W LV PHGLDWHG E\ SV\FKRORJLFDO DFWLYLWLHV HJ SHUFHSWLRQ WKRXJKW PHPRU\ DQG MXGJHPHQWf ZKLFK DUH LQYROYHG LQ WKH DSSUDLVDO SURFHVV $Q H[DPSOH FRPHV IURP VRPH FRPSHWLWLYH VSRUWV LQ ZKLFK DWKOHWHV VWULYH WR SHUIRUP DW SHDN OHYHOV XQGHU FLUFXPVWDQFHV LQ ZKLFK DQ RSSRVLQJ VLGH DLPV WR UHVWULFW VXFK SHUIRUPDQFH 0DGGHQ HW DO f 7KH DWKOHWH PXVW DSSUDLVH WKH SRWHQWLDO WKUHDW XVLQJ PHQWDO SURFHVVLQJ LH DFFXUDWH SHUFHSWLRQ FDUHIXO WKRXJKW UHFROOHFWLRQV RI SUHYLRXV LQWHUDFWLRQV HWFf DQG PXVW DUULYH DW D UHDVRQDEOH MXGJHPHQW 7KH FRQFHSW RI VWUHVV KDV DOVR EHHQ GHVFULEHG DV DQ LQWHUYHQLQJ YDULDEOH OLQNLQJ WZR VHWV RI IDFWRUV VWUHVVRUV DQG VWUHVV UHDFWLRQVf WRJHWKHU 7KXV WKH VWUHVVIXOQHVV IRU DQ LQGLYLGXDO RI DQ\ VWUHVVRU YDULHV GHSHQGLQJ RQ KRZ KH RU VKH SHUFHLYHV WKH VLWXDWLRQ DQG RQ KRZ KH RU VKH SHUFHLYHV DYDLODEOH FRSLQJ UHVRXUFHV .LPEOH *DUPH]\ t =LJOHU f 6WUHVV KDV DOVR EHHQ GHILQHG YHU\ JHQHUDOO\ DV DQ\ EHKDYLRUDO UHVSRQVH RI DQ RUJDQLVP WR HQYLURQPHQWDO VWLPXODWLRQ )HQ] S f :LWK UHJDUG WR VSRUWV 6FDQODQ f VWDWHV WKDW FRPSHWLWLRQ FDQ EH VWUHVVIXO GXH WR H[WHQVLYH HYDOXDWLRQ RI DELOLW\ DQG FRPSHWHQFH DQG WKDW FRPSHWLWLYH VWUHVV LV D QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQDO UHDFWLRQ DQ DWKOHWH IHHOV ZKHQ VHOIHVWHHP LV WKUHDWHQHG ,W LV KLVKHU SHUFHSWLRQV RI LQDGHTXDF\ LQ VXFFHVVIXOO\ PHHWLQJ

PAGE 33

WKH SHUIRUPDQFH GHPDQGV DQG KLVKHU SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH FRQVHTXHQFHV RI IDLOXUH WKDW FUHDWH WKH WKUHDW WR VHOIn HVWHHP ZKLFK WULJJHUV WKH VWUHVV UHDFWLRQ 6FDQODQ S f ,Q D PRUH UHFHQW SDSHU 6FDQODQ DQG KHU FROOHDJXHV f GHILQH FRPSHWLWLYH VWUHVV DV DQ HQFRPSDVVLQJ FRQGLWLRQ ZKHUH WKH DWKOHWH H[SHULHQFHV QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQV IHHOLQJV DQG WKRXJKWV WKDW PLJKW RFFXU ZLWK UHVSHFW WR D FRPSHWLWLYH H[SHULHQFH 7KHVH ZRXOG LQFOXGH IHHOLQJV RI DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQ[LHW\ PXVFOH WHQVLRQ QHUYRXVQHVV SK\VLFDO UHDFWLRQV VXFK DV EXWWHUIOLHV LQ WKH VWRPDFK VKDNLQJ RU QHUYRXV VZHDWLQJf WKRXJKWV FHQWHUHG RQ ZRUU\ DQG VHOIGRXEW DQG QHJDWLYH VWDWHPHQWV WR \RXUVHOI 6FDQODQ HW DO S f 0DUWHQV 9HDOH\ DQG %XUWRQ f FRPPHQW RQ KRZ VWUHVV LV UHODWHG WR DQ[LHW\ VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW VWUHVV RFFXUV XQGHU FRQGLWLRQV LQ ZKLFK IDLOXUH WR PHHW GHPDQGV LV SHUFHLYHG DV KDYLQJ LPSRUWDQW FRQVHTXHQFHV DQG LV WKXV UHVSRQGHG WR ZLWK LQFUHDVHG OHYHOV RI VWDWH DQ[LHW\ &RPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ DSSHDUV WR EH VROHO\ GHILQHG DV D UHVSRQVH YDULDEOH LH DQ DWKOHWH FDQ UHVSRQG WR D FRPSHWLWLYH VWUHVVRU ZLWK FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\f &RPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ LV WKH PRUH SUHYDOHQW WHUP LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH WR GHVFULEH WKH UHDFWLRQ WR D VWUHVVIXO FRPSHWLWLYH VLWXDWLRQ 8WLOL]LQJ 6SLHOEHUJHUnV f DQG RWKHUV %RUNRYHN /LHEHUW t 0RUULV f VXJJHVWLRQV WKDW DQ[LHW\ LV D PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO FRQVWUXFW

PAGE 34

0DUWHQV f VXJJHVWV WKDW FRJQLWLYH DQG VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ DUH WZR VHSDUDWH FRPSRQHQWV RI FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ %XUWRQ f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f ,W KDV EHHQ SURSRVHG WKDW WKHVH WZR FRPSRQHQWV KDYH GLIIHUHQWLDO HIIHFWV RQ SHUIRUPDQFH HJ %XUWRQ 6PLWK t 6PROO :HLQEHUJ f DQG WKXV WKH FRPSUHKHQVLYH WHUP FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ PD\ QRW KDYH H[FOXVLYHO\ QHJDWLYH RU SRVLWLYH HIIHFWV VHH D ODWHU VHFWLRQ HQWLWOHG 5HODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ &RPSHWLWLYH $Q[LHW\ DQG 3HUIRUPDQFHf $OWKRXJK WKH WZR FRPSRQHQWV RI DQ[LHW\ DUH K\SRWKHWLFDOO\ LQGHSHQGHQW 0RUULV 'DYLV DQG +XWFKLQJV f KDYH VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH\ SUREDEO\ FRYDU\ LQ VWUHVVIXO VLWXDWLRQV VLQFH WKHVH VLWXDWLRQV FRQWDLQ HOHPHQWV UHODWHG WR WKH VWLPXODWLRQ RI ERWK VRPDWLF DQG FRJQLWLYH UHVSRQVHV $ PRGHVW GHSHQGHQFH KDV EHHQ GHPRQVWUDWHG LQ D QXPEHU RI VWXGLHV 'HIIHQEDFKHU 0DUWHQV 9HDOH\ t %XUWRQ 0RUULV t /LHEHUW f +RZHYHU FRQIOLFWLQJ HYLGHQFH H[LVWV WKDW VXJJHVWV WKDW FRJQLWLYH DQG VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ DUH LQGHSHQGHQW GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH VLWXDWLRQDO VWUHVVRU 7KDW LV KLJK VRPDWLF

PAGE 35

DQ[LHW\ FDQ EH DURXVHG ZLWKRXW HOLFLWLQJ VHOIHYDOXDWLRQ ZKLOH FHUWDLQ FRQGLWLRQV ZKLFK DUH KLJKO\ HYDOXDWLYH HOLFLW FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ EXW QRW VRPDWLF VWDWH DQ[LHW\ %XUWRQ 0RUULV +DUULV DQG 5RYLQV f &RPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ FDQ EH IXUWKHU GHOLQHDWHG XVLQJ VWDWH DQG WUDLW DQ[LHW\ WHUPV ZKLFK KDYH EHHQ GHVFULEHG SUHYLRXVO\ +HQFH FRPSHWLWLYH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ FDQ EH GHILQHG DV D FRQGLWLRQ SULRU WR RU GXULQJ D FRPSHWLWLYH VLWXDWLRQ FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ IHHOLQJV RI DSSUHKHQVLRQ DQG WHQVLRQ DQG DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DFWLYDWLRQ RI WKH RUJDQLVP 0DUWHQV 9HDOH\ t %XUWRQ S f ZKLOH FRPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\ LV GHILQHG DV D VLWXDWLRQ VSHFLILF PRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH PRUH JHQHUDO $WUDLW FRQVWUXFW D WHQGHQF\ WR SHUFHLYH FRPSHWLWLYH VLWXDWLRQV DV WKUHDWHQLQJ DQG WR UHVSRQG WR WKHVH VLWXDWLRQV ZLWK $VWDWH S f $OWKRXJK LW PD\ EH WUXH WKDW LW FDQQRW \HW EH DGHTXDWHO\ H[SODLQHG ZK\ VRPH DWKOHWHV SHUFHLYH WKUHDW LQ WKH VSRUW HQYLURQPHQW ZKLOH RWKHUV UHJDUG WKHLU VSRUW H[SHULHQFHV DV SRVLWLYH RU EHQLJQ /HZWKZDLWH f ZH FDQ DW OHDVW GHILQH WKH VWUHVVDQ[LHW\ WHUPV LQ D PRUH VWUDLJKWIRUZDUG DQG FRQVLVWHQW ZD\ $Q DSSURSULDWH VXPPDU\ RI WKH VWUHVV SURFHVV ZKLFK KDV IRXU LQWHUUHODWHG VWDJHV LV JLYHQ E\ *RXOG DQG .UDQH LQ SUHVVf ZKR DGDSWHG 0F*UDWKnV f SURFHVV PRGHO RI VWUHVV WR VSRUWV )LUVW DQ HQYLURQPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQ RU GHPDQG LV SODFHG RQ WKH DWKOHWH 6HFRQG WKH DWKOHWH PXVW LQWHUSUHW WKLV

PAGE 36

VLWXDWLRQ DQG GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU WKHUH LV D SHUFHLYHG LPEDODQFH EHWZHHQ WKH GHPDQGV RI WKH VLWXDWLRQ DQG WKH FDSDELOLWLHV RI KLPVHOI RU KHUVHOI 7KLUG DQG GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKLV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ WKH DWKOHWH FDQ H[SHULHQFH FKDQJHV LQ SK\VLRORJLFDO DURXVDO DQGRU VWDWH DQ[LHW\ )RXUWK LV WKH RXWFRPH RI WKH SHUIRUPDQFH 7KLV H[SODQDWLRQ LV KHOSIXO LQ WKDW LW GHPRQVWUDWHV WKDW FRPSHWLWLYH VWUHVV LV D SURFHVV DQG WKDW WKH HPSKDVLV LV SODFHG RQ WKH DWKOHWHn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f

PAGE 37

2WKHU ZULWHUV KDYH H[SODLQHG DURXVDO DV V\QRQ\PRXV ZLWK PRWLYDWLRQ 0DJLOO f DOHUWQHVVUHDGLQHVV &R[ f DQG SV\FKLF HQHUJ\ 0DUWHQV f 3HUKDSV WKH PRVW WUDGLWLRQDO GHILQLWLRQ H[SODLQV DURXVDO DV HQHUJ\ PRELOL]DWLRQ UDQJLQJ RQ D FRQWLQXXP IURP GHHS VOHHS RU FRPD DW RQH H[WUHPH WR SDQLFVWULFNHQ WHUURU RU JUHDW H[FLWHPHQW DW WKH RWKHU H[WUHPH (\VHQFN 0DOPR f 'XII\ f SURSRVHG WKDW DURXVDO LV QHXUDOSK\VLRORJLFDO H[FLWDWLRQ ZKLFK YDULHV RQ WZR GLPHQVLRQV LQWHQVLW\ DQG GLUHFWLRQ )RU 'XII\ f DQ\ JLYHQ SRLQW RQ WKLV FRQWLQXXP ZDV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH H[WHQW RI UHOHDVH RI SRWHQWLDO HQHUJ\ VWRUHG LQ WKH WLVVXHV RI WKH RUJDQLVP DV WKLV LV VKRZQ LQ DFWLYLW\ RU UHVSRQVH S f 1HLVV D S f $V ZLWK DQ[LHW\ DURXVDO FDQ EH GHVFULEHG DV PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO LQ QDWXUH /DQGHUV f DQG KDV EHHQ VXJJHVWHG WR HQFRPSDVV WKUHH GLPHQVLRQV SK\VLRORJLFDO EHKDYLRUDO DQG FRJQLWLYH %RUNRYHN f 7KH LQGLFDWRUV RI LQFUHDVHG DURXVDO DUH PDQLIHVWHG DQG DVVHVVHG LQ D QXPEHU RI ZD\V VHOIUHSRUW HOHFWURSK\VLRORJLFDO HJ GHFUHDVHV LQ VNLQ UHVLVWDQFH RI JDOYDQLF VNLQ UHVSRQVH LQFUHDVHV LQ SDOPDU VZHDWLQJ (0* ((*f UHVSLUDWRU\ DQG FDUGLRYDVFXODU HJ LQFUHDVHV LQ (&* EORRG SUHVVXUH KHDUW UDWHf DQG ELRFKHPLFDO HJ LQFUHDVHV LQ WKH UHOHDVH RI DGUHQDOLQH DQG QRUDGUHQDOLQHf *RXOG t .UDQH LQ SUHVV +DFNIRUW t 6FKZHQNPH]JHU f

PAGE 38

,W KDV EHHQ VXJJHVWHG DQG GHPRQVWUDWHG HPSLULFDOO\ WKDW WKH QHXURSK\VLRORJLFDO LQGLFDWRUV RI LQFUHDVHG DURXVDO KDYH SRRU LQWHUFRUUHODWLRQV DQG ORZ FRUUHODWLRQV ZLWK VHOIUHSRUW VFDOHV RI DURXVDO )DKUHQEHUJ :DOVFKEXUJHU )RHUVWHU 0\UWHN t 0XOOHU 9HQDEOHV =DLFKNRZVN\ t 7DNHQDND LQ SUHVVf ,W LV QRW FOHDUO\ XQGHUVWRRG ZK\ WKLV LV WKH FDVH DOWKRXJK VXJJHVWHG UHDVRQV DUH DXWRQRPLF UHVSRQVH VWHUHRW\S\ /DFH\ t /DFH\ f GLIIHULQJ H[SHFWDQFLHV .LUVFK t :HL[HO 1HLVV f OHDUQLQJ KLVWRU\ %RUNRYHN /DQGHUV f DQG FRQVWUXFW YDOLGDWLRQ SUREOHPV ZLWK DURXVDO HJ 1HLVV f ,Q GLVFXVVLQJ WKH GLIIHUHQW PHDVXUHV RI DURXVDO +DFNIRUW DQG 6FKZHQNPH]JHU f SURSRVH WKDW SK\VLRORJLFDO LQGLFDWRUV RI DURXVDO DUH GLIILFXOW WR DSSO\ LQ VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ UHVHDUFK LQ WKDW WKHVH SDUDPHWHUV RIWHQ FKDQJH PRUH DV D UHVXOW RI SK\VLFDO DFWLYLW\ WKDQ DV D UHVXOW RI DQ[LHW\LQGXFLQJ VLWXDWLRQV %HKDYLRUDO DVVHVVPHQWV RI DURXVDO HJ SDFLQJ DYRLGDQFHf DUH OHVV VHOGRP UHSRUWHG LQ WKH VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ OLWHUDWXUH DOWKRXJK +DFNIRUW DQG 6FKZHQNPH]JHU f VXJJHVW WKDW WKLV LV DQ DUHD ZKLFK LV SDUWLFXODUO\ LPSRUWDQW LQ VSRUW $URXVDO DQG DQ[LHW\ DUH JHQHUDOO\ GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH VDPH FRQWH[W EXW DUH QRW QHFHVVDULO\ UHODWHG WR HDFK RWKHU )RU H[DPSOH H[FHVVLYH SK\VLRORJLFDO DURXVDO PD\ EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK D UDQJH RI GLYHUVH IHHOLQJV VXFK DV

PAGE 39

DQ[LHW\ VH[XDO H[FLWHPHQW IHDU RU H[KLODUDWLRQ FI $SWHU f ,Q DQ HDUO\ SDSHU GLVFXVVLQJ WKH QDWXUH DQG PHDVXUHPHQW RI DQ[LHW\ &DWWHOO f IRXQG WKDW WKH FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ KHDUW UDWH DQG DQ[LHW\ LV RQO\ D PRGHUDWHO\ SRVLWLYH RQH DJDLQ VXJJHVWLQJ D YDULDEOH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DURXVDO DQG DQ[LHW\ =DLFKNRZVN\ DQG 7DNHQDND LQ SUHVVf VXJJHVW WKDW DOWKRXJK DQ[LHW\ LV W\SLFDOO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DQ LQFUHDVH LQ DURXVDO WKH WZR FRQVWUXFWV DUH QRW WKH VDPH 'UDZLQJ IURP WKH SUHYLRXV GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH DQ[LHW\ FRQFHSW LW DSSHDUV PRUH XVHIXO WR GLVFXVV KRZ WKH VXEFRPSRQHQWV RI DQ[LHW\ UHODWH WR DURXVDO UDWKHU WKDQ WU\LQJ WR HVWDEOLVK D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH EURDG WHUP DQ[LHW\ DQG DURXVDO &OHDUO\ FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ LV XQOLNHO\ WR RFFXU GXULQJ D KLJKO\ DURXVLQJ FRQGLWLRQ VXFK DV H[FLWHPHQW ZKLFK LV GHVFULEHG E\ $SWHU f DV D SDUDWHOLF VWDWH 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ ZLOO OLNHO\ RFFXU GXULQJ ZKDW $SWHU WHUPV D WHOLF VWDWH HJ D KLJK DURXVDO FRQGLWLRQ RI IHDUf )RU H[DPSOH WZR URFN FOLPEHUV RU VN\GLYHUV RU EXOOULGHUVf H[SHULHQFH KHLJKWHQHG DURXVDO UHODWHG WR WKH SRWHQWLDO WKUHDW IDOOLQJf 2QH IHHOV FKDOOHQJHG E\ WKH FOLPE DQG H[SHULHQFHV WKH VLWXDWLRQ LQ WKH SDUDWHOLF PRGH LH ZLWK H[FLWHPHQWf 7KH RWKHU OHVV FRQILGHQW DWKOHWH H[SHULHQFHV WKH VLWXDWLRQ LQ WKH WHOLF PRGH LH ZLWK IHDU DQG DQ[LHW\f ,Q ERWK VLWXDWLRQV WKH FOLPEHUV ZLOO OLNHO\ H[SHULHQFH LQFUHDVHV LQ DURXVDO DQG UHSRUW VRPDWLF

PAGE 40

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f DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV SHUFHSWLRQ RI SK\VLRORJLFDO DURXVDO HJ KRZ KDUG P\ KHDUW LV EHDWLQJf )XUWKHU WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ LV QRW H[FOXVLYH RI FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ VLQFH DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV SHUFHSWLRQV RI SK\VLRORJLFDO DURXVDO PD\ EH JUHDWO\ DIIHFWHG E\ DQ[LRXV WKRXJKWV &RJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ ZKLOH DEOH WR FDXVH LQFUHDVHV LQ SK\VLRORJLFDO DURXVDO LV QRW V\QRQ\PRXV ZLWK DURXVDO &RJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ FDQ EH GHWHUPLQHG WR EH HLWKHU D FDXVH RU UHVXOW RI LQFUHDVHG SK\VLRORJLFDO DURXVDO DQG LQ VRPH FDVHV PD\ EH LQGHSHQGHQW RI DURXVDO ,W LV GHILQHG LQ WKLV SDSHU LQ WHUPV RI QHJDWLYH WKRXJKWV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK SHUFHSWLRQV DERXW VXFFHVV RU WKRXJKWV LQYROYLQJ QHJDWLYH VHOIHYDOXDWLRQ

PAGE 41

5HODWLRQVKLS RI $Q[LHW\ DQG $URXVDO WR 3HUIRUPDQFH ,Q H[DPLQLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI DQ[LHW\ DQG DURXVDO WR VNLOOHG PRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH DQG PRUH VSHFLILFDOO\ WR VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH RIWHQ XVHG WHUPV HJ VWUHVV DQ[LHW\ DURXVDOf LQWHUFKDQJHDEO\ DQG LQDSSURSULDWHO\ $FFRUGLQJ WR *RXOG DQG .UDQH LQ SUHVVf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t +DUG\ .UDQH t :LOOLDPV /DQGHUV t %RXWFKHU 0DGGHQ 6XPPHUV t %URZQ 0HDFFL t 3ULFH 0XUSK\ t :RROIRON 3RWHHW t :HLQEHUJ 5DJOLQ :LVH t 0RUJDQ 6RQVWURHP t %HUQDUGR f 7KLV VHFWLRQ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ ZLOO H[DPLQH WKH YDULRXV WKHRULHV ZKLFK VHHN WR GHVFULEH WKH DQ[LHW\DURXVDO SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK D IRFXV RQ WKRVH VWXGLHV PRVW UHOHYDQW WR WKH UHVHDUFK LQ WKLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ

PAGE 42

$URXVDO :KLOH WKH FRQFHSW RI DURXVDO LV VRPHZKDW DPRUSKRXV PXFK DWWHQWLRQ KDV EHHQ IRFXVHG RQ LWV UHODWLRQVKLS WR SHUIRUPDQFH (DUO\ K\SRWKHVHV GHULYHG IURP GULYH WKHRU\ VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV D SRVLWLYH OLQHDU UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DURXVDO DQG SHUIRUPDQFH +XOO 6SHQFH f 7KLV YLHZ UHFHLYHG OLWWOH HPSLULFDO VXSSRUW DQG KDV SULQFLSDOO\ EHHQ UHSODFHG E\ WKH LQYHUWHG8 WKHRU\ ZKLFK SRVLWV D FXUYLOLQHDU UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DURXVDO DQG SHUIRUPDQFH ,QFUHDVHV LQ DURXVDO DUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LQFUHDVHV LQ SHUIRUPDQFH WR DQ RSWLPDO OHYHO EH\RQG ZKLFK GHFUHPHQWV LQ SHUIRUPDQFH HQVXH (DVWHUEURRN
PAGE 43

(DVWHUEURRN f H[SODLQHG WKH LQYHUWHG8 IXQFWLRQ E\ DVVHUWLQJ WKDW HPRWLRQDO DURXVDO DFWV WR UHGXFH WKH UDQJH RI FXHV WKDW DQ LQGLYLGXDO XVHV 7KDW LV WKH UDQJH RI FXH XWLOL]DWLRQ VKULQNV DV WKH XVH RI SHULSKHUDO LUUHOHYDQW RU SDUWLDOO\ UHOHYDQWf FXHV LV UHGXFHG ZKLOH WKH XVH RI FHQWUDO LPPHGLDWHO\ UHOHYDQWf FXHV LV PDLQWDLQHG 7KXV UHGXFWLRQ LQ WKH UDQJH RI FXHV VKRXOG ILUVW LPSURYH WDVN SURILFLHQF\ DV WKH LUUHOHYDQW QRQ HVVHQWLDO FXHV DUH RPLWWHGf EXW ODWHU LPSDLU DELOLW\ ,W ZRXOG LQ IDFW SURGXFH MXVW WKH VRUW RI XS DQG GRZQ UHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ SURILFLHQF\ DQG GULYH WKDW LV IDPLOLDU LQ FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK WKH QDPHV RI
PAGE 44

QDUURZO\ WR GHWHFW UHFHLYHUV RSHQ LQ WKH SHULSKHU\ RU PRUH LPSRUWDQW D EOLW]LQJ RXWVLGH OLQHEDFNHU 6RPH IHHO WKDW WKH LQYHUWHG8 K\SRWKHVLV LV QRW YHU\ XVHIXO LQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH DURXVDOSHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS &RRNH .HUU :HOIRUG f ,W DSSHDUV WKDW WKLV VWDQFH KDV EHHQ WDNHQ VLQFH SHUIRUPDQFHGHJUDGLQJ G\VSKRULF SV\FKRELRORJLFDO VWDWHV DQG SHUIRUPDQFHHQKDQFLQJ HXSKRULF RQHV FDQ RFFXU DW HTXDO DURXVDO OHYHOV *OREDO DURXVDO WKHQ FRXOG RQO\ VHUYH WR REVFXUH WKH SURIRXQG LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV ZLWK ZKLFK KXPDQV DSSURDFK LPSRUWDQW PRWRU SHUIRUPDQFHV 1HLVV E S f (\VHQFN f SRLQWV RXW WKDW WKH VLQJXODU QRWLRQ RI DURXVDO LV LQDGHTXDWH DQG PXVW EH UHSODFHG E\ PRUH FRPSOH[ FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQV .HUU f VLPLODUO\ IHHOV WKDW WKH RSWLPDO DURXVDO WKHRU\ LV OLPLWHG LQ LWV VLQJXODU RSWLPDO VWDWH DQG KRPHRVWDWLF EDVLV +H FLWHV VHYHUDO QRWDEOH SV\FKRORJLVWV ZKR DUH RSSRVHG WR WKH EDVLF SULQFLSOHV RI WKH KRPHRVWDWLF FRQVWUXFW FI $OOSRUW %XKOHU )UDQNO +DUORZ 0DVORZ f $SWHU f IRU H[DPSOH LGHQWLILHV IRXU WHUPV DQ[LHW\ H[FLWHPHQW ERUHGRP DQG UHOD[DWLRQf ZKLFK DUH UHIOHFWLRQV RI SOHDVDQW XQSOHDVDQW DQG KLJK DQG ORZ DURXVDO TXHVWLRQLQJ WKH DELOLW\ RI RSWLPDO DURXVDO WKHRU\ WR GLVWLQJXLVK EHWZHHQ WKHP .HUU S f ,Q D UHFHQW VHULHV RI DUWLFOHV 1HLVV DQG $QGHUVRQ $QGHUVRQ 1HLVV D f HQJDJH LQ WKH GHEDWH

PAGE 45

DV WR ZKHWKHU DURXVDO LV D XVHIXO FRQFHSW 1HLVV Df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f 1HLVV FODLPHG WKDW WKH LQYHUWHG8 K\SRWKHVLV LV EDVLFDOO\ LUUHIXWDEOH GXH WR WKH LQDELOLW\ WR VSHFLI\ LWV SDUDPHWHUV DQG WKH YDULDELOLW\ RI RSWLPDO DURXVDO DFURVV WDVNV DQG WKDW WKH JOREDO WHUP DURXVDO LV WKXV D KLQGUDQFH WR XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI KXPDQ PRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH WR HPRWLRQDO VWDWHV 7KLV FULWLFLVP LV QRW GLVVLPLODU WR (\VHQFNnV f FODLP WKDW RQH LV KDUGSUHVVHG WR GLVSURYH WKH SUHGLFWHG LQYHUWHG8 UHODWLRQVKLS EHFDXVH WZRWKLUGV RI VWXGLHV LQYHVWLJDWLQJ WKLV UHODWLRQVKLS DQG XWLOL]LQJ WKUHH GLVWLQFW DURXVDO OHYHOVf ZRXOG REWDLQ VXSSRUWLYH HYLGHQFH E\ FKDQFH DORQH (\VHQFN H[SODLQV WKDW LI WKUHH OHYHOV RI DURXVDO DUH FRPSDUHG WKHUH DUH VL[ SRVVLEOH RUGHULQJV RI WKH WKUHH OHYHOV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR SHUIRUPDQFH RQO\ WZR RI ZKLFK DUH LQFRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH
PAGE 46

WKH PHGLXP OHYHO RI DURXVDO LV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH ZRUVW SHUIRUPDQFHf 6LPLODUO\ %DGGHOH\ f LV FULWLFDO RI WKH RSWLPDO DURXVDO WKHRU\ DQG VXJJHVWV LW FDQ DFFRXQW IRU DOPRVW DQ\ UHVXOW VR ORQJ DV WKH H[DFW ORFDWLRQ RQ WKH LQYHUWHG8 FXUYH LV QRW VSHFLILHG LQ DGYDQFH $QGHUVRQ f WDNHV LVVXH ZLWK 1HLVVn VXJJHVWLRQ WR DEDQGRQ DURXVDO WKH LQYHUWHG8 DQG WKH
PAGE 47

SRVWXODWHG E\ WKH LQYHUWHG8 5HVSRQVH VLPSO\ IDLOV WR RFFXU RQ RFFDVLRQV ZKHQ LW VKRXOG GR VR 7KH W\SLFDO GHFUHPHQW SURGXFHG E\ VOHHSOHVVQHVV LV WKDW RI WKH SDXVH LQ ZKLFK QR UHDFWLRQ RFFXUV S f
PAGE 48

6DVORZ 6WHQQHWW f )RU H[DPSOH %URDGKXUVW f VXVSHFWHG WKDW UDWV SODFHG LQ D VLWXDWLRQ RI LQWHQVH PRWLYDWLRQ R[\JHQ GHSULYDWLRQf ZRXOG FRQVHTXHQWO\ GHPRQVWUDWH IHDU DQG DURXVDO DIIHFWLQJ WKH OHDUQLQJ WDVN +H K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW XQGHU WKH VWUHVVIXO FRQGLWLRQ UDWV ZRXOG OHDUQ IDVWHU RQ WKH HDV\ WDVN EXW PRUH VORZO\ RQ WKH KDUG WDVN +LV UHVXOWV FRQILUPHG WKH WDVN FRPSOH[LW\ DVSHFW RI WKH
PAGE 49

UHGXFWLRQ LQ WKH UDQJH RI FXH XWLOL]DWLRQ S f %XUVLOO f LQYHVWLJDWHG VXEMHFWVn DWWHQWLRQ WR SHULSKHUDO VWLPXOL ZKLOH WKH\ ZHUH HQJDJHG LQ D FRQWLQXRXV FHQWUDO WDVN XQGHU ERWK QRUPDO FRQGLWLRQV DQG FRQGLWLRQV RI KLJK WHPSHUDWXUH WKHUPDO VWUHVVf +H UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH VXEMHFWV LQ WKH KLJK VWUHVV FRQGLWLRQ KDG D WHQGHQF\ WR IXQQHO WKHLU ILHOG RI DZDUHQHVV WRZDUGV WKH FHQWHU DQG WKXV PLVVHG VLJQDOV SUHVHQWHG RQ WKH SHULSKHU\ LH VLJQDOV SUHVHQWHG DW JUHDWHU HFFHQWULF DQJOHV KDG D JUHDWHU SUREDELOLW\ RI EHLQJ PLVVHG LQ WKH KRWWHU FRQGLWLRQf 6WHQQHWW f DOVR VWXGLHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI SHUIRUPDQFH OHYHO WR OHYHO RI DURXVDO 8VLQJ (0* UHFRUGLQJV DV D PHDVXUH RI DURXVDO DQG DQ DXGLWRU\ WUDFNLQJ WDVN DV D SHUIRUPDQFH PHDVXUH 6WHQQHWW REWDLQHG UHVXOWV VXSSRUWLQJ WKH LQYHUWHG8 UHODWLRQVKLS 2[HQGLQH f KDV EHHQ D SURSRQHQW RI DSSO\LQJ WKHVH K\SRWKHVHV WR VSRUW +H LQGLFDWHV WKDW D KLJK OHYHO RI DURXVDO LV RSWLPDO LQ JURVV PRWRU DFWLYLWLHV LQYROYLQJ VWUHQJWK HQGXUDQFH DQG VSHHG HJ PDQ\ WUDFN HYHQWV ZHLJKW OLIWLQJ IRRWEDOO EORFNLQJf $OWHUQDWLYHO\ D KLJK OHYHO RI DURXVDO VKRXOG LQWHUIHUH ZLWK SHUIRUPDQFH LQYROYLQJ FRPSOH[ VNLOOV ILQH PXVFOH PRYHPHQWV VWHDGLQHVV DQG JHQHUDO FRQFHQWUDWLRQ HJ DUFKHU\ VKRRWLQJ JROI SXWWLQJf +DQLQ f KDV H[WHQGHG WKH LQYHUWHG8 WKHRU\ DQG UHSRUWHG WKDW DURXVDO LV UHODWHG WR DWKOHWLF

PAGE 50

SHUIRUPDQFH DW DQ LQGLYLGXDO OHYHO WKDW LV HDFK DWKOHWH KDV D SDUWLFXODU DURXVDO OHYHO ZKHUH SHUIRUPDQFH LV RSWLPDO UHJDUGOHVV RI WKH DEVROXWH OHYHO ZKLFK FDQ EH ORZ PHGLXP RU KLJK 7KLV OHYHO KDV EHHQ GHFODUHG WKH ]RQH RI RSWLPDO IXQFWLRQLQJ =2)f 7KH =2) WKHRU\ LV JHQHUDOO\ HQGRUVHG E\ -RQHV DQG +DUG\ f ZKR VXJJHVW WKDW LQ H[SODLQLQJ RU SUHGLFWLQJ VSRUW SHUIRUPDQFH RQH VKRXOG WDNH LQWR DFFRXQW WKH QDWXUH RI WKH VWUHVVRU WKH PHQWDO GHPDQGV RI WKH FRPSHWLWLYH WDVN DQG WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH DWKOHWH ,Q WZR VWXGLHV SXUSRUWLQJ WR H[DPLQH WKH =2) WKHRU\ 5DJOLQ DQG KLV DVVRFLDWHV 5DJOLQ t 0RUJDQ 5DJOLQ :LVH t 0RUJDQ f GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW VZLPPHUV UHSRUWHG LQFUHDVHG VWDWH DQ[LHW\ WKH DXWKRUVn PHDVXUH RI DURXVDOf EHIRUH FRPSHWLWLRQ DQG VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH DQ[LHW\ SULRU WR D GLIILFXOW PHHW DV FRPSDUHG WR DQ HDV\ RQH ,QWHUHVWLQJO\ VZLPPHUV ZKR KDG WKH PRVW VXFFHVVIXO SHUIRUPDQFHV ZHUH EHVW DW SUHGLFWLQJ WKHLU SUH FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ OHYHOV WR KRXUV LQ DGYDQFH RI DFWXDO FRPSHWLWLRQ 7KH UHVHDUFKHUV FRQFOXGH LQ VXSSRUW IRU +DQLQnV =2) WKHRU\ DQG UHMHFW WKH LQYHUWHG8 K\SRWKHVLV ZKLFK WKH\ VXJJHVW GRHV QRW WDNH LQWR DFFRXQW LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV 7KLV LV QRW DQ DSSURSULDWH FRQFOXVLRQ EHFDXVH RI WKHLU PLVLQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH LQYHUWHG8 K\SRWKHVLV 5DJOLQ :LVH DQG 0RUJDQ f VWDWH WKDW WKH LQYHUWHG 8WKHRU\ >VLF@ LV WKH PRVW ZHOO NQRZQ WKHRU\ RI DQ[LHW\ DQG VSRUW SHUIRUPDQFH DQG WKLV

PAGE 51

WKHRU\ LPSOLHV WKDW D PRGHUDWH OHYHO RI DQ[LHW\ LV EHVW IRU SHUIRUPDQFH S f EXW@ SUHGLFWV WKDW VRPH LQGLYLGXDOV ZLOO KDYH WKHLU EHVW SHUIRUPDQFHV ZKHQ KLJKO\ DURXVHG RWKHUV ZKHQ GHHSO\ UHOD[HG DQG RWKHUV ZKHQ PRGHUDWHO\ DURXVHG S f ,Q WKLV FDVH 0RUJDQ GLVFXVVHV WKH LQYHUWHG8 K\SRWKHVLV LQ WHUPV RI DURXVDO 7KHUH LV D FRPPRQ SUREOHP LQ VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ UHVHDUFK H[DPLQLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DPRQJ DQ[LHW\ DURXVDO DQG SHUIRUPDQFH 7KHUH DUH PDQ\ LQYHVWLJDWLRQV ZKLFK FODLP WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DURXVDO DQG VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH ZKLFK DUH PLVOHDGLQJ VLQFH WKH PHDVXUHPHQW RI DURXVDO LV W\SLFDOO\ D PHDVXUHPHQW RI FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ DV WKH VWXGLHV FRQGXFWHG E\ 5DJOLQ DQG KLV DVVRFLDWHV H[HPSOLI\f ,Q IDFW WKHUH DUH YHU\ IHZ VWXGLHV ZKLFK H[DPLQH WKH DURXVDOVSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS 7KH VWXGLHV WKDW VXSSRUW WKH

PAGE 52

LQYHUWHG8 K\SRWKHVHV DUH SULPDULO\ WKRVH RI D PRUH EDVLF UHVHDUFK QDWXUH HJ %XUVLOO 6WHQQHWW f ,W DSSHDUV WKDW WKH TXHVWLRQ RI WKH HIIHFWV RI DURXVDO RQ VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH KDV QRW EHHQ DGGUHVVHG DGHTXDWHO\ $GDSWLQJ 1HLVVn Df SRVLWLRQ RQH FRXOG DUJXH WKDW LW LV IDLUO\ REYLRXV WKDW DWKOHWHV ZKR DUH XQPRWLYDWHG DQG XQGHUDURXVHGf ZLOO QRW DFKLHYH WKHLU FRPSHWLWLYH SRWHQWLDO +RZHYHU LW LV QRW DV VLPSOH ZLWK WKH KLJKO\DURXVHG DWKOHWH -XVW DV KLJK DURXVDO LQ DQ LQGLYLGXDO FDQ EH PDQLIHVWHG VLPLODUO\ E\ WZR YHU\ GLIIHUHQW VWLPXOXV VLWXDWLRQV HJ VH[XDO H[FLWHPHQW YHUVXV IHDUf DQ DWKOHWH FRXOG GHPRQVWUDWH KLJK DURXVDO ZKHQ WKULOOHG DERXW WKH SRWHQWLDO RI FDWFKLQJ D WRXFKGRZQ SDVV RU ZKHQ WHUULILHG RI PLVVLQJ D ILHOG JRDO LQ IURQW RI VSHFWDWRUV 7KHVH WZR VLPLODU DURXVDO OHYHOV PD\ KDYH TXLWH GLIIHUHQW HIIHFWV RQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RXWFRPH :KDW DSSHDUV WR EH PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDQ SK\VLRORJLFDO DURXVDO LV WKH DWKOHWHnV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKLV DURXVDO DQG WKH FRPSHWLWLYH VLWXDWLRQ 7KH IROORZLQJ VWXGLHV DGGUHVV WKLV LVVXH E\ H[DPLQLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ DQG VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH &RPSHWLWLYH $Q[LHW\ ,Q WKLV VHFWLRQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ WR VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH LV KLJKOLJKWHG $JDLQ VRPH RI WKH UHVHDUFKHUV ZKR KDYH LQYHVWLJDWHG WKLV UHODWLRQVKLS KDYH GRQH VR IURP WKH SHUVSHFWLYH RI

PAGE 53

DVVHVVLQJ DURXVDO 7KHVH VWXGLHV DUH LQFOXGHG LQ WKLV VHFWLRQ UDWKHU WKDQ WKH SUHYLRXV RQH EHFDXVH RI WKH DFWXDO PHDVXUHPHQWV FRQGXFWHG LH SULPDULO\ VHOI UHSRUWHG DQ[LHW\f DQG QRW KRZ WKH UHVHDUFKHUV LGHQWLILHG WKH FRQVWUXFWV DURXVDO YV DQ[LHW\f 7KH LVVXH RI WKH QDWXUH RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS WKDW H[LVWV EHWZHHQ DQ[LHW\ DQG VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH HJ LQYHUWHG8 OLQHDU QHJDWLYH XQUHODWHGf LV WKXV SUHVHQWHG 7UDLW DQG VWDWH DQ[LHW\ 7KH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ FRPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\ DQG VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH KDV EHHQ LQYHVWLJDWHG XQGHU ERWK ODERUDWRU\ DQG ILHOG FRQGLWLRQV $FFRUGLQJ WR 0DUWHQV 9HDOH\ DQG %XUWRQ f ODERUDWRU\ VWXGLHV KDYH JHQHUDOO\ IDLOHG WR GHPRQVWUDWH D FRQVLVWHQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ FRPSHWLWLYH $WUDLW DQG VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH HJ 0DUWHQV *LOO t 6FDQODQ 0XUSK\ t :RROIRON 3RWHHW t :HLQEHUJ f ,QGHHG VRPH VWXGLHV ZKLFK SXUSRUW WR DQDO\]H WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WUDLW DQ[LHW\ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH DUH QRW LQWHUSUHWDEOH VLQFH WKHUH LV DQ LQDSSURSULDWH XVH RI WKH WUDLW PHDVXUH LH WKH 6SRUW &RPSHWLWLRQ $Q[LHW\ 7HVW 6&$7f 0DUWHQV f )RU H[DPSOH DGPLQLVWHULQJ WKH 6&$7 DV D SUHFRPSHWLWLYH PHDVXUH RI DQ[LHW\ LV LQFRUUHFW FI *HUVRQ t 'HVKDLHV 7KLUHU t 2n'RQQHOO f DQG DVVHVVHV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VWDWH DQ[LHW\ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH UDWKHU WKDQ WUDLW DQ[LHW\ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH

PAGE 54

7KHUH KDYH EHHQ PRUH SURGXFWLYH LQYHVWLJDWLRQV XWLOL]LQJ DXWKHQWLF FRPSHWLWLYH VLWXDWLRQV 7KHVH KDYH IRFXVHG RQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ FRPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\ FRPSHWLWLYH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ DQG DWKOHWLF SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH ILHOG LQ WKH SRRO DQG VR IRUWK )RU H[DPSOH .ODYRUD f UHSRUWHG WKDW KLJK VFKRRO EDVNHWEDOO SOD\HUV KDG GLIIHUHQW RSWLPDO DURXVDO OHYHOV ZKLFK FRUUHODWHG ZLWK WKHLU VHOIUHSRUWHG FRPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\ ZKHUH RSWLPDO DURXVDO LV GHILQHG DV WKH OHYHO RI VHOIUHSRUWHG VWDWH DQ[LHW\ DW ZKLFK WKH DWKOHWH SHUIRUPV PRVW VXFFHVVIXOO\ 7KXV ORZWUDLW DQ[LRXV SOD\HUV SHUIRUPHG EHWWHU ZKHQ UHSRUWLQJ ORZ VWDWH DQ[LHW\ ZKLOH KLJKWUDLW DQ[LRXV SOD\HUV DFWXDOO\ GLG EHWWHU ZKHQ UHSRUWLQJ D KLJKHU DPRXQW RI VWDWH DQ[LHW\ 6PLWK DQG 6PROO f LQWHUSUHW .ODYRUDnV UHVXOWV DV VXJJHVWLQJ WKH SRVVLELOLW\ WKDW RSWLPDO SHUIRUPDQFH PD\ RFFXU DW D OHYHO RI DURXVDO WKDW LV VLPLODU WR DWKOHWHVn FXVWRPDU\ OHYHO RI DQ[LHW\ UDWKHU WKDQ DW D QRUPDWLYH OHYHO GHILQHG E\ WKH DQ[LHW\ GLVWULEXWLRQ IRU DOO VXEMHFWV S f 6RQVWURHP DQG %HUQDUGR f LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH LQYHUWHG8 WKHRU\ ZLWK IHPDOH FROOHJLDWH EDVNHWEDOO SOD\HUV ZKR KDG EHHQ DVVHVVHG RQ ERWK FRPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQG VWDWH DQ[LHW\ &RPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\ ZDV QRW IRXQG WR KDYH D VLJQLILFDQW PDLQ HIIHFW RQ SHUIRUPDQFH KRZHYHU WKHLU UHVXOWV VXJJHVWHG WKDW DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ FRPSHWLWLYH $VWDWH DQ

PAGE 55

LQYHUWHG8 IXQFWLRQ FRXOG GHVFULEH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ FRPSHWLWLYH $WUDLW DQG EDVNHWEDOO SHUIRUPDQFH RQ DQ LQWUDLQGLYLGXDO EDVLV ,Q D VLPLODU VWXG\ XWLOL]LQJ JROIHUV :HLQEHUJ DQG *HQXFKL f IRXQG WKDW WKH DWKOHWHV ORZHVW LQ FRPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\ SHUIRUPHG EHWWHU WKDQ PRGHUDWH DQG KLJK FRPSHWLWLYH $WUDLW JROIHUV DOWKRXJK WKHUH ZDV QR GLIIHUHQFH LQ SHUIRUPDQFH EHWZHHQ WKH ODWWHU WZR JURXSVf $OVR FRPSHWLWLYH $VWDWH ZDV D EHWWHU SUHGLFWRU RI SHUIRUPDQFH WKDQ ZDV FRPSHWLWLYH $ WUDLW ,QYHVWLJDWRUV KDYH LQFUHDVLQJO\ IRFXVHG RQ WKH HIIHFWV RI FRPSHWLWLYH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ RQ SHUIRUPDQFH 6PLWK DQG 6PROO f DVVHUW WKDW FRPSHWLWLYH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ LV PRGHUDWHG E\ WKUHH IDFWRUV )LUVW LV WKH QDWXUH RI WKH VSRUWLQJ VLWXDWLRQ LQ ZKLFK WKH DWKOHWH LV FRPSHWLQJ HJ VWUHQJWK RI RSSRQHQWV VLJQLILFDQFH RI WKH HYHQW SUHVHQFH RI VSHFWDWRUV RU VLJQLILFDQW RWKHUV DQG VRFLDO VXSSRUW IURP FRDFKHV RU WHDPPDWHVf 6HFRQG LV WKH PDJQLWXGH RI WKH DWKOHWHnV FRPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\ 7KLUG DUH WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO GHIHQVHV WKDW WKH DWKOHWH PD\ KDYH GHYHORSHG WR FRSH ZLWK DQ[LHW\DURXVLQJ FRPSHWLWLYH VLWXDWLRQV S f )XUWKHUPRUH WKHVH WKUHH IDFWRUV DUH DVVXPHG WR MRLQWO\ LQIOXHQFH WKH DWKOHWHnV DSSUDLVDO SURFHVVHV 7KHVH SURFHVVHV LQFOXGH $SSUDLVDO RI WKH VLWXDWLRQDO GHPDQGV DSSUDLVDO RI WKH UHVRXUFHV DYDLODEOH WR GHDO ZLWK WKHP DSSUDLVDO RI WKH QDWXUH DQG OLNHOLKRRG RI WKH SRWHQWLDO FRQVHTXHQFHV LI WKH GHPDQGV DUH QRW PHW WKDW LV WKH H[SHFWDQFLHV DQG YDODQFHV >VLF@ UHODWLQJ WR

PAGE 56

SRWHQWLDO FRQVHTXHQFHVf DQG WKH SHUVRQDO PHDQLQJ WKDW WKH FRQVHTXHQFHV KDYH IRU WKH LQGLYLGXDO 6PLWK t 6PROO S f ,W LV FOHDU WKDW KLJKHU OHYHOV RI FRPSHWLWLYH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ DUH W\SLFDOO\ IRXQG XQGHU FRPSHWLWLYH FRQGLWLRQV DV FRPSDUHG WR SUDFWLFH FRQGLWLRQV %LUG t +RUQ .ODYRUD f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f ZKHUHDV WKH VRPDWLF FRPSRQHQW RI FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ FRQVLGHUHG VLPLODU WR DURXVDOf PD\ GHPRQVWUDWH DQ LQYHUWHG8 UHODWLRQVKLS WR SHUIRUPDQFH 7KLV PD\ EH EHFDXVH VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ LV VLPSO\ D SHUFHSWLRQ RI SK\VLRORJLFDO DURXVDO $GRSWLQJ WKLV FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ DQ DWKOHWH ZKR IHHOV WKH FODVVLF EXWWHUIOLHV LQ WKH VWRPDFK PD\ SHUIRUP EHWWHU WKDQ ZKHQ KH RU VKH HLWKHU SHUFHLYHV QR SK\VLRORJLFDO DURXVDO DQG

PAGE 57

PD\ EH XQPRWLYDWHGf RU ZKHQ KH SHUFHLYHV KLV KHDUW WR EH SRXQGLQJ VR KDUG WKDW KH EHFRPHV WRR GLVWUDFWHG WR SHUIRUP VXFFHVVIXOO\ 5HVHDUFK LQ FRJQLWLYH SV\FKRORJ\ VXSSRUWV WKH FRQWHQWLRQ WKDW WKH HIIHFW RI FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ RQ SHUIRUPDQFH PD\ EH GHVFULEHG XVLQJ D QHJDWLYH OLQHDU IXQFWLRQ )RU H[DPSOH (DVWHUEURRNnV f K\SRWKHVLV UHJDUGLQJ WKH SHULSKHUDO QDUURZLQJ ZKLFK RFFXUV DV DURXVDO LQFUHDVHV DOWKRXJK JHQHUDOO\ FLWHG WR VXSSRUW WKH LQYHUWHG8 UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DURXVDO DQG SHUIRUPDQFHf FDQ EH DSSOLHG LQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS +HUH DQ\ LQFUHDVH LQ ZRUU\ RU FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ LV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DWWHQWLRQ WR LUUHOHYDQW FXHV HJ ,nP QRW JRLQJ WR GR ZHOO $OO WKHVH SHRSOH DUH ZDWFKLQJ PHf 7KXV DV FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ LQFUHDVHV PRUH LQWHUQDO LUUHOHYDQW FXHV DQG QHJDWLYH VHOIVWDWHPHQWV DUH FUHDWHG DQG WKHUH LV DQ LQFUHDVHG WHQGHQF\ IRU WKH LQGLYLGXDO WR SD\ DWWHQWLRQ WR KLV RZQ LQWHUQDO WKRXJKWV DQG FXHV UDWKHU WKDQ WR WKH WDVN 0DQGOHU f 7KLV ZRXOG WKHRUHWLFDOO\ DIIHFW SHUIRUPDQFH LQ D QHJDWLYH OLQHDU IDVKLRQ 7KLV LVVXH KDV EHHQ H[DPLQHG LQ WKH WHVW DQ[LHW\ OLWHUDWXUH 6DUDVRQ f IRU H[DPSOH DUJXHV WKDW WHVW DQ[LHW\ LV SULPDULO\ D IXQFWLRQ RI FRJQLWLYH ZRUU\ HJ DP VWXSLG ,nOO QHYHU SDVV WKLV WHVWf DQG SK\VLRORJLFDO UHDFWLYLW\ 6DUDVRQ ZULWHV WKDW VD\LQJ WKH

PAGE 58

QHJDWLYH VHOIVWDWHPHQWV GXULQJ D WHVW PLJKW LQWHUIHUH FRQVLGHUDEO\ ZLWK DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH WDVN DW KDQG EH LW RQH WKDW UHTXLUHV OHDUQLQJ RU ILJXULQJ RXW WKH DQVZHUV WR FHUWDLQ TXHVWLRQV :RUU\ LV XQPLVWDNDEO\ DQ DWWHQWLRQDOO\ GHPDQGLQJ DQG HPRWLRQDOO\ DURXVLQJ FRJQLWLYH DFWLYLW\ S f ,Q D UHYLHZ RI VHOHFWLYH DWWHQWLRQ :LQH f LQGLFDWHG WKDW KLJK WHVW DQ[LRXV LQGLYLGXDOV UHVSRQG ZLWK SHUVRQDOL]HG WDVNLUUHOHYDQW UHVSRQVHV )XUWKHUPRUH 'HIIHQEDFKHU f DQG 0RUULV 'DYLV DQG +XWFKLQJV f KDYH VKRZQ LQ WKHLU UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH WKDW FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ LV PRUH FRQVLVWHQWO\ DQG VWURQJO\ UHODWHG WR WHVW SHUIRUPDQFH WKDQ LV VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ 8WLOL]LQJ WKH WKHRULHV IURP FRJQLWLYH SV\FKRORJ\ HJ WHVW DQ[LHW\ UHVHDUFKf VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ DQG PRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ LV PRUH VWURQJO\ UHODWHG WR VSRUW DQG PRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH WKDQ LV VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ %DUQHV 6LPH 'LHQVWELHU t 3ODNH 0DUWHQV 9HDOH\ t %XUWRQ 0RUULV 6PLWK $QGUHZV t 0RUULV f 2QH H[SODQDWLRQ LV WKDW 6RPDWLF DQ[LHW\ VKRXOG LQIOXHQFH SHUIRUPDQFH OHVV WKDQ FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ EHFDXVH LW UHDFKHV LWV SHDN DW WKH RQVHW RI D FRPSHWLWLYH HYHQW DQG GLVVLSDWHV RYHU WKH FRXUVH RI WKH FRPSHWLWLRQ &RJQLWLYH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ LQFUHDVHV GXULQJ FRPSHWLWLRQ KRZHYHU EHFDXVH LW LV OLQNHG WR LQFUHDVHV LQ VRFLDO DQG VHOIHYDOXDWLRQ WKDW RFFXU GXULQJ WKH HYHQW DQG KHQFH FDXVHV VWURQJHU DQG PRUH FRQVLVWHQW SHUIRUPDQFH GHFUHPHQWV *RXOG HW DO S f

PAGE 59

'HVSLWH WKH LQWXLWLYH DSSHDO RI WKH FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS VWXGLHV ZKLFK KDYH LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO LQIOXHQFHV RI DQ[LHW\ LH FRJQLWLYH ZRUU\ DQG VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\f LQ FRPSHWLWLYH VHWWLQJV KDYH SURYLGHG PL[HG UHVXOWV UHJDUGLQJ WKH VWUHQJWK DQG QDWXUH RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS )RU LQVWDQFH *RXOG HW DO f VWXGLHG SROLFH RIILFHUV SHUIRUPLQJ LQ D SLVWRO VKRRWLQJ FRPSHWLWLRQ DQG FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH FRJQLWLYH FRPSRQHQW RI FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ ZDV XQUHODWHG WR VKRRWLQJ RXWFRPH +RZHYHU WKH VRPDWLF FRPSRQHQW ZDV IRXQG WR LQIOXHQFH SHUIRUPDQFH VR WKDW D TXDGUDWLF IXQFWLRQ EHVW H[SODLQHG WKH VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS *RXOG HW DO S f ,Q WKLV FDVH WKH DXWKRUV H[SODLQ WKH VRPDWLF FRPSRQHQW DV EHLQJ PRUH SUHGLFWLYH EHFDXVH SLVWRO VKRRWLQJ GHSHQGV RQ ILQH QHXURPXVFXODU FRQWURO HDVLO\ GLVUXSWHG E\ VOLJKW SK\VLRORJLFDO FKDQJHV $OWKRXJK WKLV LV FHUWDLQO\ WUXH %XUWRQ f VXJJHVWV WKDW WKHUH DOVR PD\ KDYH EHHQ PHWKRGRORJLFDO UHDVRQV IRU WKH QRQVLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ DQG VKRRWLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH )LUVW *RXOG DQG KLV FROOHDJXHV XVHG WKH DYHUDJH VFRUHV RI D VLQJOH FRPSHWLWLRQ DV RSSRVHG WR D VHDVRQ DYHUDJHf DV WKH FRPSDULVRQ WR D VSHFLILF URXQG DQG WKXV JDLQHG D OHVV UHOLDEOH DVVHVVPHQW RI DQ[LHW\PHGLDWHG SHUIRUPDQFH IOXFWXDWLRQV $OVR WKH VXEMHFWV PD\ KDYH KDG ORZ HJR LQYROYHPHQW ZLWK WKH WDVN DV LW ZDV DQ HODERUDWH

PAGE 60

H[SHULPHQWHU GHVLJQHG FRPSHWLWLRQ DQG PD\ KDYH ODFNHG VXIILFLHQW H[WHUQDO YDOLGLW\ %XUWRQ S f 0F&DXOH\ f IRXQG QR UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ HLWKHU FRJQLWLYH RU VRPDWLF FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ DQG JROI SHUIRUPDQFH RYHU URXQGV RI WRXUQDPHQW JROI +RZHYHU DV %LUG DQG +RUQ f DQG *RXOG HW DO f SRLQW RXW 0F&DXOH\nV ILQGLQJV RI QRQVLJQLILFDQFH PD\ KDYH EHHQ FRQIRXQGHG E\ FKDQJLQJ WDVN GHPDQGV LH GLIIHUHQW JROI FRXUVHVf $ UHFHQW VWXG\ DOVR GLG QRW GHPRQVWUDWH DQ\ VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ FRPSHWLWLYH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ ERWK FRJQLWLYH DQG VRPDWLFf DQG F\FOLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH RQ VWDWLRQDU\ ELF\FOHV &DUXVR ']HZDOWRZVNL *LOO t 0F(OUR\ f 2QFH DJDLQ WKH DXWKRUV DGPLW WKDW WKH WDVN LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZDV QRW FRJQLWLYHO\ GHPDQGLQJ QRU GLG LW UHTXLUH FRPSOH[ PRWRU VNLOOV WKDW ZRXOG OHDG WR SHUIRUPDQFH LPSDLUPHQW DV D UHVXOW RI DQ[LHW\ $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH FRQWULYHG FRPSHWLWLRQ GLG QRW LQGXFH KLJK OHYHOV RI DQ[LHW\ S f .DUWHUROLRWLV DQG *LOO f H[DPLQHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV RI FRJQLWLYH ZRUU\ VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ DQG VHOIFRQILGHQFH WR PRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH GXULQJ D VLPXODWHG ODERUDWRU\ FRPSHWLWLRQ RQ D SHJERDUG WDVN 7KLV VWXG\ UHYHDOHG OLWWOH VXSSRUW IRU WKHLU SUHGLFWHG LQYHUVH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ FRJQLWLYH ZRUU\ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH ,W ZDV DOVR FRQFOXGHG WKDW ERWK VHOIUHSRUWHG VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ DQG SK\VLRORJLFDO DURXVDO ZHUH XQUHODWHG WR PRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH DW DQ\ VWDJH RI WKH H[SHULPHQW +RZHYHU

PAGE 61

VLPLODU WR &DUXVR HW DO f DQG *RXOG HW DO f WKLV WDVN KDG OLWWOH H[WHUQDO YDOLGLW\ DQG WKH VXEMHFWV OLNHO\ KDG ORZ HJR LQYROYHPHQW )XUWKHUPRUH DV WKH DXWKRUV DFNQRZOHGJH GXH WR WKH VLPSOLFLW\ RI WKH SHJERDUG WDVN FRPSOH[ PRWRU VNLOOV ZHUH QRW UHTXLUHG ZKLFK PLJKW EH LPSDLUHG E\ FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG VHYHUDO UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH GHPRQVWUDWHG D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ DQG VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH LQ ILHOG VWXGLHV )RU H[DPSOH 3RZHOO DQG 9HUQHU f IRXQG WKDW OLQHDU LQFUHDVHV LQ VWDWH DQ[LHW\ DQG IHDU HVWLPDWHV URXJKO\ FRJQLWLYH ZRUU\f ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ DQG QHJDWLYHO\ UHODWHG WR VSRUW SDUDFKXWLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH 8QH[SHFWHGO\ KHDUW UDWH SK\VLRORJLFDO DURXVDOf ZDV DOVR QHJDWLYHO\ UHODWHG LQ D OLQHDU IDVKLRQf WR SHUIRUPDQFH 0RUH UHFHQWO\ 0F&DQQ 0XUSK\ DQG 5DHGHNH LQ SUHVVf VWXGLHG QDWLRQDO OHYHO F\FOLVWV XQGHU ODERUDWRU\ F\FOLQJ HUJRPHWHUf DQG ILHOG WLPHWULDO URDG UDFHf FRQGLWLRQV 7KH LQYHVWLJDWRUV IRXQG WKDW VHOIUHSRUWHG DQ[LHW\ ZDV VWURQJO\ UHODWHG WR F\FOLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH ZLWK WKH VWURQJHVW UHODWLRQVKLSV RFFXUULQJ XQGHU WKH ILHOG FRQGLWLRQ +LJK FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ DQG VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ZHDN SHUIRUPDQFH ZKLOH KLJK VHOI FRQILGHQFH ZDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK D VWURQJHU SHUIRUPDQFH $OVR RQO\ FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ ZDV VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR SHUIRUPDQFH XQGHU WKH F\FOLQJ HUJRPHWHU ODERUDWRU\ VHWWLQJ 7KLV VWXG\ KDG PDQ\ VWUHQJWKV f ,W HPSOR\HG

PAGE 62

D WLPHO\ DQG DSSURSULDWH PHDVXUH RI DQ[LHW\ WKH &RPSHWLWLYH 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ ,QYHQWRU\ &6$,f ZDV JLYHQ PLQ SULRU WR WKH URDG UDFH f $Q DGHTXDWH DVSHFW RI SHUIRUPDQFH ZDV DVVHVVHG f 6XEMHFWV ZHUH IDLUO\ KRPRJHQHRXV LQ VNLOO OHYHO DQG DELOLW\ f 7KH PHDQLQJ DQG VLJQLILFDQFH RI WKH ILHOG VHWWLQJ WDVN ZDV SUREDEO\ TXLWH KLJK WR WKH VXEMHFWV VLQFH LW LQYROYHG D WLPH WULDO UDFH $ GUDZEDFN WR WKH VWXG\ ZDV LWV FRUUHODWLRQDO GHVLJQ PDNLQJ DQ HPSLULFDO WHVW RI WKH QDWXUH RI WKH DQ[LHW\SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS XQIHDVLEOH $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH DXWKRUV DFNQRZOHGJH WKDW HYHQ VWURQJHU UHVXOWV PD\ KDYH EHHQ REWDLQHG KDG DQ LQWUDLQGLYLGXDO GHVLJQ DQG DQDO\VLV EHHQ XWLOL]HG $QRWKHU SHUWLQHQW VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG E\ %XUWRQ f ZKR DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH &6$, WR FROOHJLDWH VZLPPHUV SULRU WR GLIIHUHQW VLWXDWLRQV HJ HDUO\ VHDVRQ PHHW PLGVHDVRQ PHHW DQG FRQIHUHQFH FKDPSLRQVKLSVf XVLQJ UDFH HYHQW WLPHV DV SHUIRUPDQFH RXWFRPH PHDVXUHV %XUWRQ LQ GUDZLQJ IURP WKH FRJQLWLYH SV\FKRORJ\ OLWHUDWXUH HJ (DVWHUEURRN :LQH f K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ ZRXOG PLVGLUHFW DWWHQWLRQ IURP WDVNUHOHYDQW FXHV WR LUUHOHYDQW FXHV HJ VRFLDO HYDOXDWLYH FXHVf DQG WKXV ZRXOG FDXVH SHUIRUPDQFH WR GHFUHDVH OLQHDUO\ 2Q WKH RWKHU KDQG VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ ZDV K\SRWKHVL]HG WR GHPRQVWUDWH WKH PRUH WUDGLWLRQDO LQYHUWHG8 UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK SHUIRUPDQFH DOWKRXJK LW LV GLIILFXOW WR GLVFHUQ ZKHWKHU %XUWRQnV

PAGE 63

ORZ DURXVDO GLYLVLRQ ZDV WUXO\ XQGHUDURXVDO D QHFHVVDU\ FRPSRQHQW IRU IXOO\ VXSSRUWLQJ DQ LQYHUWHG8 UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DQ[LHW\ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH RU ZKHWKHU LW ZDV VLPSO\ D ODFN RI UHSRUWHG DQ[LHW\f 7KH UHVXOWV RI %XUWRQnV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LQGLFDWHG WKDW FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ ZDV PRUH FRQVLVWHQWO\ DQG VWURQJO\ QHJDWLYHO\ DQG OLQHDUO\f UHODWHG WR VZLPPHUVn SHUIRUPDQFH WKDQ ZDV VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ LH VHOIUHSRUWHG DURXVDOf $ VOLJKWO\ GLIIHUHQW DSSURDFK ZDV WDNHQ E\ %LUG DQG +RUQ f ZKR WHVWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ OHYHO RI FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ DQG PHQWDO HUURUV LQ D VSRUW VHWWLQJ LH VRIWEDOO JDPHf 3ULRU WR D JDPH WKH DWKOHWHV FRPSOHWHG WKH &6$, 7KHLU DQ[LHW\ OHYHOV ZHUH H[DPLQHG DIWHU FODVVLI\LQJ WKH SOD\HUV LQWR WZR JURXSV DV D IXQFWLRQ RI PHQWDO HUURUV FRPPLWWHG GXULQJ WKH JDPH DV DVVHVVHG E\ WKHLU FRDFKf 7KH LQYHVWLJDWRUV IRXQG WKDW SOD\HUV LQ WKH WZR JURXSV KLJK YV ORZ PHQWDO HUURUVf GLIIHUHG RQO\ RQ SUHJDPH FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ DQG QRW RQ VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ 7KLV ILQGLQJ LV QRW VXUSULVLQJ DV WKH RXWFRPH PHDVXUH RI PHQWDO HUURUV VHHPV LQWXLWLYHO\ PRVW UHODWHG WR FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ &RPSUHKHQVLYH SHUIRUPDQFH ZDV QRW H[DPLQHG LQ ZKLFK FHUWDLQ DVSHFWV HJ RYHUUXQQLQJ D IO\ EDOOf PD\ EH PRUH UHODWHG WR VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\

PAGE 64

3UREOHPV ZLWK WKH /LWHUDWXUH DQG 5HVHDUFKHUVn 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV %LUG DQG +RUQ f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f RSSRQHQWV YDULHG *RXOG 3HWOLFKNRII t :HLQEHUJ f DQG LQ ZKLFK VLWXDWLRQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV GLIIHUHG 0F&DXOH\ f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH FRPPHQWV IURP %LUG DQG +RUQ f UHJDUGLQJ WKH LQFRQVLVWHQW DQ[LHW\SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS ILQGLQJV *RXOG DQG KLV FROOHDJXHV KDYH DGGUHVVHG WKLV LVVXH *RXOG HW DO *RXOG t .UDQH LQ SUHVVf *RXOG DQG .UDQH SURSRVH WKDW LQYHVWLJDWRUV PXVW PHHW IRXU FRQGLWLRQV LQ DQ DWWHPSW WR H[SODLQ WKH DURXVDOSHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS ,Q WKHVH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV *RXOG DQG .UDQH XVH WKH WHUP DURXVDO ZKHUH DQ[LHW\ LV WKH PRUH DSSURSULDWH WHUP ,Q WKH SUHVHQW GLVFXVVLRQ WKH WHUP DQ[LHW\ LV VXEVWLWXWHG ,W LV UHFRPPHQGHG WKDW WKH LQYHVWLJDWRUV PXVW f

PAGE 65

DGHTXDWHO\ DVVHVV DQ[LHW\ DQG UHODWHG VWDWHV f XWLOL]H PRUH DGHTXDWH PHDVXUHV RI DWKOHWLF SHUIRUPDQFH f HPSOR\ LQWUDLQGLYLGXDO DQ[LHW\ DQDO\VHV DQG f FUHDWH DW OHDVW WKUHH GLVWLQFW OHYHOV RI DQ[LHW\ ZKHQ WHVWLQJ QRQOLQHDU SUHGLFWLRQV *RXOG DQG .UDQHnV ILUVW UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ LV D EURDG RQH EXW EDVLFDOO\ LQYROYHV FDUHIXOO\ GHILQLQJ ZKDW RQH LV PHDVXULQJ XWLOL]LQJ FRQFHSWXDO IUDPHZRUNV HJ PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO FRPSRQHQWV RI DQ[LHW\f DQG XVLQJ UHOLDEOH DQG YDOLG PHDVXUHV RI DQ[LHW\ 7KH VHFRQG SOHD LV IRU WKH LQYHVWLJDWRU WR DGHTXDWHO\ PHDVXUH DWKOHWLF SHUIRUPDQFH 0DQ\ VWXGLHV KDYH UHOLHG XSRQ QRQVWDQGDUGL]HG SHUIRUPDQFH PHDVXUHV FI *RXOG HW DO 0F&DXOH\ f ZKLFK IOXFWXDWHG DFFRUGLQJ WR WDVN GHPDQGV )XUWKHUPRUH WKH XWLOL]DWLRQ RI RXWFRPH PHDVXUHV HJ ZLQORVV FRPSDULQJ JDPH VFRUHVf LV GLVFRXUDJHG *RXOG DQG .UDQH FLWH %XUWRQ f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

PAGE 66

7KXV WKH PDQQHU LQ ZKLFK LQGLYLGXDOV RUJDQL]H WKHLU PRWLRQV LQ WKH H[HFXWLRQ RI PRWRU VNLOOV LV WKH FUX[ RI WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ FI %HXWHU t 'XGD :HLQEHUJ t +XQW :HLQEHUJ f 0DUWHQV 9HDOH\ DQG %XUWRQ f FRQFXU DQG UHFRPPHQG WKDW RQH ZD\ WR LPSURYH WKH SUHGLFWLYH DELOLW\ IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DQ[LHW\ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH LV WR IRFXV RQ TXDOLWDWLYH DVSHFWV RI SHUIRUPDQFH DV RSSRVHG WR TXDQWLWDWLYH 7KXV XVLQJ HOHFWURP\RJUDSKLF RU NLQHPDWLF PHDVXUHV IRU H[DPSOH PD\ PRUH VXIILFLHQWO\ DGGUHVV WKH TXHVWLRQ RI KRZ VSRUW SHUIRUPDQFH LV DIIHFWHG E\ DQ[LHW\ $ VWXG\ VSHFLILFDOO\ UHOHYDQW WR WKLV UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ DQG WR WKH FXUUHQW LQYHVWLJDWLRQf LQYROYHG H[DPLQLQJ WKH HIIHFWV RI DQ[LHW\ RQ WKH PRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH RI FKLOGUHQ GXULQJ D VWHSSLQJ WDVN RYHU WKUHH REVWDFOHV %HXWHU t 'XGD f 7KH LQYHVWLJDWRUV FUHDWHG WZR FRQGLWLRQV IRU HDFK VXEMHFW GXULQJ WKH VWHSSLQJ WDVN f DQ LQIRUPDO DVVHVVPHQW RU ORZ DQ[LHW\ FRQGLWLRQ DQG f D KLJK DQ[LHW\ FRQGLWLRQ ZKLFK LQYROYHG FUHDWLQJ D VWUHVVIXO VRFLDO VLWXDWLRQ WKDW LQFRUSRUDWHG HYDOXDWLRQ FRPSHWLWLRQ DQG WKUHDW WR VHOIHVWHHP 8VLQJ GLJLWL]HG YLGHRWDSHG UHFRUGLQJV RI WKH VXEMHFWVn VWHSSLQJ PRWLRQV WR H[DPLQH WKH NLQHPDWLF FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI PRWLRQ DQG D ZLWKLQVXEMHFWV GHVLJQ LW ZDV GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW WKH WZR DQ[LHW\ FRQGLWLRQV FUHDWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW PRYHPHQWV LQ WKH DQNOH MRLQW

PAGE 67

%HXWHU DQG 'XGD f VXJJHVWHG WKDW XQGHU WKH KLJK DQ[LHW\ FRQGLWLRQ ZKDW ZDV RQFH DXWRPDWLF DQG VPRRWK FDPH XQGHU YROLWLRQDO FRQWURO OLNHO\ GXH WR WKH HYDOXDWLYH DQG FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\f DQG EHFDPH OHVV VPRRWK DQG HIILFLHQW 2QFH DJDLQ D SUREOHP ZLWK WKH VWXG\ LV WKDW %HXWHU DQG 'XGD FUHDWHG GLIIHUHQW DQ[LHW\ FRQGLWLRQV EXW GHVFULEHG WKHP DV DURXVDO OHYHOV DQG XVHG D JHQHUDO PHDVXUH RI DURXVDO KHDUW UDWH WDNHQ SULRU WR WKH WZR WULDOVf WR DVVHVV WKH PDQLSXODWLRQ 7KDW LV VHOIUHSRUW PHDVXUHV RI DQ[LHW\ ZHUH QRW XWLOL]HG HJ 6WDWH7UDLW $Q[LHW\ ,QYHQWRU\ IRU &KLOGUHQf WR DVVHVV WKH DQ[LHW\ PDQLSXODWLRQ 7KH WKLUG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ RI *RXOG DQG .UDQH LV WR HPSOR\ LQWUDLQGLYLGXDO DQDO\VHV HJ %HXWHU t 'XGD f 7KH\ ZULWH WKDW 6RQVWURHP DQG %HUQDUGRnV f VWXG\ RI EDVNHWEDOO SOD\HUV LV DQ H[FHOOHQW H[DPSOH RI WKLV PHWKRG :LWKRXW KDYLQJ FRQWUROOHG IRU HDFK SOD\HUnV RZQ VWDWH DQ[LHW\ VFRUHV WKH UHVHDUFKHUV ZRXOG KDYH PLVWDNHQO\ FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ DQG EDVNHWEDOO SHUIRUPDQFH ,QVWHDG DV PHQWLRQHG SUHYLRXVO\ 6RQVWURHP DQG %HUQDUGR GLVFRYHUHG WKDW DQ LQYHUWHG8 UHODWLRQVKLS H[LVWHG EHWZHHQ VWDWH DQ[LHW\ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH DFURVV DOO VXEMHFWV )XUWKHUPRUH RWKHU LQYHVWLJDWRUV /DQGHUV t %RXWFKHU 1HLVV Ef KDYH VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKHUH LV D QHHG WR DQDO\]H LQWUDLQGLYLGXDO FKDQJHV LQ DURXVDO DQG DQ[LHW\ PHDVXUHV ZKHQ UHODWLQJ WKHP WR SHUIRUPDQFH

PAGE 68

7KH ILQDO UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ WR FUHDWH DW OHDVW WKUHH OHYHOV RI DQ[LHW\ ZKHQ LQYHVWLJDWLQJ WKH DQ[LHW\ SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS LV RQH WKDW KDV EHHQ PDGH E\ VHYHUDO UHVHDUFKHUV (\VHQFN *RXOG t .UDQH LQ SUHVV 0DUWHQV f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t :HLVV %XUWRQ 0DGGHQ 6XPPHUV t %URZQ 0DUWLQ t *LOO 0F&DQQ 0XUSK\ t 5DHGHNH LQ SUHVV 5DJOLQ :LVH t 0RUJDQ f +RZHYHU WKHVH WZR PHWKRGV PD\ EH XQDYRLGDEOH ZKHQ FRQGXFWLQJ ILHOG UHVHDUFK GXULQJ DFWXDO FRPSHWLWLRQV 7KH SUHFHGLQJ UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV DSSHDU WR EH DSSURSULDWH DQG QHFHVVDU\ ,W LV FOHDU IURP WKH H[LVWLQJ OLWHUDWXUH WKDW UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH XVXDOO\ IDOOHQ VKRUW LQ RQH RU PRUH DUHDV (YHQ WKH UHODWLYHO\ VXSHULRU VWXGLHV LQ WKLV DUHD HJ %HXWHU t 'XGD %XUWRQ 0F&DQQ HW DO LQ SUHVV 6RQVWURHP t %HUQDUGR f DUH GLPLQLVKHG E\ VSHFLILF DQG DFNQRZOHGJHG VKRUWFRPLQJV ,W

PAGE 69

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f ,W KDV EHHQ VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VRPDWLF DQGRU FRJQLWLYHf DQ[LHW\ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH LV RI DQ LQYHUWHG8 QDWXUH LV QHJDWLYHO\ OLQHDU RU LV LUUHOHYDQW ,Q WKH QH[W VHFWLRQ WKLV LVVXH ZLOO DGGUHVVHG LQ GHPRQVWUDWLQJ WKH QHHG IRU WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ 6XPPDU\ RI /LWHUDWXUH 5HYLHZ DQG 5HVWDWHPHQW RI 1HHG IRU &XUUHQW 6WXG\ $Q[LHW\ FDQ EH GHILQHG DV WKH H[SHULHQFH RI GLVWUHVVLQJ WKRXJKWV HJ IHDU RI HYDOXDWLRQ ZRUU\ VHOIGRXEWf DQG XVXDOO\ SK\VLRORJLFDO VHQVDWLRQV HJ GU\ PRXWK UDFLQJ KHDUW UDWHf ZKLFK DUH LQGXFHG LQ

PAGE 70

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f DUH DOVR WKRXJKW WR KDYH GLIIHUHQW HIIHFWV RQ SHUIRUPDQFH &RPSHWLWLYH FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ LQ LWV VWULFW VHQVH ZLOO JHQHUDOO\ EH GHWULPHQWDO WR SHUIRUPDQFH $V DQ DWKOHWHnV FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ ULVHV GXULQJ D FRPSHWLWLRQ LW LV VXJJHVWHG WKDW KLV RU KHU SHUIRUPDQFH ZLOO VXIIHU DFFRUGLQJO\ DQG LQ D OLQHDU IDVKLRQ 7KLV VHHPV WR EH GXH SULPDULO\ WR D IRFXV RQ LUUHOHYDQW FXHV HJ QHJDWLYH VHOIWDON WKH VSHFWDWRUVf 7KH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ DQG VSRUW SHUIRUPDQFH LV RIWHQ WKRXJKW WR EH RQH RI DQ LQYHUWHG8 QDWXUH 7KLV K\SRWKHVLV LV GUDZQ IURP WKH UHVHDUFK WKDW VXJJHVWV WKDW WKLV W\SH RI UHODWLRQVKLS H[LVWV EHWZHHQ DURXVDO DQG SHUIRUPDQFH 6RPDWLF DQ[LHW\ DQG DURXVDO WKRXJK QRW LGHQWLFDO FDQ EH VHHQ DV VLPLODU FRQVWUXFWV 7KH SULPDU\ GLIIHUHQFH LV WKDW VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ DSSHDUV WR

PAGE 71

KDYH D SHUFHSWXDO FRPSRQHQW 7KDW LV DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV DURXVDO OHYHO LV EDVLFDOO\ D PHDVXUDEOH HQWLW\ HJ (0* ((* SDOPDU VZHDWLQJ KHDUW UDWH UHVSLUDWLRQf ZKLOH VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ LV DVVHVVHG E\ VHOIUHSRUW DQG WKXV LV D VXEMHFWLYH PHDVXUH RI WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV SHUFHLYHG DURXVDO ,W KDV EHHQ VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKHUH H[LVWV DQ RSWLPDO OHYHO RI SK\VLRORJLFDO DURXVDO DQG WKH UHODWHG VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\f IRU DWKOHWHV ZKLFK LV GHSHQGHQW RQ WKH VSRUWnV WDVNV HJ DWWHQWLRQ GHPDQGV VWUHQJWK UHTXLUHPHQWVf DQG RQ LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV $V GHPRQVWUDWHG LQ WKLV UHYLHZ WKH PDQQHU LQ ZKLFK DQ[LHW\ DQG DURXVDO DUH UHODWHG WR VSRUW DQG PRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH KDV QRW EHHQ FRQVLVWHQWO\ GHPRQVWUDWHG $OWKRXJK WKH LQYHUWHG8 K\SRWKHVLV KDV EHHQ D SUHYDOHQW WKHRU\ LQ H[SODLQLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DURXVDO DQG VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\f DQG PRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH LW KDV LWV GHWUDFWRUV FI (\VHQFN .DUWHUROLRWLV t *LOO .HUU 1HLVV D E 3RZHOO t 9HUQHU f 6LPLODUO\ DOWKRXJK WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ RU ZRUU\ WR SHUIRUPDQFH KDV EHHQ VXJJHVWHG WR EH D OLQHDU QHJDWLYH RQH WKLV KDV EHHQ E\ QR PHDQV HVWDEOLVKHG ,Q WKLV DXWKRUnV YLHZ PDQ\ RI WKH SUREOHPV ZLWK WKLV OLWHUDWXUH DUH UHODWHG WR WKH IDXOW\ PHWKRGRORJ\ DQG FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ RI WKH LVVXH 7KLV LV DQ XQIRUWXQDWH VWDWH RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH DQG ILHOG VLQFH WKHUH LV D QHHG IRU ERWK EDVLF UHVHDUFKHUV DQG VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ FRQVXPHUV

PAGE 72

HJ FRDFKHV SDUHQWV DWKOHWHV FOLQLFDO VSRUW SV\FKRORJLVWVf WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DQ[LHW\ DQG FRPSHWLWLYH SHUIRUPDQFH 7KHUHIRUH WKH FXUUHQW LQYHVWLJDWLRQ KDV DWWHPSWHG WR PRUH FOHDUO\ DVVHVV WKH HIIHFWV RI DQ[LHW\ RQ VSRUW SHUIRUPDQFH VZLPPLQJf VSHFLILFDOO\ H[DPLQLQJ WKH LQIOXHQFH RI FRJQLWLYH DQG VRPDWLF IDFWRUV &RQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV RI *RXOG DQG .UDQH LQ SUHVVf DQG :HLQEHUJ f WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ XVHG DQ DGHTXDWH DVVHVVPHQW RI DQ[LHW\ DQG UHODWHG VWDWHV PHDVXUHG DWKOHWLF SHUIRUPDQFH DFFXUDWHO\ DQG LQ D SURFHVVRULHQWHG IDVKLRQ HPSOR\HG LQWUDLQGLYLGXDO DQDO\VHV DQG DWWHPSWHG WR FUHDWH WKUHH GLVWLQFW UDQJHV RI DQ[LHW\ $OVR WR RYHUFRPH WKH OLPLWDWLRQ RI SRRU H[WHUQDO YDOLGLW\ FI &DUXVR HW DO *RXOG HW DO .DUWHUROLRWLV t *LOO f WKH FXUUHQW LQYHVWLJDWLRQ XWLOL]HG DQ H[WHUQDOO\ YDOLG VHWWLQJ ZKLFK ZDV H[SHFWHG WR LQGXFH KLJK HJRLQYROYHPHQW ZKLOH QRW VDFULILFLQJ WKH FRQWUROOHG QDWXUH RI WKH H[SHULPHQW ,W ZDV KRSHG WKDW WKH FXUUHQW LQYHVWLJDWLRQ ZRXOG IXOILOO WKH QHHG IRU PRUH FRQVLVWHQW DQG XVHIXO LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKH DQ[LHW\ SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS

PAGE 73

352&('85(6 6XEMHFWV 6XEMHFWV ZHUH VZLPPHUV DVVHVVHG DW WKH ,QWHUQDWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU $TXDWLF 5HVHDUFK ,&$5f 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 6ZLPPLQJ &RORUDGR 6SULQJV &RORUDGR 7KH VXEMHFWV PDOHV 1 f DQG IHPDOHV 1 f UDQJHG LQ DJH IURP \HDUV 0 f DQG ZHUH UHFUXLWHG IURP WZR ORFDO KLJK VFKRRO VZLP WHDPV $Q DWWHPSW ZDV PDGH WR UHFUXLW IHPDOH VXEMHFWV H[FOXVLYHO\ +RZHYHU RQO\ ZHUH DEOH WR SDUWLFLSDWH DQG WKXV VHYHQ PDOHV ZHUH UHFUXLWHG WR LQFUHDVH WKH VDPSOH WR DW OHDVW D PLQLPXP RI $ JRDO RI DVVHVVLQJ VZLPPHUV WR REWDLQ VZLPPHUV SHU JURXSf ZDV QRW PHW EHFDXVH RI WLPH OLPLWDWLRQV SODFHG RQ WKH SULQFLSDO LQYHVWLJDWRU E\ 86 6ZLPPLQJ GXH WR WKH KHDY\ XVH RI WKH IOXPHf 7KH SULQFLSDO LQYHVWLJDWRU ZDV WKHUHIRUH JLYHQ DSSURYDO WR DVVHVV DSSUR[LPDWHO\ VXEMHFWV $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKHUH ZDV D YHU\ VKRUW WLPH SHULRG LQ ZKLFK WR UHFUXLW VXEMHFWV ,Q WKLV UHFUXLWLQJ SHULRG WKH SULQFLSDO LQYHVWLJDWRU ZDV XQDEOH WR REWDLQ RQO\ VZLPPHUV QDLYH WR WKH IOXPH DQG WKXV RI WKH VXEMHFWV KDG XQGHUJRQH SUHYLRXV WHVWLQJ

PAGE 74

7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH DYHUDJH KLJK VFKRRO VZLPPHUV EDVHG RQ WKH VZLPPHUVn EHVW \DUG IUHHVW\OH WLPHV GXULQJ WKH FXUUHQW VHDVRQ 0 VHFRQGVf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f $ EULHI H[SODQDWLRQ RI WKH VWXG\ ZDV SURYLGHG E\ WKH LQYHVWLJDWRU DQG LQIRUPHG FRQVHQWV ZHUH REWDLQHG 7KH LQYHVWLJDWRU SXUSRVHO\ GLG QRW PHQWLRQ DQ[LHW\ DV DQ DVSHFW RI WKH VWXG\ RU WKDW VXEMHFWV ZRXOG VZLP XQGHU DQ DQ[LHW\FRQGLWLRQ 5DWKHU VXEMHFWV ZHUH WROG WKDW WKH VWXG\ LQYROYHG VZLPPLQJ LQ WKH IOXPH RQ WZR WULDOV EHIRUH ZKLFK WKH\ ZRXOG FRPSOHWH VHYHUDO VHOIUHSRUW TXHVWLRQQDLUHV UHODWHG WR KRZ WKH\ IHOW DERXW VZLPPLQJ LQ WKH IOXPH ,W ZDV RQO\ GLUHFWO\ SULRU WR HDFK VZLP WKDW

PAGE 75

WKH VZLPPHU UHFHLYHG DQ\ LQVWUXFWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG FRQGLWLRQV ^VHH PHWKRGRORJ\ VHFWLRQ`f $IWHU REWDLQLQJ FRQVHQW WKH 6SRUW $Q[LHW\ 6FDOH 6$6 6PLWK 6PROO t 6FKW] f ZKLFK DVVHVVHV WKH WHQGHQF\ WR H[SHULHQFH DQ[LHW\ ZLWKLQ FRPSHWLWLYH VSRUW VLWXDWLRQV ZDV DGPLQLVWHUHG (DFK VZLPPHUV EHVW \G IUHHVW\OH WLPH RYHU WKH SDVW VHDVRQ E\ VHOIUHSRUW DQG FURVV YDOLGDWLRQ ZLWK WKH VZLPPHUnV FRDFKf ZDV DOVR UHFRUGHG f 6XEMHFWV ZHUH DVVLJQHG WR RQH RI WKUHH JURXSV DQG ZHUH HTXLYDOHQW RQ VFRUHV RI WKH 6$6 DJH DQG EHVW IUHHVW\OH WLPH VHH 7DEOH S f )OXPH 7HVWLQJ 3URFHGXUHV f 7ZR SV\FKRORJLFDO TXHVWLRQQDLUHV ZHUH DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH 6WDWH FRPSRQHQW RI WKH 6WDWH7UDLW $Q[LHW\ ,QYHQWRU\ 6$, 6SLHOEHUJHU *RUVXFK t /XVKHQH f ZKLFK PHDVXUHV WUDQVLWRU\ HPRWLRQDO UHVSRQVHV WR D VSHFLILF VLWXDWLRQ DQG WKH &RPSHWLWLYH 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ ,QYHQWRU\ &6$, 0DUWHQV %XUWRQ HW DO f ZKLFK PHDVXUHV FRJQLWLYH DQG VRPDWLF FRPSRQHQWV RI VSRUWVSHFLILF VWDWH DQ[LHW\ DV ZHOO DV VHOIFRQILGHQFH $OVR D RQHLWHP /LNHUW VFDOH UHJDUGLQJ WKH SHUFHLYHG LPSRUWDQFH RI WKH SHQGLQJ IOXPH WHVW ZDV DGPLQLVWHUHG LH +RZ LPSRUWDQW WR \RX LV WKH XSFRPLQJ IOXPH HYDOXDWLRQ RQ D VFDOH RI WR >YHU\ LPSRUWDQW@"f f 5HVWLQJ KHDUW UDWH 5+5f ZDV WDNHQ

PAGE 76

f 7KH VZLPPHU ZDUPHG XS LQ WKH IOXPH IRU 9 PLQ WKHQ ZDV DVVHVVHG IRU EDVHOLQH IUHHVW\OH HIILFLHQF\ DW DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI KLV RU KHU PD[LPXP VZLPPLQJ VSHHG f ([HUWLRQDO KHDUW UDWH (+5f DQG 5DWLQJV RI 3HUFHLYHG ([HUWLRQ 53( %RUJ f ZHUH WDNHQ LPPHGLDWHO\ IROORZLQJ WKH EDVHOLQH VZLP f ,QVWUXFWLRQV ZHUH SURYLGHG UHJDUGLQJ WDVN GHPDQGV IRU WKH XSFRPLQJ IOXPH WHVW ,QVWUXFWLRQV ZHUH GHVLJQHG WR FUHDWH WKUHH DQ[LHW\ FRQGLWLRQV DQG WKHUHIRUH WKUHH JURXSV ORZ PRGHUDWH DQG KLJK DQ[LHW\f SULRU WR EHLQJ HYDOXDWHG RQ WKH IOXPH WHVW f 3V\FKRORJLFDO TXHVWLRQQDLUHV 6$, &6$,f ZHUH DGPLQLVWHUHG WR DVVHVV VWDWH DQ[LHW\ IROORZLQJ WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO PDQLSXODWLRQ f 5HVWLQJ KHDUW UDWH ZDV WDNHQ IROORZLQJ D EULHI UHFDSLWXODWLRQ RI WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO PDQLSXODWLRQ f 7KH VZLPPHU ZDUPHG XS LQ WKH IOXPH IRU PLQ DQG WKHQ ZDV DVVHVVHG IRU IUHHVW\OH HIILFLHQF\ DW DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI KLV RU KHU PD[LPXP VZLPPLQJ VSHHG ,W ZDV GXULQJ WKLV SKDVH WKDW WKH VZLPPHU ZDV DZDUH RI WKH ILOPLQJ f ([HUWLRQDO KHDUW UDWH DQG 5DWLQJV RI 3HUFHLYHG ([HUWLRQ ZHUH WDNHQ LPPHGLDWHO\ IROORZLQJ WKH HYDOXDWHG VZLP f 6ZLPPHUV ZHUH GHEULHIHG DIWHU DOO KDG FRPSOHWHG WKHLU WHVWV

PAGE 77

0HDVXUHV 7KLV VHFWLRQ FRQWDLQV GHVFULSWLRQV RI VZLPPLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH YDULDEOHV SK\VLRORJLFDO LQGLFHV DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO PHDVXUHV 3HUIRUPDQFH DQG 3K\VLRORJLFDO ,QGLFHV )OXPH HYDOXDWLRQ (DFK VZLPPHU ZDV LQVWUXFWHG WR VZLP IUHHVW\OH LQ WKH IOXPH GXULQJ ZKLFK WLPH WKH\ ZHUH YLGHRWDSHG LQ RUGHU WR DVVHVV VZLPPLQJ HIILFLHQF\ $QDO\]LQJ WKH DUP VWURNH LV YLWDO WR HYDOXDWLQJ WKH VZLPPHUnV WHFKQLTXH 5HLOO\ .DPH 7HUPLQ 7HQGHVFR DQG 3HQGHUJDVW f GHVFULEH WKH EDVLF PHFKDQLFV RI VZLPPLQJ DV IROORZV ,Q VZLPPLQJ D SURSXOVLYH IRUFH HTXDO WR RU JUHDWHU WKDQ WKH ZDWHU UHVLVWDQFH ERG\ GUDJf PXVW EH JHQHUDWHG E\ WKH VZLPPHU WR PDLQWDLQ D FRQVWDQW VSHHG RU WR DFFHOHUDWH 7KH SURSXOVLYH IRUFH LV SURYLGHG E\ D FRPELQDWLRQ RI DUP VWURNH DQG OHJ NLFN DOWKRXJK LW ZRXOG DSSHDU WKDW WKH DUP VWURNH LV PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDQ WKH OHJ NLFN LQ IUHHVW\OH VZLPPLQJ 5HLOO\ HW DO S f 6XEMHFWV ZHUH ILOPHG ZLWK WZR JHQORFNHG YLGHR FDPHUDV LQ XQGHUZDWHU KRXVLQJV 3XOQL[ FDPHUDV +]f 7KHVH FDPHUDV SURYLGHG YLGHRWDSH WR EH GLJLWL]HG IRU K\GURG\QDPLF ELRPHFKDQLFDO DQDO\VLV )RU GLJLWL]LQJ RQH UHSUHVHQWDWLYH DUPVWURNH ZDV FKRVHQ IRU DQDO\VLV $FFRUGLQJ WR VWDQGDUG SURWRFRO RI WKH IOXPH WKH UHSUHVHQWDWLYH DUPVWURNH WR EH GLJLWL]HG IRU WKH ELRPHFKDQLFDO DQDO\VLV ZDV DSSUR[LPDWHO\ ILYH VWURNHV IURP WKH HQG RI WKH VZLP )UDPHV LQ HDFK FDPHUD ZHUH V\QFKURQL]HG XVLQJ WKH ULJKW DUP HQWU\ 7KH IROORZLQJ

PAGE 78

VL[ ODQGPDUNV ZHUH GLJLWL]HG LQ ERWK FDPHUDV RI WKH XQGHUZDWHU YLGHR GXULQJ RQH VWURNH F\FOH ILQJHUWLS ZULVW WKXPE OLWWOH ILQJHU HOERZ DQG VKRXOGHU 7KUHH GLPHQVLRQDO DUP DQG KDQG FRRUGLQDWHV ZHUH FDOFXODWHG XVLQJ WKH 'LUHFW /LQHDU 7UDQVIRUPDWLRQ PHWKRG $EGHO$]L] t .DUDUD f 7KLV DQDO\VLV ZDV WKHQ XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH SURSXOVLYH IRUFHV RI WKH VZLPPHUV )URP WKH DUP SRVLWLRQ GDWD KDQG UHDFWLRQ IRUFHV ZHUH FDOFXODWHG 6FKOHLKDXI f 7KLV PHWKRG FDOFXODWHV OLIW DQG GUDJ IRUFHV EDVHG XSRQ KDQG RULHQWDWLRQ DQG KDQG YHORFLW\ 7KH UHVXOWDQW IRUFH LV FDOFXODWHG E\ WKH DGGLWLRQ RI WKH OLIW DQG GUDJ IRUFHV 7KH HIIHFWLYH RU SURSXOVLYHf FRPSRQHQW RI WKH VWURNH LV WKH SURMHFWLRQ RI WKH UHVXOWDQW IRUFH RQ WKH IRUZDUG GLUHFWLRQ )RU PRUH GHWDLOHG LQIRUPDWLRQ WKH VWURNH ZDV GLYLGHG LQWR WKH FDWFK SKDVH IURP KDQG HQWU\ WR WKH ZLGHVW SRLQW RI WKH LQLWLDO RXWVZHHSf WKH LQVZHHS SKDVH IURP WKH ZLGHVW SRLQW RI WKH RXWVZHHS WR WKH QDUURZHVW SRLQW XQGHU WKH ERG\f DQG WKH ILQLVK SKDVH WKH QDUURZHVW SRLQW XQWLO KDQG H[LWf 'XULQJ WKHVH SKDVHV WKH UHVXOWDQW IRUFH HIIHFWLYH IRUFH KDQG YHORFLW\ DQG DQJOH RI SLWFK ZHUH DYHUDJHG DQG D SKDVHVSHFLILF SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\ ZDV FDOFXODWHG $Q RYHUDOO SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\ RI WKH VZLPPHU ZDV DOVR FDOFXODWHG 7KH GLJLWL]DWLRQ RI WKH YLGHRWDSHV ZDV SHUIRUPHG E\ DQ XQGHUJUDGXDWH SV\FKRORJ\ PDMRU VWXGHQW XQGHU WKH

PAGE 79

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f 7R REWDLQ UHVWLQJ KHDUW UDWHV VXEMHFWV VDW TXLHWO\ IRU PLQ SULRU WR D UHDGLQJ DQG UHPDLQHG PRWLRQOHVV ZKLOH WKHLU KHDUW UDWH ZDV DVVHVVHG 7R REWDLQ H[HUWLRQDO KHDUW UDWHV WKH VZLPPHUVn FDURWLG DUWHU\ ZDV SDOSDWHG IRU WKH VHFV GLUHFWO\ IROORZLQJ D VZLP LQ WKH IOXPH ZKLOH WKH VZLPPHU ZDV VWLOO LQ WKH ZDWHUf +HDUW UDWH ZDV XVHG IRU WZR SXUSRVHV 7KH ILUVW ZDV WR FRPSDUH UHVWLQJ KHDUW UDWHV SULRU WR WKH XQHYDOXDWHG ZDUPXS DQG SULRU WR WKH SRVW LQVWUXFWLRQDO IOXPH HYDOXDWLRQ 7KLV ZDV WR SURYLGH DQ LQGLFDWRU RI UHDFWLYLW\ WR GLIIHUHQW HYDOXDWLYH DQG VWUHVVIXO FRQGLWLRQV 7KH VHFRQG ZDV WR PRQLWRU KHDUW

PAGE 80

UDWHV IROORZLQJ WKH WZR VZLPV DOORZLQJ D FRPSDULVRQ RI H[HUWLRQ 6LQFH WKH WLPH DQG VSHHG ZHUH LGHQWLFDO IRU WKH WZR VZLPV DQ\ FKDQJHV LQ H[HUWLRQDO KHDUW UDWH FRXOG KHOS GHWHUPLQH WKH FRQWULEXWLRQV RI DQ[LHW\ DQGRU GLIIHUHQFHV LQ VZLP VWURNH WHFKQLTXH 3V\FKRORJLFDO 4XHVWLRQQDLUHV 6SRUW $Q[LHW\ 6FDOH 6$6 6PLWK HW DO f 7KLV LWHP VFDOH LV GHVLJQHG WR PHDVXUH VSRUW VSHFLILF WUDLW DQ[LHW\ ,W LV FRPSRVHG RI WKUHH VXEVFDOHV VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ ZRUU\ DQG FRQFHQWUDWLRQ GLVUXSWLRQ 7KH 6$6 VFDOH DQG LWV VXEVFDOHV KDYH KLJK LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ &URQEDFKnV DOSKD DQG IRU WKH WKUHH VXEVFDOHVf GHVSLWH WKH UHODWLYHO\ VPDOO QXPEHU RI LWHPV 7KH VFDOHV DOVR DSSHDU WR KDYH DGHTXDWH UHOLDELOLW\ GD\ WHVWUHWHVW UHOLDELOLWLHV H[FHHGHG IRU DOO WKUHH VFDOHVf ,Q D VWXG\ RI IRRWEDOO SOD\HUV WKH 6$6 VXFFHVVIXOO\ GLVFULPLQDWHG EHWZHHQ JURXSV RI DWKOHWHV ZKR GLIIHUHG LQ SHUIRUPDQFH OHYHO ZLWK WKH SRRUHU SHUIRUPHUV KDYLQJ KLJKHU WRWDO VFRUHV WKDQ WKH EHVW SHUIRUPHUV >)Of S@ 6PLWK HW DO f 7KLV VFDOH ZDV FKRVHQ DV D PHDVXUH RI WUDLW DQ[LHW\ EHFDXVH RI LWV FDSDFLW\ WR GHWHUPLQH WKH WHQGHQF\ RI LQGLYLGXDOV WR H[SHULHQFH DQ[LHW\ ZLWKLQ D SDUWLFXODU FODVV RI VLWXDWLRQV LH FRPSHWLWLYH VSRUW VLWXDWLRQV 6PLWK t 6PROO f 6PLWK DQG 6PROO f UHSRUW WKDW UHVHDUFK VWURQJO\ VXJJHVWV WKDW VLWXDWLRQVSHFLILF

PAGE 81

DQ[LHW\ PHDVXUHV ZRXOG UHODWH PRUH VWURQJO\ WR EHKDYLRU LQ WKH FULWLFDO VLWXDWLRQV WKDQ ZRXOG JHQHUDO WUDQVLWXDWLRQDO DQ[LHW\ S f 7KHUHIRUH WKH 6$6 ZDV FKRVHQ UDWKHU WKDQ 6SLHOEHUJHUnV 7UDLW $Q[LHW\ 6FDOH 6SLHOEHUJHU HW DO f VLQFH WKH ODWWHU LV D JHQHUDO PHDVXUH RI WUDLW DQ[LHW\ DQG LV WKRXJKW WR EH OHVV SUHGLFWLYH RI WUDLW DQ[LHW\ LQ VSRUW WKDQ WKH 6$6 7KH 6$6 ZDV DOVR FKRVHQ LQVWHDG RI WKH 6SRUW &RPSHWLWLRQ $Q[LHW\ 7HVW 6&$7 0DUWHQV f VLQFH WKH ODWWHU RQO\ SURYLGHV D XQLGLPHQVLRQDO PHDVXUH RI VSRUW VSHFLILF WUDLW DQ[LHW\ SULPDULO\ VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\f ZKHUHDV WKH 6$6 SURYLGHV D PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO PHDVXUHPHQW RI WKH FRQVWUXFW LH VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ ZRUU\ DQG FRQFHQWUDWLRQ GLVUXSWLRQ DFURVV FRPSHWLWLYH VSRUW VLWXDWLRQVf $ PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO DVVHVVPHQW LV GHVLUDEOH VLQFH DQ[LHW\ LQYROYHV WKUHH VHSDUDWH DQG ODUJHO\ LQGHSHQGHQW FRJQLWLYH SK\VLRORJLFDO DQG EHKDYLRUDO UHVSRQVH GLPHQVLRQV >DQG@ WKDW WKHVH GLPHQVLRQV PD\ GLIIHUHQWLDOO\ DIIHFW EHKDYLRU 6PLWK t 6PROO S f ,W ZDV LPSRUWDQW WR NQRZ ZKLFK FRPSRQHQW RI DQ[LHW\ LI HLWKHU ZRXOG PRVW DIIHFW VZLPPHUV LQ WKH IOXPH )LQDOO\ WKLV VFDOH ZDV XVHG WR SUHGLFW WKH LQWHQVLW\ RI DQ[LHW\ ZKLFK PD\ EH H[SHULHQFHG LQ WKH IOXPH DFURVV GLIIHULQJ HYDOXDWLYH FRQGLWLRQV VHH IROORZLQJ PHDVXUHf 6SLHOEHUJHU f ZULWHV WKDW VLWXDWLRQVSHFLILF WUDLW DQ[LHW\ PHDVXUHV DUH EHWWHU

PAGE 82

SUHGLFWRUV RI HOHYDWLRQ LQ $VWDWH >VWDWH DQ[LHW\@ IRU D SDUWLFXODU FODVV RI VWUHVV VLWXDWLRQV WKDQ DUH JHQHUDO $ WUDLW >WUDLW DQ[LHW\@ PHDVXUHV S f &RPSHWLWLYH 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ ,QYHQWRU\ &6$, 0DUWHQV 9HDOH\ t %XUWRQ f 7KLV LWHP PHDVXUH LV GHVLJQHG WR DVVHVV VSRUW VSHFLILF VWDWH DQ[LHW\ DQG KDV WKUHH VXEVFDOHV FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ DQG VHOIFRQILGHQFH 2QH VWXG\ H[DPLQLQJ WKH FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI WKLV WHVW ZLWK PDOH HOLWH FROOHJH VZLPPHUV LQGLFDWHG WKDW FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ EXW QRW VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\f ZDV D VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWRU RI SHUIRUPDQFH OHYHOV %DUQHV 6LPH 'LHQVWELHU t 3ODNH f 7KH UHOLDELOLW\ LH LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\f RI HDFK RI WKH VXEVFDOHV LV VDWLVIDFWRU\ &URQEDFKnV DOSKD UDQJLQJ IURP f (YLGHQFH VXSSRUWLQJ WKH FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH &6$, DV D PHDVXUH RI VSRUW VSHFLILF VWDWH DQ[LHW\ FRJQLWLYH DQG VRPDWLFf DQG VHOI FRQILGHQFH ZDV GHPRQVWUDWHG E\ WKH DXWKRUV LQ D VHULHV RI IRXU VWXGLHV 0DUWHQV HW DO f )LQDOO\ WKH DXWKRUV SURYLGH H[WHQVLYH QRUPV IRU WKH &6$, E\ FRPSHWLWLYH OHYHO JHQGHU DQG VSRUW ,Q WKH FXUUHQW H[SHULPHQW WKH VFDOH ZDV VOLJKWO\ PRGLILHG LQ WKDW WKH LWHPV UHOHYDQW WR D FRPSHWLWLRQ ZHUH DOWHUHG WR UHIHU WR D SURFHGXUH LH WKH IOXPH HYDOXDWLRQf 7KHUH ZHUH DOVR WZR DGGLWLRQDO LWHPV ZKLFK DVVHVVHG DQ[LHW\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH VZLPPHUVn UHDFWLRQV WR WKH IOXPH DSSDUDWXV LWVHOI 7KHVH VOLJKW

PAGE 83

PRGLILFDWLRQV ZHUH QRW H[SHFWHG WR DOWHU UHOLDELOLW\ RU YDOLGLW\ RI WKH LQVWUXPHQW 7KH LQVWUXPHQW ZDV XVHG WR DVVHVV VWDWH DQ[LHW\ OHYHOV LQ D UHODWLYHO\ DQ[LHW\IUHH VLWXDWLRQ LH EDVHOLQH WHVWLQJf DQG MXVW SULRU WR WKH HYDOXDWLYH IOXPH WHVW 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ ,QYHQWRU\ 6$, IURP WKH 6WDWH7UDLW $Q[LHW\ ,QYHQWRU\ 6SLHOEHUJHU HW DO f 7KLV LWHP VHOIUHSRUW TXHVWLRQQDLUH DVVHVVHV VWDWH DQ[LHW\ DQG KDV EHHQ ZHOO HVWDEOLVKHG DV D UHVHDUFK WRRO LQ WKH VWXG\ RI DQ[LHW\ ,W KDV H[FHOOHQW FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ DQG LQWHUQDO FRQVLVWHQF\ DQG LV HDV\ WR DGPLQLVWHU ,Q WKLV VWXG\ RQO\ WKH LWHP VWDWH DQ[LHW\ FRPSRQHQW ZDV DGPLQLVWHUHG VLQFH WKH 6$6 ZDV XVHG IRU VSRUW VSHFLILF WUDLW DQ[LHW\ 6SRUW SV\FKRORJ\ UHVHDUFK ZLWK WKLV LQVWUXPHQW KDV LQFOXGHG LQYHVWLJDWLRQV RI IRRWEDOO EDVNHWEDOO EDGPLQWRQ UDFTXHWEDOO DQG WHQQLV SOD\HUV VZLPPHUV UXQQHUV J\PQDVWV IHQFHUV MXJJOHUV DQG SHUVRQV HQJDJHG LQ D YDULHW\ RI SK\VLFDO DFWLYLWLHV UDQJLQJ IURP URXWLQH H[HUFLVH WR FOLPELQJ ODGGHUV ULGLQJ ELF\FOHV DQG SHUIRUPLQJ RQ WUHDGPLOOV 6SLHOEHUJHU S f ,Q WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ WKLV LQVWUXPHQW ZDV XVHG WR SURYLGH DGGLWLRQDO GDWD UHJDUGLQJ VWDWH DQ[LHW\ OHYHOV XQGHU GLIIHUHQW HYDOXDWLYH FRQGLWLRQV ,W ZDV DOVR XVHG IRU D FRPSDULVRQ ZLWK WKH &6$, ZKLFK SURYLGHV WKUHH VHSDUDWH FRPSRQHQWV RI FRPSHWLWLYH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ LH VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ DQG VHOIFRQILGHQFHf

PAGE 84

&RUUHODWLRQV FDQ EH SHUIRUPHG WR GHWHUPLQH ZKLFK RI WKHVH FRPSRQHQWV LV PRVW KLJKO\ UHODWHG WR WKH RYHUDOO VWDWH DQ[LHW\ IURP WKH 6$, 5DWLQJV RI 3HUFHLYHG ([HUWLRQ VFDOH 53( %RUJ f 7KLV RQHLWHP VFDOH TXDQWLILHV DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV UDWLQJ RI H[HUWLRQ OHYHO IURP QR H[HUWLRQ RU YHU\ YHU\ OLJKWf WR PD[LPDO H[HUWLRQ RU YHU\ YHU\ KDUGf DQG ZDV XVHG WR DVVHVV D VZLPPHUnV SHUFHSWLRQ RI H[HUWLRQ LQ WKH IOXPH 7KLV VFDOH ZDV GHYHORSHG E\ *XQQDU %RUJ D SV\FKRORJLVW ZKR ZDV LQWHUHVWHG LQ UHODWLQJ VHQVDWLRQV RI HIIRUW WR TXDQWLILDEOH SK\VLFDO VWLPXOL 1REOH f 7HVWUHWHVW UHOLDELOLW\ LV JRRG ZLWK FRHIILFLHQWV IURP 7KH FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ KDV EHHQ HVWDEOLVKHG VLQFH 53( LV HVVHQWLDOO\ OLQHDUO\ UHODWHG WR KHDUW UDWH R[\JHQ FRQVXPSWLRQ DQG ODFWLF DFLG DFFXPXODWLRQ LQ PRVW H[HUFLVH WDVNV 1REOH f ZLWK FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ H[HUFLVH LQWHQVLW\ DQG 53( DSSUR[LPDWHO\ %RUJ t 1REOH f ,Q WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ WKH 53( ZDV XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH VZLPPHUVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI HIIRUW XQGHU WZR VHSDUDWH VZLPPLQJ FRQGLWLRQV LH EDVHOLQH DQG HYDOXDWHG WHVWf 6LQFH WKH IOXPH VSHHG ZDV LGHQWLFDO XQGHU ERWK FRQGLWLRQV IRU DQ\ RQH VZLPPHU DQ\ GLIIHUHQFHV LQ 53( ZRXOG EH LPSRUWDQW LQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH HIIHFWV RI DQ[LHW\ RQ VZLPPLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH DQG SHUFHLYHG H[HUWLRQ

PAGE 85

0HWKRGRORJ\ 3ULRU WR WKH VWXG\ LQ WKH IOXPH WKH H[SHULPHQWHU WUDYHOHG WR WKH VZLPPHUVn WUDLQLQJ SRROV DQG REWDLQHG LQIRUPHG FRQVHQW IURP HDFK RI WKHP LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW GXULQJ WKH VWXG\ KH RU VKH ZRXOG EH YLGHRWDSHG DW YDULRXV WLPHV LQ WKH IOXPH FRPSOHWH VHYHUDO VHOIUHSRUW TXHVWLRQQDLUHV DQG KDYH WKHLU KHDUW UDWH WDNHQ 7KH\ ZHUH WKHQ DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH 6SRUW $Q[LHW\ 6FDOH 6$6f WR GHWHUPLQH VSRUWVSHFLILF WUDLW DQ[LHW\ $W WKLV WLPH VNLOO OHYHO ZDV GHWHUPLQHG E\ REWDLQLQJ HDFK VZLPPHUnV EHVW \G IUHHVW\OH WLPH GXULQJ WKH SDVW FRPSHWLWLYH VHDVRQ E\ VHOIUHSRUW DQG FURVV YDOLGDWLRQ ZLWK WKH VZLPPHUnV FRDFK 7KHVH WZR YDULDEOHV ZHUH XVHG DORQJ ZLWK DJH IRU JURXS DVVLJQPHQW VXFK WKDW WKH WKUHH JURXSV LH ORZ PRGHUDWH DQG KLJK DQ[LHW\ GHVFULEHG VXEVHTXHQWO\f ZHUH HTXLYDOHQW RQ WKUHH YDULDEOHV 6$6 EHVW IUHHVW\OH WLPH DQG DJHf $GGLWLRQDOO\ VXEMHFWV ZHUH DVVLJQHG VR WKDW HDFK JURXS ZRXOG KDYH WZR RU WKUHH PDOHV DQG HLJKW RU QLQH IHPDOHV WRWDO LQ HDFK JURXSf 8SRQ DUULYLQJ DW WKH 86 6ZLPPLQJ FHQWHU HDFK VZLPPHU ZDV DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ ,QYHQWRU\ 6$,f WKH &RPSHWLWLYH 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ ,QYHQWRU\ &6$,f DQG WKH RQHLWHP PHDVXUH RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH WKDW WKH VZLPPHU DWWULEXWHG WR WKH XSFRPLQJ IOXPH WHVW $IWHU WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKHVH PHDVXUHV KHDUW UDWH ZDV WDNHQ DV VSHFLILHG LQ WKH PHDVXUHV VHFWLRQ WR SURYLGH D UHVWLQJ KHDUW UDWH 5+5f PHDVXUH 1H[W VZLPPHUV SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ

PAGE 86

ZKDW ZDV GHVFULEHG DV D IDPLOLDUL]LQJ SUDFWLFH VHVVLRQ LQ WKH IOXPH +HUH VZLPPHUV ZHUH LQVWUXFWHG WR VZLP IUHHVW\OH WR ZDUPXS DW D YHU\ HDV\ SDFH b RI PD[LPXP VSHHG IRU D \DUG IUHHVW\OH HYHQWf IRU DSSUR[LPDWHO\ PLQ 7KH VZLPPHUV ZHUH WKHQ LQVWUXFWHG WKDW WKH VSHHG RI WKH IOXPH ZRXOG EH LQFUHDVHG WR b RI WKH VZLPPHUnV EHVW WLPHf VR WKDW \RX FDQ JHW WKH IHHO RI WKH IOXPHn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f ,PPHGLDWHO\ DIWHU WKH VZLPPHU FRPSOHWHG WKH b VZLP H[HUWLRQDO KHDUW UDWH (+5f ZDV WDNHQ DQG WKH VXEMHFW FRPSOHWHG WKH 5DWLQJV RI 3HUFHLYHG ([HUWLRQ VFDOH 53(f )ROORZLQJ WKH EDVHOLQH ILOPLQJ SKDVH WKH H[SHULPHQWHU UHDG WR HDFK VXEMHFW RQH RI WKUHH VHWV RI LQVWUXFWLRQV GHVLJQHG WR H[SHULPHQWDOO\ PDQLSXODWH WKH DPRXQW RI DQ[LHW\ WKDW WKH VZLPPHU H[SHULHQFHG 7KH

PAGE 87

PRGHUDWH DQG KLJK DQ[LHW\ LQVWUXFWLRQV ZHUH GHVLJQHG WR FUHDWH HYDOXDWLYH DQ[LHW\ DQG ZHUH EDVHG RQ UHVHDUFK VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW VLWXDWLRQV LQYROYLQJ SRWHQWLDO IDLOXUH RU WKUHDWV WR VHOIHVWHHP DUH PRUH SRWHQW VRXUFHV RI WKUHDW WKDQ DUH SRWHQWLDOO\ SK\VLFDOO\ KDUPIXO VLWXDWLRQV 0DUWHQV HW DO S f 6FDQODQ f IXUWKHU FRQILUPV WKDW FRPSHWLWLYH VLWXDWLRQV FDQ EH VWUHVVIXO GXH WR H[WHQVLYH HYDOXDWLRQ RI DELOLW\ DQG FRPSHWHQFH 7KH\ LQYROYH SHUFHSWLRQV RI LQDGHTXDF\ LQ VXFFHVVIXOO\ PHHWLQJ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH GHPDQGV DQG SHUFHSWLRQV RI WKH FRQVHTXHQFHV RI IDLOXUH SRVVLEO\ OHDGLQJ WR D WKUHDW WR VHOIHVWHHP ,Q WKLV H[SHULPHQW WKH WKUHDW WR VHOIHVWHHP ZDV H[SHFWHG WR HPHUJH IURP WKH VZLPPHUnV DZDUHQHVV RI EHLQJ HYDOXDWHG E\ D FRDFK RU 866 RIILFLDO ZKR FRXOG SRWHQWLDOO\ MXGJH D VZLPPHU DV KDYLQJ D SRRU RU LQDGHTXDWH VZLPPLQJ VW\OH $OWKRXJK WKHUH ZHUH QR RYHUW FRQVHTXHQFHV RI IDLOXUH LW ZDV H[SHFWHG WKDW WKH VZLPPHUV ZRXOG EH FRQFHUQHG DERXW IDLOLQJ LH QRW SHUIRUPLQJ ZHOO LQ WKH IOXPH QRW KDYLQJ D JRRG HQRXJK VWURNHf 7KH LQVWUXFWLRQDO VHWV ZHUH DV IROORZV f /RZ DQ[LHW\ 'XULQJ WKLV IOXPH WHVW \RX ZLOO EH YLGHRWDSHG DV \RX VZLP IUHHVW\OH 7KH WDSLQJ DQG DQDO\VLV RI \RXU VWURNH ZLOO EH GLVFXVVHG ZLWK \RX DQG DW D ODWHU WLPH ZLWK \RXU FRDFK DQG ZLOO RQO\ EH XVHG IRU \RXU RZQ VWURNH LPSURYHPHQW 7U\ WR VZLP UHOD[HG DQG HQMR\ \RXUVHOI 7KLV ZLOO EH MXVW WKH VDPH DV \RXU ZDUP

PAGE 88

XS VZLP 'R QRW EH FRQFHUQHG ZLWK WKH FDPHUDV WKH YLGHR ZLOO RQO\ EH XVHG IRU \RXU EHQHILW f 0RGHUDWH DQ[LHW\ 'XULQJ WKLV IOXPH WHVW \RX ZLOO EH YLGHRWDSHG DV \RX VZLP IUHHVW\OH 7KH WDSLQJ DQG DQDO\VLV RI \RXU VWURNH ZLOO EH GLVFXVVHG ZLWK \RX DQG \RXU FRDFKVf DQG ZLOO EH XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH \RXU UHODWLYH VWUHQJWK LQ IUHHVW\OH DV FRPSDUHG WR \RXU WHDPPDWHV 7KH WHVW ZLOO EH TXLWH VLPLODU WR \RXU ZDUPn XS VZLP +RZHYHU SOHDVH WU\ WR VZLP \RXU EHVW DV LW LV LPSRUWDQW WKDW ZH JHW DQ DFFXUDWH PHDVXUHPHQW RI \RXU VNLOOV 'XULQJ WKHVH LQVWUXFWLRQV WKH FDPHUDV LQ WKH IOXPH ZHUH GLVSOD\HG WR WKH VZLPPHU DV ZHUH WKH 9&5V IRU WKH UHFRUGLQJ RI WKH VXEMHFWnV VZLPf f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

PAGE 89

WHOHYLVLRQ PRQLWRU RI WKH IOXPH ZDV DFWLYDWHG DQG GLVSOD\HGf 8SRQ UHFHLYLQJ RQH RI WKH VHW RI LQVWUXFWLRQV VZLPPHUV ZHUH WKHQ DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ FRPSRQHQW 6$,f RI WKH 6WDWH7UDLW $Q[LHW\ ,QYHQWRU\ DQG WKH &RPSHWLWLRQ 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ ,QYHQWRU\ &6$,f IRU WKH VHFRQG WLPH 7KHVH TXHVWLRQQDLUHV ZHUH WR EH XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH OHYHO RI DQ[LHW\ WKDW VZLPPHUV UHSRUWHG GLUHFWO\ SULRU WR WKH IOXPH VHVVLRQ DQG FRPSDUHG WR WKHLU EDVHOLQH UHSRUW 5HVWLQJ KHDUW UDWH ZDV WDNHQ VXEVHTXHQWO\ WR REWDLQ D SK\VLRORJLFDO PHDVXUH RI DURXVDO WKLV ZDV IROORZLQJ D VWDQGDUGL]HG SHULRG RI PLQ IURP WKH HQG RI WKH VHF VZLPf (DFK VZLPPHU WKHQ XQGHUZHQW WKH VWDQGDUG IUHHVW\OH DVVHVVPHQW LQ WKH IOXPH WR HYDOXDWH SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\ NQRZLQJ WKDW KH RU VKH ZRXOG EH ILOPHGf 7KH VXEMHFW ZDUPHG XS DJDLQ IRU PLQ DW b RI EHVW WLPH WKHQ SDXVHG DV WKH IOXPHnV VSHHG ZDV LQFUHDVHG WR b RI EHVW WLPH (DFK VXEMHFW WKHQ VZDP IRU VHFV GXULQJ ZKLFK WLPH KH RU VKH ZDV YLGHRWDSHG 7KH ILOPLQJ DQG GLJLWL]DWLRQ SURFHGXUHV ELRPHFKDQLFDO DQDO\VLVf ZHUH LGHQWLFDO WR WKH EDVHOLQH SURFHGXUH DV GHVFULEHG HDUOLHU ,PPHGLDWHO\ DIWHU WKH VZLPPHU FRPSOHWHG WKLV VZLP H[HUWLRQDO KHDUW UDWH ZDV WDNHQ DQG WKH VXEMHFW FRPSOHWHG WKH 5DWLQJV RI 3HUFHLYHG ([HUWLRQ VFDOH 53(f 6LQFH WKH VZLPPHUV SHUIRUPHG LQ WKH IOXPH DORQH WKH\ ZHUH WROG QRW WR GLVFXVV WKH VWXG\ ZLWK DQ\ RWKHU

PAGE 90

VZLPPHUV ZKR KDG QRW \HW XQGHUJRQH WKHLU WHVWLQJ 6ZLPPHUV ZHUH IXOO\ GHEULHIHG DW WKH HQG RI WKH VWXG\ VR WKDW WKH QDWXUH RI WKH VWXG\ FRXOG EH H[SODLQHG ZLWKRXW DIIHFWLQJ RWKHU VZLPPHUV DSSURDFK WR WKH WHVWLQJ 'XULQJ WKLV GHEULHILQJ WHFKQLFDO IHHGEDFN ZDV SURYLGHG WR HDFK VZLPPHU E\ 86 6ZLPPLQJ 4XHVWLRQV DERXW IUHHVW\OH VWURNH WHFKQLTXH UDFLQJ VWUDWHJLHV DQG VR IRUWK ZHUH DQVZHUHG DW WKLV WLPH

PAGE 91

5(68/76 7KH SULPDU\ SXUSRVH RI WKH DQDO\VHV ZDV WR GHWHUPLQH WKH HIIHFWV RI GLIIHUHQW LPSRVHG GHJUHHV RI DQ[LHW\ RQ SHUIRUPDQFH DV ZHOO DV WKH QDWXUH RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DPRQJ WKH YDULRXV PHDVXUHV RI DQ[LHW\ SK\VLRORJLFDO DURXVDO DQG WKH VSRUW SHUIRUPDQFH RXWFRPH PHDVXUH LH IUHHVW\OH VZLPPLQJ HIILFLHQF\f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f VNLOO OHYHO EHVW IUHHVW\OH WLPHf DQG DJH 7KLV SURFHGXUH ZDV IROORZHG LQVWHDG RI XWLOL]LQJ UDQGRPL]DWLRQ IRU VXEMHFW DVVLJQPHQWf GXH WR WKH VPDOO VXEMHFW VDPSOH VL]H DQG LQ RUGHU WR LQFUHDVH WKH SRZHU RI VWDWLVWLFDO DQDO\VHV E\ HOLPLQDWLQJ WKH QHHG IRU

PAGE 92

FRYDULDWHEDVHG DQDO\VHV 6WDWLVWLFDO HTXLYDOHQF\ RI WKH JURXS DVVLJQPHQW YDULDEOHV ZDV FRQILUPHG XWLOL]LQJ WKUHH RQHZD\ $129$V WR DVVHVV EHVW WLPH ) S QVf WUDLW DQ[LHW\ 6$6 ) S QVf DQG DJH ) S QVf 6HH 7DEOH IRU PHDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV E\ JURXSf ,W ZDV DOVR GHWHUPLQHG WKDW HDFK JURXS RI VZLPPHUV SHUFHLYHG DQ HTXDO DPRXQW RI LPSRUWDQFH IRU WKH IOXPH WHVWLQJ )LQDOO\ WKH JURXSV ZHUH DOPRVW HTXLYDOHQW E\ VH[ WZR JURXSV KDG QLQH IHPDOHV DQG WZR PDOHV DQG WKH RWKHU JURXS KDG HLJKW IHPDOHV DQG WKUHH PDOHVf (IIHFWV RI $Q[LHW\ 0DQLSXODWLRQV %HIRUH H[DPLQLQJ WKH DQ[LHW\SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS LW ZDV LPSRUWDQW WR ILUVW GHWHUPLQH WKH HIIHFWV RI WKH DQ[LHW\ PDQLSXODWLRQV RQ WKH VZLPPHUVn FRJQLWLYHDIIHFWLYH DQG SK\VLRORJLFDO UHDFWLRQV WR WKH IOXPH WHVWLQJ 7KLV DQDO\VLV ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR WHVW WKH DUJXPHQW IRU DQG HIILFDF\ RI WKH H[SHULPHQWDO PDQLSXODWLRQ )LUVW D PXOWLYDULDWH DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH 0$129$f UHYHDOHG QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV DW EDVHOLQH EHWZHHQ JURXSV RQ WKH IRXU SV\FKRORJLFDO YDULDEOHV $ VWDWH FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ DQG VHOI FRQILGHQFHf >)f S QV@ $ RQHZD\ $129$ DOVR LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHUH ZHUH QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ JURXSV RQ UHVWLQJ KHDUW UDWH >)f S QV@ 7KH QH[W DQDO\VHV GHWHUPLQHG WKH HIIHFW RI JURXS PHPEHUVKLS RQ FKDQJHV LQ WKH ILYH YDULDEOHV IROORZLQJ WKH

PAGE 93

7$%/( (TXLYDOHQF\ RI *URXSV RQ 7KUHH 9DULDEOHV 8VHG IRU *URXS $VVLJQPHQW *5283 0 %HVW 6'f 7LPH 0 7UDLW 6'f rr $Q[LHWY 0 6'f $JH /RZ f f f 0RG f f f +LJK f f f 727$/ f f f )DVWHVW WLPH LQ VHFRQGVf LQ D \DUG IUHHVW\OH UDFH FXUUHQW VHDVRQf $V PHDVXUHG E\ WKH 6SRUW $Q[LHW\ 6FDOH

PAGE 94

DQ[LHW\ PDQLSXODWLRQ $ UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV 0$129$ H[DPLQLQJ $VWDWH FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ DQG VHOIFRQILGHQFHf UHYHDOHG QR VLJQLILFDQW PDLQ HIIHFW IRU DQ[LHW\LQGXFHG FRQGLWLRQV >:LONnV /DPEGD )f S QV@ RU VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUDFWLRQ HIIHFW LH *URXS ; 7LPHf >:LONnV /DPEGD )f S QV@ +RZHYHU D VLJQLILFDQW HIIHFW IRU 7LPH ZDV UHYHDOHG >:LONnV /DPEGD )f S@ DV VXEMHFWV JHQHUDOO\ UHSRUWHG IHHOLQJ OHVV DQ[LRXV DQG PRUH VHOIFRQILGHQW DIWHU SHUIRUPLQJ WKH ILUVW IOXPH VZLP LH GLUHFWO\ SULRU WR WKH VHFRQG HYDOXDWHG VZLPf )ROORZXS XQLYDULDWH UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV $129$V LQGLFDWHG QR VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUDFWLRQ HIIHFWV +RZHYHU WKHVH $129$V VKRZHG WLPH HIIHFWV LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW &6$,&RJ >) S @ DQG &6$,6RP >) S@ GHFUHDVHG IROORZLQJ WKH EDVHOLQH VZLP ZKLOH VHOIFRQILGHQFH &6$, 6&f LQFUHDVHG >) S @ $ UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV $129$ FRQGXFWHG RQ UHVWLQJ KHDUW UDWH UHYHDOHG D VLJQLILFDQW WLPH HIIHFW DV UHVWLQJ KHDUW UDWH LQFUHDVHG SULRU WR WKH VHFRQG IOXPH VZLP >) (@ $ UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV $129$ FRQGXFWHG RQ UDWLQJV RI SHUFHLYHG H[HUWLRQ 53( LH KRZ GLIILFXOW WKH IOXPH VZLP ZDV SHUFHLYHG WR EHf UHYHDOHG D VLJQLILFDQW WLPH HIIHFW DQG LQGLFDWHG WKDW 53( LQFUHDVHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ IRU WKH VHFRQG HYDOXDWHGf IOXPH VZLP >) SF@ 7DEOH SUHVHQWV WKH PHDQV RI WKHVH YDULDEOHV EHIRUH DQG DIWHU WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO PDQLSXODWLRQ E\ JURXS

PAGE 95

7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV RI 3V\FKRORJLFDO DQG 3K\VLRORJLFDO 5HDFWLRQV WR WKH )OXPH E\ *URXS 0($685( /RZ *5283 0RGHUDWH +LJK 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ 6$,f 3UH f f f 3RVW f f f &RJQLWLYH $Q[LHW\ &6$,&RJf 3UH f f f 3RVW f f f 6RPDWLF $Q[LHW\ &6$, 6RPf 3UH f f f 3RVW f f f 6HOI&RQILGHQFH &6$, 6&f 3UH f f f 3RVW f f f 5HVWLQJ +HDUW 5DWH 5+5f 3UH f f f 3RVW f f f 5DWLQJV RI 3HUFHLYHG ([HUWLRQ 53(f 3UH f f f 3RVW f f f

PAGE 96

6ZLPPLQJ (IILFLHQF\ 7KH QH[W PDMRU DQDO\VLV ZDV WKH FRPSDULVRQ RI IUHHVW\OH VZLPPLQJ HIILFLHQF\ LQ WKH IOXPH E\ JURXS )RU WKLV DQDO\VLV WKH IUHHVW\OH DUP VWURNH ZDV H[DPLQHG WR GHWHUPLQH LWV HIILFLHQF\ WR SURSHO WKH VZLPPHU IRUZDUG WKURXJK WKH ZDWHU )LUVW RYHUDOO SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\ ZDV H[DPLQHG $V GHVFULEHG LQ WKH PHDVXUHV VHFWLRQ SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\ FDQ EH GHILQHG DV WKH DPRXQW RI DUP IRUFH XVHG WR SURSHO WKH ERG\ IRUZDUG 5( RU HIIHFWLYH IRUFHf GLYLGHG E\ WKH WRWDO IRUFH WKDW WKH VZLPPHUnV DUP LV SURGXFLQJ 5 RU WRWDO IRUFHf DQG LV H[SUHVVHG DV D SHUFHQWDJH ,Q WKLV DQDO\VLV YLGHR GDWD IRU RQH VXEMHFW LQ WKH 0RGHUDWH DQ[LHW\ JURXS ZDV PLVVLQJ IRU WKH SRVWn VZLP 7KHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ WKH JURXSV RQ EDVHOLQH SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\ DV GHWHUPLQHG E\ D RQHn ZD\ $129$ >)f S @ $ UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV $129$ ZDV WKHQ FRQGXFWHG WR H[DPLQH WKH HIIHFW RI WKH H[SHULPHQWDO PDQLSXODWLRQ RQ FKDQJHV LQ IUHHVW\OH SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\ DFURVV WKH WKUHH JURXSV 7KXV FKDQJHV LQ HIILFLHQF\ IURP EDVHOLQH XQHYDOXDWHG VZLPf WR WKH VHFRQG VZLP ZKLFK IROORZHG WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO PDQLSXODWLRQf ZHUH GHWHUPLQHG DQG FRPSDUHG DFURVV WKH WKUHH JURXSV 7KLV DQDO\VLV ZDV GHVLJQHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK SHUIRUPDQFH ZDV D IXQFWLRQ RI JURXS PHPEHUVKLS LH GLIIHUHQW DQ[LHW\ FRQGLWLRQVf 7KH DQDO\VLV UHYHDOHG QHLWKHU D VLJQLILFDQW EHWZHHQVXEMHFWV

PAGE 97

LH JURXSf HIIHFW >) S @ QRU D VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUDFWLRQ LH *URXS ; 7LPHf HIIHFW >) OO S @ +RZHYHU D VLJQLILFDQW PDLQ HIIHFW IRU 7LPH ZDV LQGLFDWHG >) SF@ 6ZLPPHUV DV D ZKROH EHFDPH PRUH HIILFLHQW GXULQJ WKHLU VHFRQG VZLP DV FRPSDUHG WR WKHLU EDVHOLQH VZLP 7KH QH[W DQDO\VLV H[DPLQHG D VXEFRPSRQHQW RI WKH IUHHVW\OH VWURNH f§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f§ )f S 7LPH f§ )f 3 *URXS ; 7LPH f§ )f S @ 7DEOH UHSRUWV WKH PHDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV E\ JURXS RI RYHUDOO DQG ILQLVK HIILFLHQF\ IRU WKH WZR VZLPV LH EHIRUH DQG DIWHU WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO PDQLSXODWLRQf

PAGE 98

7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV RI 6ZLPPLQJ (IILFLHQF\ 0($685( *5283 /RZ 0RGHUDWH 2YHUDOO (IILFLHQF\ bf 3UH f 3RVW f )LQLVK 3KDVH (IILFLHQF\ bf 3UH f 3RVW f f f f f +LJK f f f f

PAGE 99

:LWKLQ6XELHFW $QDO\VHV 5HJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV ZHUH XVHG WR H[DPLQH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IUHHVW\OH VZLPPLQJ HIILFLHQF\ DQG WKH DQ[LHW\ PHDVXUHV LQGHSHQGHQW RI JURXS PHPEHUVKLSf ZKLOH FRQWUROOLQJ IRU VZLPPLQJ VNLOO DQG FRPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\ $ PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO ZDV FRQVWUXFWHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH LQGLYLGXDO DQG LQWHUDFWLYH HIIHFWV RI DQ[LHW\ VWDWH PHDVXUHV RI DQ[LHW\f DQG SK\VLRORJLFDO DURXVDO UHVWLQJ KHDUW UDWH SULRU WR EDVHOLQH VZLPf RQ VZLPPLQJ VWURNH HIILFLHQF\ $ PL[HG PRGHO RI UHJUHVVLRQ ZDV XVHG ILUVW IRUFLQJ WKH VZLPPHUV EHVW WLPH LQ WKH \DUG IUHHVW\OH DQG VFRUHV RQ WKH 6$6 LQWR WKH HTXDWLRQ WKXV FRQWUROOLQJ IRU VNLOO OHYHO DQG FRPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\f 7KHQ D VWHSZLVH DSSURDFK ZDV XVHG LQ DQ DWWHPSW WR HQWHU VWDWH DQ[LHW\ 6$,f FRPSHWLWLYH FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ &6$,&RJf FRPSHWLWLYH VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ &6$,6RPf FRPSHWLWLYH VHOIFRQILGHQFH &6$,6&f DQGRU UHVWLQJ KHDUW UDWH 5+5f +RZHYHU QRQH RI WKHVH YDULDEOHV DFFRXQWHG IRU D VLJQLILFDQW SRUWLRQ RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ EDVHOLQH VZLPPLQJ HIILFLHQF\ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU VNLOO OHYHO DQG WUDLW VSRUW DQ[LHW\ 7KLV VDPH DQDO\VLV ZDV FRQGXFWHG XVLQJ WKH SRVWVFRUHV DQG VHFRQG VZLP EXW DOVR GLG QRW SURYLGH D XVHIXO SUHGLFWLYH PRGHO 6LPSOH 3HDUVRQnV FRUUHODWLRQ FRHIILFLHQWV ZHUH DOVR FDOFXODWHG IRU EDVHOLQH YDULDEOHV 0RVW RI WKH VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQV DUH EHWZHHQ WKH VHOIUHSRUW

PAGE 100

SV\FKRORJLFDO TXHVWLRQQDLUHV +RZHYHU WZR PHDVXUHV DUH DOVR VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK WKH VZLPPHUVn EHVW IUHHVW\OH WLPH &RPSHWLWLYH 6HOI&RQILGHQFH U S DQG 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ U SFf 7KLV VXJJHVWV WKDW WKH EHWWHU VZLPPHUV DUH PRUH VHOIFRQILGHQW DQG OHVV DQ[LRXV GLUHFWO\ SULRU WR WKH IOXPH WHVW +RZHYHU VHOI FRQILGHQFH DQG VWDWH DQ[LHW\ ZHUH QRW FRUUHODWHG ZLWK WKH PRUH LPPHGLDWH PHDVXUH RI IUHHVW\OH VZLPPLQJ HIILFLHQF\ LQ WKH IOXPH VHH 7DEOH f (IIHFWV RI 3ULRU )OXPH 7HVWLQJ 2ULJLQDOO\ WKH VWXG\ ZDV WR LQFOXGH RQO\ VXEMHFWV ZKR KDG QHYHU EHHQ WHVWHG LQ WKH IOXPH EHIRUH 1)OXPHGf +RZHYHU GXH WR OLPLWHG UHFUXLWPHQW WLPH WKH DFWXDO VWXG\ LQFOXGHG VZLPPHUV ZKR KDG EHHQ WHVWHG SUHYLRXVO\ DW WKH IOXPH )OXPHGf 7KXV LW ZDV LPSRUWDQW WR H[DPLQH DQ\ GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKHVH WZR JURXSV )LUVW WKHUH ZHUH QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ )OXPHG 1 f DQG 1)OXPHG 1 f VXEMHFWV IRU DJH VNLOO OHYHO VSRUW WUDLWDQ[LHW\ EDVHOLQH UHVWLQJ KHDUW UDWH RU UDWLQJV RI SHUFHLYHG H[HUWLRQ +RZHYHU D RQHZD\ $129$ VKRZHG WKDW 1)OXPHG VXEMHFWV DWWULEXWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH LPSRUWDQFH WR WKH IOXPH WHVW WKDQ GLG WKH )OXPHG VXEMHFWV >)f S @ 1H[W D 0$129$ FRQGXFWHG RQ WKH IRXU SV\FKRORJLFDO YDULDEOHV DW EDVHOLQH ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW >) S @ DQG WKHUHIRUH QRW LQWHUSUHWDEOH +RZHYHU H[SORUDWRU\ DQDO\VHV ZHUH

PAGE 101

7DEOH %DVHOLQH &RUUHODWLRQV %(677,0( 6$6 6$, &6$,&2* &6$,620 &6$,6& 5+5 6$6 6$, r &6$,&2* rr &6$,620 rr rr &6$,6& rr rr rr rr 5+5 53( (), 1RWH r S rr SF %(677,0( 6$6 6$, &6$,&2* &6$,620 &6$,6& 5+5 53( (), IDVWHVW WLPH LQ \DUG IUHHVW\OH 6SRUW $Q[LHW\ 6FDOH FRPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\f 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ 6FDOH FRPSHWLWLYH FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ IURP &6$,f FRPSHWLWLYH VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ IURP &6$,f FRPSHWLWLYH VHOIFRQILGHQFH IURP &6$,f UHVWLQJ KHDUW UDWH UDWLQJV RI SHUFHLYHG H[HUWLRQ IUHHVW\OH VZLPPLQJ HIILFLHQF\

PAGE 102

7DEOH %DVHOLQH &RUUHODWLRQV %(677,0( 6$6 6$, &6$,&2* &6$,620 &6$,6& 5+5 6$6 6$, r &6$,&2* rr &6$,620 rr rr &6$,6& rr rr rr rr 5+5 53( (), 1RWH r S rr SF %(677,0( 6$6 6$, &6$,&2* &6$,620 &6$,6& 5+5 53( (), IDVWHVW WLPH LQ \DUG IUHHVW\OH 6SRUW $Q[LHW\ 6FDOH FRPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\f 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ 6FDOH FRPSHWLWLYH FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ IURP &6$,f FRPSHWLWLYH VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ IURP &6$,f FRPSHWLWLYH VHOIFRQILGHQFH IURP &6$,f UHVWLQJ KHDUW UDWH UDWLQJV RI SHUFHLYHG H[HUWLRQ IUHHVW\OH VZLPPLQJ HIILFLHQF\

PAGE 103

7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV RI 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5HDFWLRQV WR WKH )OXPH E\ 3ULRU 7HVWLQJ +LVWRU\ 0($685( *5283 1)OXPHG )LOPHG 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ 6$,f 3UH f f 3RVW f f &RJQLWLYH $Q[LHW\ &6$,&RJf 3UH f f 3RVW f f 6RPDWLF $Q[LHW\ &6$,6RPf 3UH f f 3RVW f f 6HOI&RQILGHQFH &6$,6&f 3UH f f 3RVW f f

PAGE 104

6HSDUDWH ([DPLQDWLRQ RI 6XEMHFWV 1HZ WR WKH )OXPH %HFDXVH WKHUH ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ 1)OXPHG DQG )OXPHG VXEMHFWV DQRWKHU VHULHV RI DQDO\VHV ZDV FRQGXFWHG 2QO\ WKH 1)OXPHG VXEMHFWV 1 f ZHUH H[DPLQHG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ DQDO\VHV ZKLFK ZHUH YHU\ VLPLODU WR WKH DQDO\VHV UXQ RQ WKH HQWLUH VXEMHFW VDPSOHf $OWKRXJK VZLPPHUV ZHUH QRW DVVLJQHG WR JURXSV DFFRUGLQJ WR SULRU WHVWLQJ KLVWRU\ DQ HTXDO QXPEHU RI 1)OXPHG VXEMHFWV ZHUH LQ HDFK JURXS DQG GLG QRW GLIIHU RQ VNLOO OHYHO FRPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\ RU DJH 7KH HIIHFWV RI WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO PDQLSXODWLRQV RQ WKH UHDFWLRQV WR WKH IOXPH WHVWLQJ ZDV H[DPLQHG RQ WKLV VXEVHW RI VZLPPHUV $ UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV 0$129$ FRQGXFWHG RQ WKH IRXU SV\FKRORJLFDO YDULDEOHV $VWDWH FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ DQG VHOIFRQILGHQFHf UHYHDOHG D VLJQLILFDQW *URXS ; 7LPH LQWHUDFWLRQ >:LONnV /DPEGD ) SF@ 'HVSLWH WKLV VLJQLILFDQW PXOWLYDULDWH *URXS ; 7LPH LQWHUDFWLRQ WKHUH ZHUH QR VLJQLILFDQW *URXS ; 7LPH LQWHUDFWLRQV IRU WKH XQLYDULDWH UHSHDWHG PHDVXUH $129$V )ROORZXS XQLYDULDWH UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV $129$V LQGLFDWHG WKDW D VLJQLILFDQW 7LPH HIIHFW RFFXUUHG IRU WKH WKUHH VXEWHVWV RI WKH &6$, DV LQ WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH &RJQLWLYH DQG VRPDWLF FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ GHFUHDVHG DQG VHOIFRQILGHQFH LQFUHDVHG SULRU WR WKH VHFRQG VZLP >&6$, &RJ ) (f &6$,6RP ) SF2Of DQG &6$, 6& ) SFf 6WLOO FKDQJHV LQ FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\

PAGE 105

DSSHDU WR EH UHODWHG WR JURXS PHPEHUVKLS DQG LQGHHG WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ WHUP DSSURDFKHG VLJQLILFDQFH >) S @ 7DEOH UHSRUWV WKH PHDQV RI WKHVH YDULDEOHV DQG WKDW RI 5DWLQJV RI 3HUFHLYHG ([HUWLRQ ZKLFK DOVR GHPRQVWUDWHG D VLJQLILFDQW 7LPH HIIHFW >) SF@ LQ D UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV $129$ 6ZLPPLQJ HIILFLHQF\ LV DOVR UHSRUWHG LQ WKLV WDEOH DOWKRXJK QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH DPRQJ JURXSV ZDV GLVFRYHUHG IRU WKLV VXEVHW RI WKH VDPSOH XVLQJ D UHSHDWHG PHDVXUHV $129$f )LQDOO\ UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV LGHQWLFDO WR WKRVH FRQGXFWHG RQ WKH HQWLUH VDPSOH ZHUH VLPLODUO\ XQSURGXFWLYH LQ SURYLGLQJ D PRGHO SUHGLFWLYH RI VZLPPLQJ HIILFLHQF\ $V EHIRUH D PL[HG PRGHO RI UHJUHVVLRQ ZDV XVHG ILUVW IRUFLQJ WKH VZLPPHUVn EHVW WLPH LQ WKH \DUG IUHHVW\OH DQG VFRUHV RQ WKH 6$6 LQWR WKH HTXDWLRQ WKXV FRQWUROOLQJ IRU VNLOO OHYHO DQG FRPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\f 7KHQ D VWHSZLVH DSSURDFK ZDV XVHG LQ DQ DWWHPSW WR HQWHU VWDWH DQ[LHW\ 6$,f FRPSHWLWLYH FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ &6$,&RJf FRPSHWLWLYH VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ &6$,6RPf FRPSHWLWLYH VHOIFRQILGHQFH &6$,6&f DQGRU UHVWLQJ KHDUW UDWH 5+5f $JDLQ LQ WKLV QRYLFH VXEVHW RI WKH VDPSOH QRQH RI WKHVH YDULDEOHV DFFRXQWHG IRU D VLJQLILFDQW SRUWLRQ RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ EDVHOLQH VZLPPLQJ HIILFLHQF\ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU VNLOO OHYHO DQG WUDLW VSRUW DQ[LHW\ )LQDOO\ FRUUHODWLRQDO DQDO\VHV LQ WKLV VXEVHW ZHUH VLPLODU WR WKH RYHUDOO VDPSOH H[FHSW WKDW UHVWLQJ KHDUW UDWH SULRU WR WKH ILUVW VZLP ZDV

PAGE 106

7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV RI 5HDFWLRQV WR WKH )OXPH E\ *URXS 0($685( /RZ *5283 0RGHUDWH +LDK 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ 6$,f 3UH f f f 3RVW f f f &RJQLWLYH $Q[LHW\ &6$,&RJf 3UH f f f 3RVW f f f 6RPDWLF $Q[LHW\ &6$, 6RPf 3UH f f f 3RVW f f f 6HOI&RQILGHQFH &6$, 6&f 3UH f f f 3RVW f f f 5DWLQJV RI 3HUFHLYHG ([HUWLRQ 53(f 3UH f f f 3RVW f f f 6ZLPPLQJ (IILFLHQF\ bf 3UH f f f 3RVW f f f

PAGE 107

VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR RYHUDOO SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\ U Sf

PAGE 108

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

PAGE 109

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n VHOIUHSRUWV RI DQ[LHW\ VXEMHFWV DV D ZKROH UHSRUWHG H[SHULHQFLQJ OHVV DQ[LHW\ SULRU WR WKH VHFRQG IOXPH VZLP 6SHFLILFDOO\ $129$V VKRZHG WKDW FRJQLWLYH DQG VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ GHFUHDVHG IROORZLQJ WKH EDVHOLQH VZLP ZKLOH VHOIFRQILGHQFH LQFUHDVHG 7KXV WKH H[SHULPHQWDO PDQLSXODWLRQ ZDV LQHIIHFWLYH LQ LQFUHDVLQJ WKH VXEMHFWVn DQ[LHW\ +RZHYHU WKHUH ZHUH VRPH WUHQGV WKDW LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH UHGXFWLRQ LQ DQ[LHW\ ZDV JUHDWHVW LQ WKH ORZDQ[LHW\ PDQLSXODWLRQ JURXS VXJJHVWLQJ WKDW WKH WKUHH VHWV RI LQVWUXFWLRQV ZHUH TXDOLWDWLYHO\ GLIIHUHQW 8SRQ H[DPLQDWLRQ RI 7DEOH S f LW FDQ EH VHHQ WKDW WKH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ VHOIUHSRUW VFRUHV IURP EDVHOLQH WR SRVWWHVW ZHUH JUHDWHVW WKRXJK QRW

PAGE 110

VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQWO\f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n SRVWn PDQLSXODWLRQ DQ[LHW\ VFRUHV ZHUH EHORZ WKH PHDQ DV FRPSDUHG WR D QRUPDWLYH VDPSOH RI KLJK VFKRRO DWKOHWHV DQG DV FRPSDUHG WR D QRUPDWLYH VDPSOH RI FRPSHWLWLYH VZLPPHUV SULRU WR D FRPSHWLWLRQ 0DUWHQV 9HDOH\ t %XUWRQ f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

PAGE 111

FRPSHWLWLRQ 0DUWHQV 9HDOH\ t %XUWRQ f 7KLV VXJJHVWV WKDW WKH IOXPH WHVWLQJ PD\ KDYH QRW SURYLGHG D VXIILFLHQWO\ DQ[LHW\SURYRNLQJ VLWXDWLRQ )ROORZLQJ WKH ZDUPXS VZLP WKHVH VXEMHFWV PD\ KDYH EHHQ HYHQ OHVV FRQFHUQHG KDYLQJ H[SHULHQFHG WKH IOXPH VZLP 7KH\ SHUKDSV DFKLHYHG D PDVWHU\ H[SHULHQFH DQG KDG OLWWOH UHDVRQ WR H[SHULHQFH DQ[LHW\ LQ UHVSRQVH WR D WDVN ZKLFK WKH\ UHDOL]HG WKH\ FRXOG SHUIRUP ZLWK UHODWLYH HDVH $ VHFRQG SRVVLELOLW\ H[SORULQJ ZK\ WKH VXEMHFWV DV D JURXS PD\ QRW KDYH EHHQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ DQ[LRXV LQ WKH IOXPH WHVWLQJ VLWXDWLRQ LV EHFDXVH DSSUR[LPDWHO\ RQHWKLUG KDG EHHQ WHVWHG LQ WKH IOXPH EHIRUH 7KLV ZDV DQ XQSODQQHG DVSHFW RI WKH VWXG\ LQ WKDW LW KDG RULJLQDOO\ EHHQ LQWHQGHG WR XVH RQO\ VXEMHFWV QDLYH WR WKH IOXPH +RZHYHU OLPLWDWLRQV SODFHG RQ WKH LQYHVWLJDWRU E\ 86 6ZLPPLQJ QHFHVVLWDWHG D FRPSURPLVH VR WKDW WR REWDLQ D PLQLPXP QXPEHU RI VXEMHFWV LH f VRPH ZHUH GUDZQ IURP D JURXS RI VZLPPHUV ZKR KDG EHHQ SUHYLRXVO\ WHVWHG :KLOH WKLV KDG QRW EHHQ RULJLQDOO\ SODQQHG LW LV QRWHZRUWK\ WKDW WKH LQFOXVLRQ RI H[SHULHQFHG SUHYLRXVO\ )OXPHGf VZLPPHUV FUHDWHG DQ RSSRUWXQLW\ WR H[DPLQH SULRU H[SHULHQFH LQ WKH IOXPH DV LW UHODWHG WR DQ[LHW\ ([SORUDWRU\ XQLYDULDWH DQDO\VHV FRQGXFWHG IROORZLQJ D QHDUO\ VLJQLILFDQW 0$129$ S VHH S `f VXJJHVWHG WKDW ZKHQ IDFLQJ WKH LQLWLDO IOXPH WHVWLQJ VXEMHFWV QDLYH WR WKH IOXPH UHSRUWHG PRUH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ >6$, )f J@ PRUH FRPSHWLWLYH FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ >&6$,&RJ )f SF@ PRUH

PAGE 112

FRPSHWLWLYH VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ >&6$,6RP )Of S@ DQG OHVV VHOIFRQILGHQFH >&6$,6& )f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f WKLV ZDV QRW WKH FDVH )XUWKHU WKHUH ZHUH QR VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO YDULDEOHV DQG VZLPPLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH HLWKHU DW EDVHOLQH RU GXULQJ WKH VHFRQG VZLPf 2QO\ D VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUDFWLRQ HIIHFW ZDV UHYHDOHG GHPRQVWUDWLQJ WKDW QDLYH VXEMHFWV UHSRUWHG D VLJQLILFDQWO\ JUHDWHU GHFUHDVH LQ VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ WKDQ GLG H[SHULHQFHG VXEMHFWV IURP WKH EDVHOLQH WR WKH HYDOXDWHG VZLP 7KLV VXJJHVWV WKDW WKH PDVWHU\ H[SHULHQFH EDVHOLQH VZLPf ZDV LQGHHG UHOHYDQW HVSHFLDOO\ IRU VZLPPHUV QDLYH WR WKH IOXPH 7KLUG GXULQJ WKH GHEULHILQJ VHVVLRQ VHYHUDO VZLPPHUV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH\ IHOW WKH VZLPV KDG QRW EHHQ FKDOOHQJLQJ HQRXJK DQG WKDW WKH IOXPH VSHHG ZDV VORZHU WKDQ WKH\ KDG H[SHFWHG LW WR EH 7KXV WKH WDVN GLIILFXOW\ PD\ KDYH EHHQ

PAGE 113

ORZ ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\ PHDVXUHV REWDLQHG GXULQJ DQ b IOXPH VSHHG WHVW DUH OHVV SURQH WR HIIHFWV RI DQ[LHW\ WKDQ DUH WKRVH REWDLQHG DW D KLJKHU IOXPH VSHHG HJ bf 7KLV ODWWHU VSHHG ZDV QRW XWLOL]HG LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ EHFDXVH LW ZDV GHHPHG PRUH LPSRUWDQW WR REWDLQ RQH DQG RQO\ RQH WULDO SHU IOXPH WHVW 7KDW LV LI WKH VSHHG RI WKH IOXPH KDG EHHQ VHW WR b RI WKH VZLPPHUnV PD[LPXP VSHHG D PRUH GLIILFXOW DQG SRWHQWLDOO\ PRUH DQ[LHW\LQGXFLQJ OHYHOf PRUH WKDQ RQH WULDO ZRXOG KDYH OLNHO\ EHHQ QHHGHG WR REWDLQ D FOHDQ WULDO LH QRW DIIHFWHG E\ IDOVH VWDUWV DQG PXOWLSOH SUDFWLFHf 'LIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH QXPEHU RI WULDOV QHHGHG WR REWDLQ D FOHDQ WULDO ZRXOG OLNHO\ KDYH LQIOXHQFHG HIIHFWV RI HYDOXDWLYH DQ[LHW\ ,W ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ GLIILFXOW WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU FKDQJHV LQ DQ[LHW\ DQG HIILFLHQF\ ZHUH UHODWHG PRUH WR KRZ PDQ\ WULDOV LW WRRN WKH VZLPPHU WR JHW XVHG WR WKH IXOO VSHHG IOXPH RU PRUH GHSHQGHQW RQ WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO PDQLSXODWLRQ 7KXV XQGHU WKH b IOXPH VSHHG WHVWLQJ SURWRFRO VZLPPHUV PD\ KDYH IHOW WKDW WKH\ FRXOG DFFRPSOLVK WKH WDVN ZLWKRXW PXFK SUREOHP UHJDUGOHVV RI WKH LQVWUXFWLRQV WKDW WKH\ UHFHLYHG DQG WKXV GHPRQVWUDWHG PLQLPDO DQ[LHW\ 7KLV PD\ DOVR KDYH EHHQ WKH FDVH ZLWK WKRVH VZLPPHUV ZKR KDG QHYHU EHHQ LQ WKH IOXPH EHIRUH 7KDW LV WKHUH ZHUH SUREDEO\ QR DQ[LHW\LQGXFLQJ LQVWUXFWLRQV WKDW FRXOG KDYH RYHUFRPH WKH DQ[LHW\UHGXFLQJ HIIHFW RI KDYLQJ VZXP VXFFHVVIXOO\ LQ WKH IOXPH RQFH DQG UHDOL]LQJ WKDW LW ZDV

PAGE 114

QRW DV GLIILFXOW DV LW PD\ KDYH DSSHDUHG 7KLV DSSHDUV WR EH WKH PDLQ UHDVRQ WKDW WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO PDQLSXODWLRQV ZHUH LQHIIHFWLYH 3RVWVWXG\ LQWHUYLHZV DQG GHEULHILQJV FRQILUPHG WKDW PDQ\ RI WKH VZLPPHUV SULPDULO\ WKRVH QRYLFH WR WKH IOXPHf KDG IHOW D ELW DQ[LRXV SULRU WR WKH ILUVW VZLP EXW WKDW WKH\ KDG QRW ZRUULHG PXFK DERXW ZKR ZDV ZDWFKLQJ WKHP RU DERXW WKH XVH RI WKH YLGHRWDSHV GXULQJ WKH VHFRQG VZLP VLQFH WKH\ IHOW WKDW WKH\ KDG TXLFNO\ PDVWHUHG VZLPPLQJ LQ WKH IOXPH ,W KDV EHHQ VXJJHVWHG WKDW WDVN GLIILFXOW\ LV DQ LPSRUWDQW FRPSRQHQW RI WKH DURXVDOPRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS $FFRUGLQJ WR WKH
PAGE 115

SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\ LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ JUHDWHUf ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW DQ[LHW\ PLJKW KDYH DIIHFWHG D PRUH ILQHO\ WXQHG VWURNH +RZHYHU LQ RQH VWXG\ H[DPLQLQJ WKH HIIHFWV RI DQ[LHW\ RQ NLQHPDWLF PHDVXUHV RI SHUIRUPDQFH %HXWHU t 'XGD VHH S f GHOHWHULRXV HIIHFWV ZHUH QRWHG LQ FKLOGUHQ ZKR GLG QRW KDYH ILQHO\ WXQHG PRWRU VNLOOV 7KH VXEMHFWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ DOVR GLG QRW H[HUW WKHPVHOYHV WR IDWLJXH ,W LV ZHOONQRZQ WKDW IDWLJXH LV D PDMRU IDFWRU LQ ORQJHUGLVWDQFH HYHQWV LQ VZLPPLQJ ,W KDV EHHQ VXJJHVWHG WKDW DQ[LHW\ DIIHFWV SHUIRUPDQFH PRUH DW WLPHV ZKHQ VXEMHFWV DUH IDWLJXHG .UDQH t 6WDQIRUG f 7R GDWH WKHUH KDYH EHHQ QR H[SHULPHQWDO VWXGLHV H[DPLQLQJ WKH GLIIHUHQWLDO HIIHFWV RI DQ[LHW\ RQ IDWLJXHG YV QRQn IDW LJXHG DWKOHWHV +RZHYHU LW FRXOG EH WKDW ZKHQ IDWLJXHG DQ DWKOHWHnV DWWHQWLRQDO IRFXV ZDQHV DQG WKDW WKLV FRQGLWLRQ PD\ EH DPSOLILHG E\ FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ HJ VHOIn VWDWHPHQWV VXFK DV ,nOO QHYHU EH DEOH WR ILQLVK WKLV UDFH ,nP VR WLUHG WKDW HYHU\RQH ZLOO VHH WKDW ,nP RXW RI VKDSHf %HFDXVH WKHUH ZHUH QR LQFUHDVHV LQ VWDWH DQ[LHW\ UHVXOWLQJ IURP WKH H[SHULPHQWDO PDQLSXODWLRQ WKH ILUVW WKUHH K\SRWKHVHV FRXOG QRW EH WHVWHG 5HVWDWHG WKHVH ZHUH WKDW f FRPSHWLWLYH FRJQLWLYH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ ZRXOG GHPRQVWUDWH D QHJDWLYH OLQHDU UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK IUHHVW\OH VZLPPLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH DV D IXQFWLRQ RI JURXS PHPEHUVKLS ,W KDG EHHQ H[SHFWHG WKDW VZLPPLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH GXULQJ WKH VHFRQG VZLP ZRXOG EHFRPH OHVV HIILFLHQW E\ JURXS DV WKH

PAGE 116

LQVWUXFWLRQDO PDQLSXODWLRQ EHFDPH LQFUHDVLQJO\ DQ[LHW\ SURGXFLQJ f 7KH JUHDWHVW SHUIRUPDQFH GHFUHPHQWV ZRXOG RFFXU LQ WKRVH VZLPPHUV ZKR GHPRQVWUDWHG WKH JUHDWHVW LQFUHDVHV LQ FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ IURP EDVHOLQH WR HYDOXDWHG VZLPV f &RJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ ZRXOG EH PRUH FOHDUO\ UHODWHG WR SHUIRUPDQFH WKDQ ZRXOG VRPDWLF DQ[LHW\ $OWKRXJK QRQH RI WKHVH K\SRWKHVHV FRXOG EH WHVWHG GLUHFWO\ WKH VHFRQG RQH FRXOG EH H[DPLQHG LQYHUVHO\ +HUH WKH TXHVWLRQ PLJKW EH VWDWHG DV IROORZV 'RHV D WUHQG RI GLPLQLVKLQJ DQ[LHW\ OHDG WR EHWWHU SHUIRUPDQFHV" 7KH ILQGLQJV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHUH ZHUH QRQVLJQLILFDQW LQFUHDVHV LQ SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\ IURP EDVHOLQH WR WKH VHFRQG VZLP EHIRUH ZKLFK WKH VZLPPHUV KDG UHSRUWHG OHVV DQ[LHW\f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

PAGE 117

,OO DQG WKH RWKHU SV\FKRORJLFDO YDULDEOHVf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f ZLWK PRUH FRQILGHQFH DQG OHVV DQ[LHW\ ,QWHUHVWLQJO\ WKRXJK WKHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH VZLPPHUV VNLOO OHYHO EHVW WLPHf DQG WKHLU LPPHGLDWH SHUIRUPDQFH SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\f LQ WKH IOXPH ,W LV XQFOHDU DV WR ZK\ D VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV QRW GHPRQVWUDWHG $V VXJJHVWHG HDUOLHU LW LV SRVVLEOH WKDW WKH ELRPHFKDQLFDO HIILFLHQF\ PHDVXUHV REWDLQHG GXULQJ DQ b IOXPH VSHHG WHVW DUH OHVV UHODWHG WR VNLOO OHYHO WKDQ DUH WKRVH REWDLQHG DW D KLJKHU IOXPH VSHHG HJ bf 6XPPDU\ DQG &RQFOXVLRQV ,W ZDV LQWHQGHG WKDW WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZRXOG FRQWULEXWH WR NQRZOHGJH UHJDUGLQJ WKH DQ[LHW\VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS LQ WZR LPSRUWDQW ZD\V )LUVW WKH IOXPH SURYLGHG D XQLTXH VHWWLQJ LQ ZKLFK WR H[DPLQH WKH DQ[LHW\ SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS 7KHUH DUH QR H[LVWLQJ VWXGLHV

PAGE 118

H[DPLQLQJ WKLV UHODWLRQVKLS WKDW KDYH HPSOR\HG VXFK DQ LGHDO SHUIRUPDQFH RXWFRPH PHDVXUH LH IOXPHDVVHVVHG SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\f 3UHYLRXV VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ LQYHVWLJDWLRQV KDYH UHOLHG XSRQ RXWFRPH PHDVXUHV HJ WLPHV DFFXUDF\ GLVWDQFHf ZKLFK FDQ EH DIIHFWHG E\ PDQ\ DQG GLYHUVH H[WHUQDO IDFWRUV DQG ZKLFK PD\ SURYLGH OHVV SUHFLVH LQIRUPDWLRQ 0DUWHQV %XUWRQ DQG 9HDOH\ f VXJJHVW WKDW PDQ\ VWXGLHV ZKLFK H[DPLQH WKH DQ[LHW\SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS KDYH OLNHO\ DFFRXQWHG IRU VXFK D VPDOO DPRXQW RI WRWDO YDULDQFH LQ SHUIRUPDQFH HJ b FRPELQLQJ VRPDWLF DQG FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\f GXH WR WKH SUREOHPV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK PHDVXULQJ SHUIRUPDQFH DFFXUDWHO\ 7KXV D JRDO RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR IDFLOLWDWH D PRUH YDOLG DQG FRPSHOOLQJ GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH DQ[LHW\VSRUW SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS XWLOL]LQJ VWDWHRIWKHDUW SHUIRUPDQFH PHDVXUHV ,W VDWLVILHG ERWK *RXOG DQG .UDQHnV LQ SUHVVf DQG :HLQEHUJnV f UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV WR DVVHVV SHUIRUPDQFH ZLWK SURFHVVRULHQWHG PHDVXUHV HJ SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\f UDWKHU WKDQ RXWFRPHRULHQWHG PDUNHUV HJ WLPHf +RZHYHU GHVSLWH XVLQJ D SURFHVVRULHQWHG SHUIRUPDQFH PHDVXUH EHWZHHQJURXS DQG LQWUDLQGLYLGXDO DQDO\VHV DQG D PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO DVVHVVPHQW RI DQ[LHW\ D JRDO RI WKH VWXG\ ZKLFK ZDV D SUHUHTXLVLWH IRU K\SRWKHVLVn WHVWLQJ ZDV QRW PHW 7KDW LV GLIIHULQJ OHYHOV RI DQ[LHW\ ZHUH QRW IRXQG WR UHVXOW IURP WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO PDQLSXODWLRQ WKXV SUHFOXGLQJ DQ DVVHVVPHQW RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ H[SHULPHQWDOO\ LQGXFHG DQ[LHW\ DQG

PAGE 119

VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH $OVR WKH VDPSOH WKDW ZDV WHVWHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZDV UHODWLYHO\ VPDOO 7KLV VWXG\ ZDV DOVR GHVLJQHG WR H[DPLQH WKH WHVWLQJ SURFHGXUHV DW 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 6ZLPPLQJ WR GLVFHUQ ZKHWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ REWDLQHG RQ VZLPPHUV ZDV DIIHFWHG E\ H[FHVVLYH DQ[LHW\ &OHDUO\ WKH DQDO\VHV LQ WKLV VWXG\ GLG QRW FRQILUP DQ\ SUREOHPV UHODWHG WR WKH DVVHVVPHQW RI VZLPPLQJ ZLWK UHJDUGV WR DQ[LHW\ ,QGHHG WKH FXUUHQW ILQGLQJV VXJJHVW WKDW DVVHVVPHQW LQ WKH IOXPH LV OLNHO\ OHVV DQ[LHW\ SURGXFLQJ WKDQ PRVW FRPSHWLWLYH HYHQWV +RZHYHU LW ZDV GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW VZLPPHUV QHZ WR WKH IOXPH UHSRUWHG PRUH DQ[LHW\ DQG OHVV VHOIFRQILGHQFH WKDQ GLG WKRVH ZKR KDG EHHQ SUHYLRXVO\ WHVWHG 'HVSLWH WKH IDFW WKDW WKHVH YDULDEOHV GLG QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ SUHGLFW VWURNH HIILFLHQF\ IRU WKRVH VZLPPHUV ZKR ZHUH PRUH DQ[LRXV ZKHQ IDFLQJ WKH IOXPH HYDOXDWLRQ WKHUH PD\ KDYH EHHQ RWKHU IDFWRUV WKDW ZHUH DIIHFWHG HJ PD[LPDO R[\JHQ XSWDNH FDWHFKRODPLQHVf DQG ZKLFK FRXOG EH PHDVXUHG LQ VXEVHTXHQW LQYHVWLJDWLRQV $OVR WKH ILQGLQJ WKDW D GLIIHUHQFH PD\ H[LVW LQ WKH PDQQHU LQ ZKLFK VRPH VZLPPHUV DSSURDFK WKHLU LQLWLDO WHVWLQJ VHVVLRQ PLJKW EH XWLOL]HG E\ 86 6ZLPPLQJ LI RQO\ WR KHOS H[DPLQHUV EH VHQVLWLYH WR VRPH VZLPPHUVn XQFRPIRUWDEOH IHHOLQJV LQ DSSURDFKLQJ WKH IOXPH HYDOXDWLRQ 2EYLRXVO\ KRZHYHU EDVHG RQ WKH QRQVLJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJV WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ SURYLGH QR EDVLV IRU UHFRPPHQGLQJ DOWHUDWLRQV RI WKH WHVWLQJ SURWRFRO

PAGE 120

,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU )XWXUH 5HVHDUFK $OWKRXJK WKLV VWXG\ ZDV GHVLJQHG WR HOLFLW DQ[LHW\ LQ D FRQWUROOHG PHDVXUDEOH VHWWLQJ WKH VZLPPHUV GLG QRW UHSRUW H[FHVVLYH DQ[LHW\ SULRU WR HLWKHU VZLP 7KXV WKH VLWXDWLRQ LQ ZKLFK WHVWLQJ WRRN SODFH DQGRU WKH LQVWUXFWLRQDO VHWV PD\ QRW KDYH EHHQ WKUHDWHQLQJ HQRXJK WR WKH VZLPPHUVn VHOIn HVWHHP WR LPSDFW RQ SHUIRUPDQFH +HUH LW FDQ EH QRWHG WKDW WKUHDW WR VHOIHVWHHP DSSHDUV WR EH WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW DVSHFW RI FRJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ LQ VSRUWV SHUIRUPDQFH /HZWKZDLWH 6FDQODQ HW DO f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f ,Q WKLV VWXG\ DQHFGRWDO LQIRUPDWLRQ REWDLQHG GXULQJ WKH GHEULHILQJ VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH PDQLSXODWLRQ DQG IOXPH WHVWLQJ ZHUH QRW D PDMRU WKUHDW WR VHOIHVWHHP ,Q IDFW VHYHUDO VXEMHFWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH WHVWLQJ VLWXDWLRQ ZDV QRW FKDOOHQJLQJ HQRXJK 7KXV LW FRXOG EH VXJJHVWHG WKDW

PAGE 121

IXWXUH VWXGLHV RI WKLV QDWXUH ZRXOG EHQHILW IURP D PRUH SRWHQW DQ[LHW\LQGXFLQJ PDQLSXODWLRQ +RZHYHU WKH FXUUHQW PDQLSXODWLRQV ZHUH WKRXJKW WR EH DV VWURQJ D SRWHQWLDO YHUEDO PDQLSXODWLRQ DV SRVVLEOH DQG ZKLFK ZRXOG VWLOO EH HWKLFDOO\ SHUPLVVLEOH DQG EHOLHYDEOH WR WKH VXEMHFWVf )XUWKHUPRUH WKH PDQLSXODWLRQ WRRN LQWR DFFRXQW LQSXW IURP WKH VXEMHFWV RI WKH SLORW VWXG\ )RU H[DPSOH DQ DVSHFW RI WKH KLJK DQ[LHW\ FRQGLWLRQ KDYLQJ DQ REVHUYHU ZDWFK WKURXJK WKH XQGHUZDWHU ZLQGRZVf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b RI PD[LPXP VSHHG 2Q FRQVXOWDWLRQ ZLWK WKH 86 6ZLPPLQJ 6WDII LW ZDV GHWHUPLQHG WKDW b ZRXOG EH D UHDVRQDEO\ FKDOOHQJLQJ VSHHG ZKLFK DOO VXEMHFWV VKRXOG EH DEOH WR DFKLHYH RQ RQH DQG RQO\ RQH WULDO 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ LW DSSHDUV WKDW WKH EDVHOLQH VZLP EXIIHUHG WKH HIIHFWV RI WKH DQ[LHW\ PDQLSXODWLRQ $V VWDWHG HDUOLHU WKH VZLPPHUV OLNHO\ JDLQHG D PDVWHU\ H[SHULHQFH GXULQJ WKH EDVHOLQH VZLP VXFK WKDW WKH DWWHPSW WR FUHDWH DQ[LHW\ IRU WKH VHFRQG VZLP ZDV LQHIIHFWXDO

PAGE 122

*LYHQ WKDW WKH EDVHOLQH VZLP DSSHDUHG WR EXIIHU WKH DQ[LHW\ PDQLSXODWLRQV LW FRXOG EH VXJJHVWHG WR HOLPLQDWH WKH EDVHOLQH VZLP DQG REWDLQ D RQHWLPH PHDVXUH 7KLV KDG EHHQ FRQVLGHUHG LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ EXW ZDV GHFLGHG DJDLQVW LQ WKDW WKH LQYHVWLJDWRU ZRXOG KDYH KDG WR XVH LPSUHFLVH PHDVXUHV RI SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\ HJ EHVW WLPHf WR PDWFK VXEMHFWV 7KXV RQH ZRXOG KDYH KDG WR DVVXPH WKDW SURSHOOLQJ HIILFLHQF\ ZDV WKH VDPH IRU FHUWDLQ VXEMHFWV LQ RUGHU WR H[DPLQH DQ\ HIIHFWV RI DQ[LHW\ RQ HIILFLHQF\ 7KLV ZRXOG SURKLELW WKH LQWUDLQGLYLGXDO DQDO\VHV WKDW VHYHUDO VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH VXJJHVWHG DUH YHU\ LPSRUWDQW %XUWRQ *RXOG t .UDQH LQ SUHVV :HLQEHUJ f ,W KDV EHHQ VXJJHVWHG WKDW WDVN FRPSOH[LW\ LV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH SHUFHLYHG GHPDQGV RI D VNLOO (EEHFN t :HLVV f 7KXV D SRWHQWLDO PRGLILFDWLRQ RI WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZKLFK FRXOG VWLOO XWLOL]H D EDVHOLQH DQG WHVW VZLP PLJKW SURYH XVHIXO ,Q WKLV FDVH SULRU WR WKH VHFRQG VZLP VXEMHFWV LQ WKH KLJK DQ[LHW\ JURXS FRXOG EH LQVWUXFWHG WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG EHJLQ WKHLU VZLP DW WKH VDPH VSHHG DV WKH ZDUPXS EDVHOLQH VZLP bf EXW WKDW WKH VSHHG ZRXOG LQFUHDVH VKRUWO\ IROORZLQJ WKH VRXQG RI D WRQH 7KH VSHHG ZLOO LQFUHDVH XQWLO \RX DUH QR ORQJHU DEOH WR NHHS XS DQG \RXU IHHW WRXFK WKH JDWH DW WKH HQG RI WKH IOXPH
PAGE 123

7KH VZLPPHU ZRXOG WKHQ EH H[SRVHG WR D YLGHR ZKLFK GHPRQVWUDWHG D VZLPPHU VWUXJJOLQJ WR NHHS XS ZLWK DQ LQFUHDVLQJ IOXPH VSHHG ,Q DFWXDOLW\ WKH VXEMHFW ZRXOG EH ILOPHG IROORZLQJ WKH WRQH ZKLFK VXSSRVHGO\ VLJQLILHV WKDW WKH IOXPH VSHHG ZLOO LQFUHDVH PRPHQWDULO\ 7KH VSHHG ZRXOG UHPDLQ DW b FRPSDUDEOH WR WKH EDVHOLQH VZLPf EXW XQGHU D SRWHQWLDOO\ DQ[LHW\LQGXFLQJ VLWXDWLRQ LH WKH WKUHDW RI DQ LQDELOLW\ WR NHHS XS ZLWK WKH VXSSRVHG LQFUHDVH LQ IOXPH VSHHGf 7KLV FRXOG SRWHQWLDOO\ EH D KLJK DQ[LHW\ FRQGLWLRQ LQ WKDW WKH VZLPPHUV ZRXOG DQWLFLSDWH WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG EH VXEMHFWHG WR D YHU\ GLIILFXOW WDVN GXULQJ ZKLFK WKH\ ZRXOG EH ILOPHG DQG HYDOXDWHG +LWWLQJ WKH JDWH ZLWK RQHnV IHHW LV D SRWHQWLDOO\ HPEDUUDVLQJ VLWXDWLRQ DQG RQH ZKLFK PLJKW SRVH D WKUHDW WR VHOIHVWHHP $GGLWLRQDOO\ RQH PLJKW LQFUHDVH WKH VSHHG RI WKH IOXPH IRU ERWK EDVHOLQH DQG HYDOXDWHG VZLPV WR FUHDWH D PRUH GLIILFXOW DQG SRWHQWLDOO\ PRUH DQ[LHW\LQGXFLQJf VLWXDWLRQ 7KLV ZDV FRQVLGHUHG LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ DQG UHMHFWHG IRU SUHYLRXVO\ GLVFXVVHG UHDVRQV RI REWDLQLQJ D UHOLDEOH RQHn WLPH WULDO 7R FRQFOXGH WKH H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH DQ[LHW\SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS LQ VSRUWV LV D UHOHYDQW DQG LQWHUHVWLQJ RQH +RZHYHU DV KDV EHHQ VKRZQ WKLV DUHD RI UHVHDUFK LV IUDXJKW ZLWK GLIILFXOWLHV 7KH FKDOOHQJH WR REWDLQ UHOLDEOH SURFHVVRULHQWHG SHUIRUPDQFH PHDVXUHV LQ D UHDOLVWLF FRQWH[W LV D IRUPLGDEOH RQH 6WLOO LW LV WKRXJKW WKDW WKH IOXPH SURYLGHV VXFK D JRRG PHDVXUH RI SHUIRUPDQFH WKDW LW LV

PAGE 124

ZRUWKZKLOH WR DWWHPSW WKLV VWXG\ XQGHU PRUH DGYDQWDJHRXV FLUFXPVWDQFHV 3HUKDSV WKH LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ RI D PRUH SRZHUIXO DQ[LHW\ PDQLSXODWLRQ FRPELQHG ZLWK WKH XVH RI DOO QDLYH VXEMHFWV ZRXOG SURYLGH PRUH YDOXDEOH GDWD ,W LV PDLQWDLQHG WKHQ WKDW FRQGXFWLQJ UHVHDUFK ZLWKLQ WKH DQ[LHW\SHUIRUPDQFH DUHD LV D YLDEOH DQG MXVWLILDEOH HQGHDYRU ZLWK WKH SRWHQWLDO IRU WKH JDWKHULQJ DQG HYDOXDWLQJ RI YDOXDEOH LQIRUPDWLRQ

PAGE 125

5()(5(1&(6 $EGHO$]L] < t .DUDUD + 0 f 'LUHFW OLQHDU WUDQVIRUPDWLRQ )URP FRPSDUDWRU FRRUGLQDWHV LQWR REMHFW FRRUGLQDWHV LQ FORVHUDQJH SKRWRJUDPPHWU\ 3URFHHGLQJV RI WKH $638, 6\PSRVLXP RI WKH $PHULFDQ 6RFLHW\ RI 3KRWRJUDPPHWU\ &KXUFK )DOOV 9$ $OEUHFKW 5 5 t )HOW / f *HQHUDOLW\ DQG VSHFLILFLW\ RI DWWHQWLRQ UHODWHG WR FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ DQG VSRUW SHUIRUPDQFH -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ $OOLVRQ 0 7 f 5ROH FRQIOLFW DQG WKH IHPDOH DWKOHWH 3UHRFFXSDWLRQV ZLWK OLWWOH JURXQGLQJ -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ } $OOSRUW : f 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG VRFLDO HQFRXQWHU %RVWRQ %HDFRQ 3UHVV $PHULFDQ 3V\FKLDWULF $VVRFLDWLRQ f 'LDJQRVWLF DQG VWDWLVWLFDO PDQXDO RI PHQWDO GLVRUGHUV WKLUG HGLWLRQ f§ UHYLVHG :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ 3V\FKLDWULF $VVRFLDWLRQ $QGHUVRQ f $URXVDO DQG WKH LQYHUWHG8 K\SRWKHVLV $ FULWLTXH RI 1HLVVnV 5HFRQFHSWXDOL]LQJ $URXVDO 3V\FKRORJLFDO %XOOHWLQ $SWHU 0 f 7KH H[SHULHQFH RI PRWLYDWLRQ 7KH WKHRU\ RI SV\FKRORJLFDO UHYHUVDOV /RQGRQ $FDGHPLF 3UHVV $SWHU 0 f 5HYHUVDO WKHRU\ DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ $ UHYLHZ -RXUQDO RI 5HVHDUFK LQ 3HUVRQDOLW\ %DGGHOH\ $ f 6HOHFWLYH DWWHQWLRQ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH LQ GDQJHURXV HQYLURQPHQWV %ULWLVK -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKRORJ\ %DKULFN + 3 )LWWV 3 0 t 5DQNLQ 5 ( f (IIHFW RI LQFHQWLYHV XSRQ UHDFWLRQV WR SHULSKHUDO VWLPXOL -RXUQDO RI ([SHULPHQWDO 3V\FKRORJ\

PAGE 126

%DUQHV 0 : 6LPH : 'LHQVWELHU 5 t 3ODNH % f $ WHVW RI FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH &6$, TXHVWLRQQDLUH RQ PDOH HOLWH FROOHJH VZLPPHUV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ %HXWHU $ t 'XGD / f $QDO\VLV RI WKH DURXVDOPRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS LQ FKLOGUHQ XVLQJ PRYHPHQW NLQHPDWLFV -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ %LUG $ 0 t +RUQ 0 $ f &RJQLWLYH DQ[LHW\ DQG PHQWDO HUURUV LQ VSRUW -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW DQG ([HUFLVH 3V\FKRORJ\ %OLQGH ( 0 t 7LHUQH\ ( f 'LIIXVLRQ RI VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ LQWR HOLWH 86 6ZLPPLQJ SURJUDPV 7KH 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJLVW %RUJ f 3K\VLFDO SHUIRUPDQFH DQG SHUFHLYHG H[HUWLRQ /XQG 6ZHGHQ *OHHUXS %RUJ t 1REOH % f 3HUFHLYHG H[HUWLRQ ,Q :LOPRUH (Gf ([HUFLVH DQG VSRUW VFLHQFHV UHYLHZV SS f 1HZ
PAGE 127

%XKOHU & f 7KHRUHWLFDO REVHUYDWLRQV DERXW OLIHnV EDVLF WHQGHQFLHV $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKRWKHUDS\ %XUVLOO $ ( f 7KH UHVWULFWLRQ RI SHULSKHUDO YLVLRQ GXULQJ H[SRVXUH WR KRW DQG KXPLG FRQGLWLRQV 7KH 4XDUWHUO\ -RXUQDO RI ([SHULPHQWDO 3V\FKRORJ\ %XUWRQ f 'R DQ[LRXV VZLPPHUV VZLP VORZHU" 5HH[DPLQLQJ WKH HOXVLYH DQ[LHW\SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLS -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW DQG ([HUFLVH 3V\FKRORJ\ &DUXVR & 0 ']HZDOWRZVNL $ *LOO / t 0F(OUR\ 0 $ f 3V\FKRORJLFDO DQG SK\VLRORJLFDO FKDQJHV LQ FRPSHWLWLYH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ GXULQJ QRQFRPSHWLWLRQ DQG FRPSHWLWLYH VXFFHVV DQG IDLOXUH -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW DQG ([HUFLVH 3V\FKRORJ\ &DWWHOO 5 % f 7KH QDWXUH DQG PHDVXUHPHQW RI DQ[LHW\ 6FLHQWLILF $PHULFDQ &RRNH / ( f 6WUHVV DQG DQ[LHW\ LQ VSRUW 6SRUWV &RXQFLO 5HVHDUFK 3URMHFW 6KHIILHOG (QJODQG 6KHIILHOG &LW\ 3RO\WHFKQLF &R[ 5 + f 6SRUW SV\FKRORJ\ &RQFHSWV DQG DSSOLFDWLRQV QG HGf 'XEXTXH ,$ %URZQ &URFNHU 3 ( $OGHUPDQ 5 % t 6PLWK ) 0 f &RJQLWLYHDIIHFWLYH VWUHVV PDQDJHPHQW WUDLQLQJ ZLWK KLJK SHUIRUPDQFH \RXWK YROOH\EDOO SOD\HUV (IIHFWV RQ DIIHFW FRJQLWLRQ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW DQG ([HUFLVH 3V\FKRORJ\ 'DOH t :HLQEHUJ 5 f %XUQRXW LQ VSRUW $ UHYLHZ DQG FULWLTXH -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ 'DYLV + f &ULWHULRQ YDOLGLW\ RI WKH $WKOHWLF 0RWLYDWLRQ ,QYHQWRU\ ,VVXHV LQ SURIHVVLRQDO VSRUW -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ 'HIIHQEDFKHU / f :RUU\ DQG HPRWLRQDOLW\ LQ WHVW DQ[LHW\ ,Q 6DUDVRQ (Gf 7HVW DQ[LHW\ 7KHRU\ UHVHDUFK DQG DSSOLFDWLRQV SS f +LOOVGDOH 1(UOEDXP 'RFWRU 5 0 t $OWPDQ ) f :RUU\ DQG HPRWLRQDOLW\ DV FRPSRQHQWV RI WHVW DQ[LHW\ 5HSOLFDWLRQ DQG IXUWKHU GDWD 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5HSRUWV

PAGE 128

'XII\ ( f 7KH SV\FKRORJLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH RI WKH FRQFHSW RI DURXVDO RU DFWLYDWLRQ 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5HYLHZ 'XII\ ( f $FWLYDWLRQ DQG EHKDYLRU 1HZ
PAGE 129

*RXOG 3HWOLFKNRII / 6LPRQV t 9HYHUD 0 f 5HODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ &RPSHWLWLYH 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ ,QYHQWRU\ VXEVFDOH VFRUHV DQG SLVWRO VKRRWLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ *RXOG 7DPPHQ 9 0XUSK\ 6 t 0D\ f $Q H[DPLQDWLRQ RI 86 2O\PSLF VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ FRQVXOWDQWV DQG WKH VHUYLFHV WKH\ SURYLGH 7KH 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJLVW +DFNIRUW t 6FKZHQNPH]JHU 3 f 0HDVXULQJ DQ[LHW\ LQ VSRUWV 3HUVSHFWLYHV DQG SUREOHPV ,Q +DFNIRUW t & 6SLHOEHUJHU (GVf $Q[LHW\ LQ VSRUWV $Q LQWHUQDWLRQDO SHUSHFWLYH SS f 1HZ
PAGE 130

.DUWHUROLRWLV & t *LOO f 7HPSRUDO FKDQJHV LQ SV\FKRORJLFDO DQG SK\VLRORJLFDO FRPSRQHQWV RI VWDWH DQ[LHW\ -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ .HUU + f $Q[LHW\ DURXVDO DQG VSRUW SHUIRUPDQFH $Q DSSOLFDWLRQ RI UHYHUVDO WKHRU\ ,Q +DFNIRUW t & 6SLHOEHUJHU (GVf $Q[LHW\ LQ VSRUWV $Q LQWHUQDWLRQDO SHUSHFWLYH SS f 1HZ
PAGE 131

/HZWKZDLWH 5 f 7KUHDW SHUFHSWLRQ LQ FRPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\ 7KH HQGDQJHUPHQW RI LPSRUWDQW JRDOV -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW DQG ([HUFLVH 3V\FKRORJ\ /LHEHUW 5 0 t 0RUULV / : f &RJQLWLYH DQG HPRWLRQDO FRPSRQHQWV RI WHVW DQ[LHW\ $ GLVWLQFWLRQ DQG VRPH LQLWLDO GDWD 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5HSRUWV 0DGGHQ & & 6XPPHUV t %URZQ ) f 7KH LQIOXHQFH RI SHUFHLYHG VWUHVV RQ FRSLQJ ZLWK FRPSHWLWLYH EDVNHWEDOO ,QWHUQDWLRQDO -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ 0DJLOO 5 $ f 0RWRU OHDUQLQJ &RQFHSWV DQG DSSOLFDWLRQV UG HGf 'XEXTXH ,$ %URZQ 0DOPR 5 % f $FWLYDWLRQ $ QHXURSV\FKRORJLFDO GLPHQVLRQ 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5HYLHZ 0DQGOHU f 0LQG DQG HPRWLRQ /RQGRQ :LOH\ 0DUWHQV 5 f 6SRUW &RPSHWLWLRQ $Q[LHW\ 7HVW &KDPSDLJQ ,/ +XPDQ .LQHWLFV 0DUWHQV 5 f &KDPSDLJQ ,/ &RDFKHV JXLGH WR VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ +XPDQ .LQHWLFV 0DUWHQV 5 %XUWRQ 9HDOH\ 5 6 %XPS / $ t 6PLWK ( f 'HYHORSPHQW DQG YDOLGDWLRQ RI WKH &RPSHWLWLYH 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ ,QYHQWRU\ ,Q 5 0DUWHQV 5 6 9HDOH\ t %XUWRQ (GVf &RPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ LQ VSRUW SS f &KDPSDLJQ ,/ +XPDQ .LQHWLFV 0DUWHQV 5 %XUWRQ 9HDOH\ 5 %XPS / t 6PLWK f 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH &RPSHWLWLYH 6WDWH $Q[LHW\ ,QYHQWRU\ I&6$,f 8QSXEOLVKHG PDQXVFULSW 8QLYHUVLW\ RI ,OOLQRLV 0DUWHQV 5 *LOO / t 6FDQODQ 7 f &RPSHWLWLYH WUDLW DQ[LHW\ VXFFHVVIDLOXUH DQG VH[ DV GHWHUPLQDQWV RI PRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH 3HUFHSWXDO DQG 0RWRU 6NLOOV 0DUWHQV 5 9HDOH\ 5 6 t %XUWRQ f &RPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ LQ VSRUW &KDPSDLJQ ,/ +XPDQ .LQHWLFV 0DUWLQ t *LOO / f 7KH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ FRPSHWLWLYH RULHQWDWLRQ VSRUWFRQILGHQFH VHOIHIILFDF\ DQ[LHW\ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW DQG ([HUFLVH 3V\FKRORJ\

PAGE 132

0DVORZ $ + f 0RWLYDWLRQ DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ 1HZ
PAGE 133

0RUULV / 'DYLV t +XWFKLQJV & f &RJQLWLYH DQG HPRWLRQDO FRPSRQHQWV RI DQ[LHW\ /LWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ DQG UHYLVHG ZRUU\HPRWLRQDOLW\ VFDOH -RXUQDO RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 0RUULV / +DUULV ( : t 5RYLQV 6 f ,QWHUDFWLYH HIIHFWV RI JHQHUDOL]HG DQG VLWXDWLRQDO H[SHFWDQFLHV RQ FRJQLWLYH DQG HPRWLRQDO FRPSRQHQWV RI VRFLDO DQ[LHW\ -RXUQDO RI 5HVHDUFK LQ 3HUVRQDOLW\ 0RUULV / 6PLWK / 5 $QGUHZV ( 6 t 0RUULV 1 & f 7KH UHODWLRQVKLS RI HPRWLRQDOLW\ DQG ZRUU\ FRPSRQHQWV RI DQ[LHW\ WR PRWRU VNLOOV SHUIRUPDQFH -RXUQDO RI 0RWRU %HKDYLRU 0XUSK\ 6 0 f 7KH RQVLWH SURYLVLRQ RI VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ VHUYLFHV DW WKH 86 2O\PSLF )HVWLYDO 7KH 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJLVW 0XUSK\ 6 0 t :RROIRON 5 / f 7KH HIIHFWV RI FRJQLWLYH LQWHUYHQWLRQV RQ FRPSHWLWLYH DQ[LHW\ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH RQ D ILQH PRWRU VNLOO DFFXUDF\ WDVN ,QWHUQDWLRQDO -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKRORJ\ 1HLVV 5 Df 5HFRQFHSWXDOL]LQJ DURXVDO 3V\FKRELRORJLFDO VWDWHV LQ PRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH 3V\FKRORJLFDO %XOOHWLQ 1HLVV 5 Ef 5HFRQFHSWXDOL]LQJ UHOD[DWLRQ WUHDWPHQWV 3V\FKRELRORJLFDO VWDWHV LQ VSRUWV &OLQLFDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 5HYLHZ 1HLVV 5 f (QGLQJ DURXVDOnV UHLJQ RI HUURU $ UHSO\ WR $QGHUVRQ 3V\FKRORJLFDO %XOOHWLQ 1REOH % f 3K\VLRORJ\ RI H[HUFLVH DQG VSRUW 6W /RXLV 7LPHV 0LUURU0RVE\ &ROOHJH 3XEOLVKLQJ 2JLOYLH % & +DDVH + -RNO ( .UDQGLRWLV 7 0DKRQH\ 0 t 1LGHIIHU 5 f &ULWLFDO LVVXHV LQ WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI FOLQLFDO SV\FKRORJ\ LQ WKH VSRUW VHWWLQJ ,QWHUQDWLRQDO -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ 2[HQGLQH % f (PRWLRQDO DURXVDO DQG PRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH 4XHVW 2[HQGLQH % f (PRWLRQDO DURXVDO DQG PRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH ,Q 5 6XLQQ (Gf 3V\FKRORJ\ LQ VSRUWV 0HWKRGV DQG DSSOLFDWLRQV SS f 0LQQHDSROLV %XUJHVV

PAGE 134

3RWHHW t :HLQEHUJ 5 f &RPSHWLWLRQ WUDLW DQ[LHW\ VWDWH DQ[LHW\ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH 3HUFHSWXDO DQG 0RWRU 6NLOOV 3RZHOO ) t 9HUQHU f $Q[LHW\ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH UHODWLRQVKLSV LQ ILUVW WLPH SDUDFKXWLVWV -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ 3UDSDYHVVLV + t *URYH 5 f 3UHFRPSHWLWLYH HPRWLRQV DQG VKRRWLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH 7KH PHQWDO KHDOWK DQG ]RQH RI RSWLPDO IXQFWLRQ PRGHOV 7KH 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJLVW 5DJOLQ 6 t 0RUJDQ : 3 f 3UHGLFWHG DQG DFWXDO SUHFRPSHWLWLRQ DQ[LHW\ FROOHJH VZLPPHUV -RXUQDO RI 6ZLPPLQJ 5HVHDUFK 5DJOLQ 6 :LVH t 0RUJDQ : 3 f 3UHGLFWHG DQG DFWXDO SUHFRPSHWLWLRQ DQ[LHW\ LQ KLJK VFKRRO JLUO VZLPPHUV -RXUQDO RI 6ZLPPLQJ 5HVHDUFK 5HLOO\ 0 ) .DPH 9 7HUPLQ % 7HQGHVFR 0 ( t 3HQGHUJDVW 5 f 5HODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IUHHVW\OH VZLPPLQJ VSHHG DQG VWURNH PHFKDQLFV WR LVRNLQHWLF PXVFOH IXQFWLRQ -RXUQDO RI 6ZLPPLQJ 5HVHDUFK 5HMHVNL : t %UDZOH\ / 5 f 'HILQLQJ WKH ERXQGDULHV RI VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ 7KH 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJLVW 5RGJHUV : +DOO & t %XFNKRO] ( f 7KH HIIHFW RI DQ LPDJHU\ WUDLQLQJ SURJUDP RQ LPDJHU\ DELOLW\ LPDJHU\ XVH DQG ILJXUH VNDWLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ 5RGULJR /XVLDUGR 0 t 3HUHLUD f 5HODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DQ[LHW\ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH LQ VRFFHU SOD\HUV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ 5RVHQWKDO 5 f ([SHULPHQWHU H[SHFWDQF\ DQG WKH UHDVVXULQJ QDWXUH RI WKH VHOI K\SRWKHVLV GHFLVLRQ SURFHGXUH 3V\FKRORJLFDO %XOOHWLQ 0RQRJUDSK VXSSOHPHQWf 6DJH + f 0RWRU OHDUQLQJ DQG FRQWURO $ QHXURSK\VLRORJLFDO DSSURDFK 'XEXTXH ,$ %URZQ 6DUDVRQ f $Q[LHW\ DQG VHOISUHRFFXSDWLRQ ,Q 6DUDVRQ t & 6SLHOEHUJHU (GVf 6WUHVV DQG DQ[LHW\ 9RO SS f 1HZ
PAGE 135

6DUDVRQ 6DUDVRQ % 5 t 3LHUFH 5 f 6RFLDO VXSSRUW SHUVRQDOLW\ DQG SHUIRUPDQFH -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ 6FDQODQ 7 f &RPSHWLWLYH VWUHVV DQG WKH FKLOG DWKOHWH ,Q 6LOYD t 5 :HLQEHUJ (GVf 3V\FKRORJLFDO IRXQGDWLRQV RI VSRUW SS f &KDPSDLJQ ,/ +XPDQ .LQHWLFV 6FDQODQ 7 6WHLQ / t 5DYL]]D f $Q LQGHSWK VWXG\ RI IRUPHU HOLWH ILJXUH VNDWHUV ,,, 6RXUFHV RI VWUHVV -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW DQG ([HUFLVH 3V\FKRORJ\ 6FKOHLKDXI 5 ( f $ K\GURG\QDPLF DQDO\VLV RI VZLPPLQJ SURSXOVLRQ ,Q 7HUDXGV t : %HGLQJILHOG (GVf 6ZLPPLQJ ,,, SS f %DOWLPRUH 8QLYHUVLW\ 3DUN 3UHVV 6LOYD 0 f 2Q DGYDQFHPHQW $Q HGLWRULDO -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ 6LQJHU 5 1 f $SSOLHG VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ 6LQJHU 5 1 f :KDW LQ WKH ZRUOG LV KDSSHQLQJ LQ VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\" -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ 6LQJHU 5 1 &DXUDXJK + 7HQQDQW / 0XUSKH\ 0 &KHQ t /LGRU 5 f $WWHQWLRQ DQG GLVWUDFWRUV &RQVLGHUDWLRQV IRU HQKDQFLQJ VSRUW SHUIRUPDQFHV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ 6LQJHU 5 1 )ORUD / $ t $ERXUH]N 7 / f 7KH HIIHFW RI D ILYHVWHS FRJQLWLYH OHDUQLQJ VWUDWHJ\ RQ WKH DFJXLVLWLRQ RI D FRPSOH[ PRWRU WDVN -RXUQDO RI $SSOLHG 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ 6PLWK 5 ( f &RQFHSWXDO DQG VWDWLVWLFDO LVVXHV LQ UHVHDUFK LQYROYLQJ PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO DQ[LHW\ VFDOHV -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW DQG ([HUFLVH 3V\FKRORJ\ 6PLWK 5 ( t 6PROO ) / f 6SRUW SHUIRUPDQFH DQ[LHW\ ,Q + /HLWHQEHUJ (Gf +DQGERRN RI VRFLDO DQG HYDOXDWLRQ DQ[LHW\ f 1HZ
PAGE 136

6PLWK 5 ( 6PROO ) / t 6FKW] 5 : f 0HDVXUHPHQW DQG FRUUHODWHV RI VSRUWVSHFLILF FRJQLWLYH DQG VRPDWLF WUDLW DQ[LHW\ 7KH 6SRUW $Q[LHW\ 6FDOH $Q[LHW\ 5HVHDUFK 6RQVWURHP 5 t %HUQDUGR % f ,QWUDLQGLYLGXDO SUHJDPH VWDWH DQ[LHW\ DQG EDVNHWEDOO SHUIRUPDQFH $ UHH[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH LQYHUWHG8 FXUYH -RXUQDO RI 6SRUW 3V\FKRORJ\ 6SHQFH : f 7KHRUHWLFDO LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV RI OHDUQLQJ ,Q 6 6 6WHYHQV (Gf +DQGERRN RI H[SHULPHQWDO SV\FKRORJ\ SS f 1HZ
PAGE 137

9HQDEOHV 3 + f $URXVDO $Q H[DPLQDWLRQ RI LWV VWDWXV DV D FRQFHSW ,Q 0 &ROHV -HQQLQJV t 6WHUQ (GVf 3VYFKRSKYVLRORJLFDO SHUVSHFWLYHV )HVWVFKULIW IRU %HDWULFH DQG -RKQ /DFHY SS f 1HZ
PAGE 138

=DLFKNRZVN\ / t 7DNHQDND 2SWLPL]LQJ DURXVDO OHYHOV ,Q 0XUSKH\ t / 7HQQDQW (GVf LQ VSRUW SV\FKRORJ\ 1HZ
PAGE 139

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nV JRLQJ RQ IHHO WHQVH LQ P\ VWRPDFK 7KRXJKWV RI GRLQJ SRRUO\ LQWHUIHUH ZLWK P\ FRQFHQWUDWLRQ GXULQJ FRPSHWLWLRQ DP FRQFHUQHG DERXW FKRNLQJ XQGHU SUHVVXUH

PAGE 140

0\ KHDUW UDFHV IHHO P\ VWRPDFK VLQNLQJ ,nP FRQFHUQHG DERXW SHUIRUPLQJ SRRUO\ KDYH ODSVHV LQ FRQFHQWUDWLRQ GXULQJ FRPSHWLWLRQ EHFDXVH RI QHUYRXVQHVV VRPHWLPHV ILQG P\VHOI WUHPEOLQJ EHIRUH RU GXULQJ D FRPSHWLWLYH HYHQW ,nP ZRUULHG DERXW UHDFKLQJ P\ JRDO 0\ ERG\ IHHOV WLJKW ,nP FRQFHUQHG WKDW RWKHUV ZLOO EH GLVDSSRLQWHG ZLWK P\ SHUIRUPDQFH 0\ VWRPDFK JHWV XSVHW EHIRUH RU GXULQJ FRPSHWLWLRQ ,nP FRQFHUQHG ZRQnW EH DEOH WR FRQFHQWUDWH 0\ KHDUW SRXQGV EHIRUH FRPSHWLWLRQ

PAGE 141

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

PAGE 142

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nP FRQILGHQW FDQ PHHW WKH FKDOOHQJH ,nP FRQFHUQHG DERXW SHUIRUPLQJ SRRUO\ 0\ KHDUW LV UDFLQJ ,nP FRQILGHQW DERXW SHUIRUPLQJ ZHOO

PAGE 143

,nP ZRUULHG DERXW UHDFKLQJ P\ JRDO IHHO P\ VWRPDFK VLQNLQJ IHHO PHQWDOO\ UHOD[HG ,nP FRQFHUQHG WKDW RWKHUV ZLOO EH GLVDSSRLQWHG ZLWK P\ SHUIRUPDQFH 0\ KDQGV DUH FODPP\ ,nP FRQILGHQW EHFDXVH PHQWDOO\ SLFWXUH P\VHOI UHDFKLQJ P\ JRDO ,nP FRQFHUQHG ZRQnW EH DEOH WR FRQFHQWUDWH 0\ ERG\ IHHOV WLJKW ,nP FRQILGHQW RI FRPLQJ WKURXJK XQGHU SUHVVXUH 7KH IOXPH DSSDUDWXV DSSHDUV FRQILQLQJ DP ZRUULHG DERXW VZLPPLQJ DW WKH FRUUHFW VSHHG LQ WKH IOXPH

PAGE 144

5DWLQJV RI 3HUFHLYHG ([HUWLRQ 3OHDVH SRLQW WR D QXPEHU RQ WKH VFDOH ZKLFK GHVFULEHV KRZ \RX DUH IHHOLQJ DW WKLV WLPH DERXW WKH LQWHQVLW\ RI WKH VZLP WKDW \RX MXVW FRPSOHWHG 9HU\ YHU\ OLJKW 9HU\ OLJKW )DLUO\ OLJKW 6RPHZKDW KDUG +DUG 9HU\ KDUG 9HU\ YHU\ KDUG

PAGE 145

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ 5REHUW $QGUHZ 6ZRDS ZDV ERUQ LQ 1HZ %UXQVZLFN 1HZ -HUVH\ RQ 2FWREHU +H LV WKH VHFRQG RI WKH IRXU VRQV RI -RDQ DQG -5 6ZRDS DQG ZDV UDLVHG LQ +RXVWRQ DQG &RQURH 7H[DV )URP %RE DWWHQGHG 'XNH 8QLYHUVLW\ DQG EHFDPH D GHYRWHG IROORZHU RI %OXH 'HYLO EDVNHWEDOOf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

PAGE 146

, FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ -DP + -R LVRQ &KDLU 3URIHVVRU RIMFLLQLFDO DQG +HDOWK 3V\FKRORJ\ FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RISRFWRUAReAKLORVRSK\ n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

PAGE 147

, FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 5REHUW 1A(tIWJHU 3URIHVVRU RI ([HUFLVH DQG 6SRUW 6FLHQFHV 7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH )DFXOW\ RI WKH &ROOHJH RI +HDOWK 5HODWHG 3URIHVVLRQV DQG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO DQG ZDV DFFHSWHG DV SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ $XJXVW \ 'HDQ &ROOHJH RI +HDOWK 5HODWHG 3URIHVVLRQV 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 148

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$


APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRES
Sport Anxiety Scale
A number of statements which athletes have used to
describe their thoughts and feelings before or during
competition are listed below. Read each statement and then
using the scale below, indicate how you usually feel prior
to or during competition. Some athletes feel they should
not admit to feelings or nervousness or worry, but such
reactions are actually quite common, even among professional
athletes. To help us better understand reactions to
competition, we ask you to share your true reactions with
us. There are, therefore, no right or wrong answers. Do
not spend too much time on any one statement, but choose the
answer which describes how you commonly react.
1 = Not at all
2 = Somewhat
3 = Moderately so
4 = Very much so
1.I feel nervous.
2. During competition, I find myself thinking about
unrelated things.
3. I have self-doubts.
4. My body feels tense.
5. I am concerned that I may not do as well in
competition as I could.
6. My mind wanders during sport competition.
7. While performing, I often do not pay attention to
what's going on.
8. I feel tense in my stomach.
9. Thoughts of doing poorly interfere with my
concentration during competition.
10.I am concerned about choking under pressure.
133


91
(i.e. group) effect [F=.43, p=.66] nor a significant
interaction (i.e., Group X Time) effect [F=.ll, p=.9].
However, a significant main effect for Time was indicated
[F=5.5, pc.05], Swimmers as a whole became more
efficient during their second swim as compared to their
baseline swim.
The next analysis examined a subcomponent of the
freestyle stroke the "finish phase." This phase was
chosen for analysis in that it provides the most force
during the armstroke cycle, and because it had been
hypothesized that if there was one part of the stroke
which would be most affected by evaluative anxiety, it
would be the finish. This subanalysis had initially been
planned to help determine where the variance in the
overall stroke efficiency occurred under different
conditions of anxiety. Although there was little overall
variance, this analysis was still conducted to detect
less obvious changes in efficiency. However, a repeated
measures ANOVA revealed no significant main or
interaction effects [Group F(2,29)=.55, p=.58; Time
F(2,29) = .02, P=.89; Group X Time F(2,29) = .37, p=.70].
Table 3 reports the means and standard deviations by
group of overall and finish efficiency for the two swims
(i.e., before and after the instructional manipulation).


3
(e.g., Singer, Flora, & Abourezk, 1989), and social
support (e.g., Sarason, Sarason, & Pierce, 1990).
Another major topic which has received much
attention in the literature deals with the relationship
between the constructs of anxiety and arousal and sports
performance (e.g., Burton, 1988; Crocker, Alderman, &
Smith, 1988; Ebbeck & Weiss, 1988; Fenz, 1988; Jones &
Cale, 1989; Landers & Boutcher, 1986; Madden, Summers, &
Brown, 1990; Prapavessis & Grove, 1991; Rodrigo,
Lusiardo, & Pereira, 1990; Williams, Tonymon, & Andersen,
1991). The degree of attention given to this topic is
highlighted by a recent content analysis of 29 sport
psychology books for athletes (Vealey, 1988) which
revealed that anxiety/arousal control techniques were the
second most frequently discussed factors related to the
enhancement of mental skills in sport. (Attentional
control techniques were most frequent.) Furthermore,
Murphy (1988) and Ogilvie et al. (1979) have indicated
that precompetitive tension is the number one problem for
which athletes request assistance. Within applied sport
psychology in the U.S., it has been suggested that some
form of anxiety management is used in the majority of
interventions with athletes (Singer, 1989).
Within the general consensus regarding the negative
effects of "excess" anxiety or arousal on athletic
performance, techniques described as "anxiety management"
and "arousal control" are applied frequently by sport


68
The subjects were average high school swimmers
(based on the swimmers' best 100 yard freestyle times
during the current season, M=59.76 seconds). All
subjects provided consent to complete self-report
psychological assessments, to be videotaped at various
times in the flume, and to have their heart rate taken in
the course of the study. The study was granted approval
by the Human Subjects Committee of the Institutional
Review Board of the University of Florida, by the Sports
Science Review Board of United States Swimming, and by
the Sports Science Department of the United States
Olympic Committee.
Procedural Overview
The following is an overview of the framework of the
study. A more complete description of the measures and
methodology is presented in the two subsequent sections.
Pre-Flume Testing Procedures
(1) A brief explanation of the study was provided by the
investigator and informed consents were obtained. The
investigator purposely did not mention anxiety as an
aspect of the study or that subjects would swim under an
"anxiety-condition." Rather, subjects were told that the
study involved swimming in the flume on two trials,
before which they would complete several self-report
questionnaires related to how they felt about swimming in
the flume. (It was only directly prior to each swim that


77
modifications were not expected to alter reliability or
validity of the instrument. The instrument was used to
assess state anxiety levels in a relatively anxiety-free
situation (i.e., baseline testing) and just prior to the
evaluative flume test.
State Anxiety Inventory (SAI; from the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory; Spielberger et al., 1970)
This 20-item self-report questionnaire assesses
state anxiety, and has been well established as a
research tool in the study of anxiety. It has excellent
construct validity and internal consistency, and is easy
to administer. In this study, only the 20-item state
anxiety component was administered since the SAS was used
for sport specific trait anxiety. Sport psychology
research with this instrument "has included
investigations of football, basketball, badminton,
racquetball and tennis players, swimmers, runners,
gymnasts, fencers, jugglers, and persons engaged in a
variety of physical activities, ranging from routine
exercise to climbing ladders, riding bicycles, and
performing on treadmills" (Spielberger, 1982, p. 10).
In the current study, this instrument was used to
provide additional data regarding state anxiety levels
under different evaluative conditions. It was also used
for a comparison with the CSAI-2, which provides three
separate components of competitive state anxiety (i.e.,
somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and self-confidence).


94
psychological questionnaires. However, two measures are
also significantly correlated with the swimmers' best
freestyle time (Competitive Self-Confidence, r=-.54,
p<.001; and State Anxiety, r=.42, pc.01). This suggests
that the better swimmers are more self-confident and less
anxious directly prior to the flume test. However, self-
confidence and state anxiety were not correlated with the
more immediate measure of freestyle swimming efficiency
in the flume (see Table 4).
Effects of Prior Flume Testing
Originally, the study was to include only subjects
who had never been tested in the flume before (NFlumed).
However, due to limited recruitment time, the actual
study included 13 swimmers who had been tested previously
at the flume (Flumed). Thus, it was important to examine
any differences between these two groups.
First, there were no significant differences between
Flumed (N=13) and NFlumed (N=20) subjects for age, skill
level, sport trait-anxiety, baseline resting heart rate,
or ratings of perceived exertion. However, a one-way
ANOVA showed that NFlumed subjects attributed
significantly more importance to the flume test than did
the Flumed subjects [F(1,32)=4.1, p=.05]. Next, a MANOVA
conducted on the four psychological variables at baseline
was not significant [F=2.57, p=.06] and therefore not
interpretable. However, exploratory analyses were


36
Arousal
While the concept of arousal is somewhat amorphous,
much attention has been focused on its relationship to
performance. Early hypotheses derived from drive theory
suggested that there was a positive, linear relationship
between arousal and performance (Hull, 1943; Spence,
1951) This view received little empirical support and
has principally been replaced by the inverted-U theory
which posits a curvilinear relationship between arousal
and performance. Increases in arousal are associated
with increases in performance to an optimal level, beyond
which decrements in performance ensue (Easterbrook, 1959;
Yerkes & Dodson, 1908).
The inverted-U concept has been based on the
relationship between arousal, task difficulty, and
performance. The hypothesis arose as a result of
research by Yerkes and Dodson (1908), who discovered that
mice learned to discriminate brightness more quickly with
increases in the strength of an electric shock, as long
as the discrimination task was relatively simple. As the
task became harder, the optimal shock level for learning
was progressively reduced. From this study arose the
Yerkes-Dodson law which can be expressed as follows:
(a) For any task there is an optimal level of
arousal such that performance is related to arousal
in the form of an inverted U.
(b) The optimum level of arousal is a
decreasing monotonic function of the difficulty
of the task. (Hockey, 1979, p. 143)


75
anxiety measures would relate more strongly to behavior
in the critical situations than would general
transituational anxiety" (p. 420). Therefore, the SAS
was chosen rather than Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Scale
(Spielberger et al., 1970), since the latter is a general
measure of trait anxiety and is thought to be less
predictive of trait anxiety in sport than the SAS.
The SAS was also chosen instead of the Sport
Competition Anxiety Test (SCAT; Martens, 1977) since the
latter only provides a unidimensional measure of sport-
specific trait anxiety (primarily somatic anxiety),
whereas the SAS provides a multidimensional measurement
of the construct (i.e., somatic anxiety, worry, and
concentration disruption, across competitive sport
situations). A multidimensional assessment is desirable
since "anxiety involves three separate and largely
independent cognitive, physiological, and behavioral
response dimensions.... [and] that these dimensions may
differentially affect behavior" (Smith & Smoll, 1990, p.
420). It was important to know which component of
anxiety, if either, would most affect swimmers in the
flume.
Finally, this scale was used to predict the
intensity of anxiety which may be experienced in the
flume across differing evaluative conditions (see
following measure). Spielberger (1972) writes that
"situation-specific trait anxiety measures are better


131
Venables, P. H. (1984). Arousal: An examination of its
status as a concept. In M. Coles, J. Jennings, & J.
Stern (Eds.), Psvchophvsiological perspectives:
Festschrift for Beatrice and John Lacev (pp. 134-
142). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Weinberg, R. S. (1978). The effects of success and
failure on the patterning of neuromuscular energy.
Journal of Motor Behavior. 10, 53-61.
Weinberg, R. S. (1990). Anxiety and motor performance:
Where to from here? Anxiety Research. 2, 227-242.
Weinberg, R. S., & Genuchi, M. (1980). Relationship
between competitive trait anxiety, state anxiety, and
golf performance: A field study. Journal of Sport
Psychology. 2, 148-154.
Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979).
Expectations and performance: An empirical test of
Bandura's self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport
Psychology. 1, 320-331.
Weinberg, R. S., & Hunt, V. V. (1976). The
interrelationships between anxiety, motor performance
and electromyography. Journal of Motor Behavior. 8,
219-224.
Welford, A. T. (1976). Skilled performance. Brighton,
England: Scott Foresman and Company.
Wilkinson, R. T. (1961). Interaction of lack of sleep
with knowledge of results, repeated testing and
individual differences. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. 62, 263-271.
Williams, J. M., Tonymon, P., & Andersen, M. B. (1991).
The effects of stressors and coping resources on
anxiety and peripheral narrowing. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology. 3, 126-141.
Wine, J. D. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of
attention. Psychological Bulletin. 76, 92-104.
Wine, J. D. (1980). Cognitive-attentional theory of test
anxiety. In I.G. Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiety:
Theory, research and applications (pp. 349-385).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of
strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation.
Journal of Comparative and Neurological Psychology.
18, 459-482.


110
instructional manipulation became increasingly anxiety-
producing. (2) The greatest performance decrements would
occur in those swimmers who demonstrated the greatest
increases in cognitive anxiety from baseline to evaluated
swims. (3) Cognitive anxiety would be more clearly related
to performance than would somatic anxiety.
Although none of these hypotheses could be tested
directly, the second one could be examined inversely. Here
the question might be stated as follows. Does a trend of
diminishing anxiety lead to better performances? The
findings indicated that there were non-significant increases
in propelling efficiency from baseline to the second swim
(before which the swimmers had reported less anxiety).
However, decreases in anxiety were not significantly related
to increases in propelling efficiency. Rather, it is
thought that these slight changes were a function of a
practice effect. That is, swimming in the flume once
facilitated a slightly more efficient swim during the second
trial.
The fourth hypothesis postulated that significant
decreases in propelling efficiency would most likely be due
to a significant decrement in the finish phase of the
stroke. However, since there were overall increases in the
propelling efficiency, this hypothesis was also untestable.
An interesting correlational finding was that of the
relationship between state anxiety, self-confidence and
skill level. Although these two psychological variables


33
anxiety, sexual excitement, fear or exhilaration (cf.
Apter, 1982). In an early paper discussing the nature
and measurement of anxiety, Cattell (1963) found that the
correlation between heart rate and anxiety is only a
moderately positive one, again suggesting a variable
relationship between arousal and anxiety. Zaichkowsky
and Takenaka (in press) suggest that although anxiety is
typically associated with an increase in arousal, the two
constructs are not the same. Drawing from the previous
discussion of the anxiety concept, it appears more useful
to discuss how the subcomponents of anxiety relate to
arousal rather than trying to establish a relationship
between the broad term anxiety and arousal. Clearly,
cognitive anxiety is unlikely to occur during a highly
arousing condition such as excitement, which is described
by Apter (1984) as a "paratelic state".
On the other hand, cognitive anxiety will likely
occur during what Apter terms a "telic state" (e.g., a
high arousal condition of fear). For example, two rock
climbers (or skydivers, or bull-riders) experience
heightened arousal related to the potential threat
(falling). One feels challenged by the climb and
experiences the situation in the paratelic mode (i.e.,
with excitement). The other, less confident athlete
experiences the situation in the telic mode (i.e., with
fear and anxiety). In both situations, the climbers will
likely experience increases in arousal and report somatic


89
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological and
Physiological Reactions to the Flume by Group
MEASURE
Low
GROUP
Moderate
High
State Anxiety
(SAI)
Pre
39.0
(7.6)
38.8
(12.5)
38.5
(7.0)
Post
31.2
(6.2)
37.6
(9.4)
36.8
(10.7)
Cognitive Anxiety (CSAI-Cog)
Pre
16.7
(3.9)
16.6
(5.9)
15.3
(2.9)
Post
13.6
(3.7)
14.8
(4.6)
15.9
(4.3)
Somatic Anxiety (CSAI
-Som)
Pre
16.2
(5.8)
17.5
(7.8)
17.4
(4.9)
Post
12.0
(2.2)
14.0
(4.1)
15.1
(6.5)
Self-Confidence (CSAI
-SC)
Pre
23.9
(5.3)
24.0
(6.1)
25.4
(4.1)
Post
27.7
(4.9)
26.5
(6.1)
25.9
(6.1)
Resting Heart
Rate (RHR)
Pre
76.3 (11.5)
69.3
(7.3)
79.6
(13.3)
Post
79.1
(6.4)
77.3
(15.1)
79.6
(13.1)
Ratings of Perceived
Exertion
(RPE)
Pre
11.2
(1.5)
11.2
(1.2)
10.9
(1.6)
Post
11.9
(1.8)
11.7
(2.2)
12.0
(1.6)


116
Given that the baseline swim appeared to buffer the
anxiety manipulations, it could be suggested to eliminate
the baseline swim and obtain a one-time measure. This had
been considered in the current study but was decided against
in that the investigator would have had to use imprecise
measures of propelling efficiency (e.g., best time) to match
subjects. Thus, one would have had to assume that
propelling efficiency was the same for certain subjects in
order to examine any effects of anxiety on efficiency. This
would prohibit the intraindividual analyses that several
sport psychology researchers have suggested are very
important (Burton, 1988; Gould & Krane, in press; Weinberg,
1990).
It has been suggested that task complexity is
determined by the perceived demands of a skill (Ebbeck &
Weiss, 1988). Thus, a potential modification of the current
study which could still utilize a baseline and test swim
might prove useful. In this case, prior to the second swim,
subjects in the high anxiety group could be instructed that
they would begin their swim at the same speed as the warm-up
baseline swim (80%), but that the speed would increase
shortly following the sound of a tone. "The speed will
increase until you are no longer able to keep up and your
feet touch the gate at the end of the flume. Your task will
be to try to avoid touching the gate for as long as
possible."


78
Correlations can be performed to determine which of these
components is most highly related to the overall state
anxiety from the SAI.
Ratings of Perceived Exertion scale (RPE; Borg, 1962)
This one-item scale quantifies an individual's
rating of exertion level from 6 (no exertion or "very,
very light") to 20 (maximal exertion or "very, very
hard"), and was used to assess a swimmer's perception of
exertion in the flume. This scale was developed by
Gunnar Borg, a psychologist who was interested in
relating sensations of effort to quantifiable physical
stimuli (Noble, 1986). Test-retest reliability is good,
with coefficients from .78 .99. The construct validity
has been established since RPE is essentially linearly
related to heart rate, oxygen consumption, and lactic
acid accumulation in most exercise tasks (Noble, 1986),
with correlations between exercise intensity and RPE
approximately .85 (Borg & Noble, 1974).
In the current study, the RPE was used to determine
the swimmers' perceptions of effort under two separate
swimming conditions (i.e., baseline and evaluated test).
Since the flume speed was identical under both conditions
for any one swimmer, any differences in RPE would be
important in understanding the effects of anxiety on
swimming performance and perceived exertion.


122
Duffy, E. (1957). The psychological significance of the
concept of "arousal" or "activation". Psychological
Review. 64, 265-275.
Duffy, E. (1962). Activation and behavior. New York:
Wiley.
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue
utilization and the organization of behavior.
Psychological Review. 66, 183-201.
Ebbeck, V., & Weiss, M. R. (1988). The arousal-
performance relationship: Task characteristics and
performance measures in track and field athletics.
The Sport Psychologist. 2, 13-27.
Eysenck, M. W. (1982). Attention and arousal: Cognition
and performance. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Eysenck, M. W. (1984). A handbook of cognitive
psychology. London: LEA publishers.
Fahrenberg, J., Walschburger, P., Foerster, F., Myrtek,
M., & Muller, W. (1983). An evaluation of state,
trait, and reaction aspects of activation processes.
Psychophysiology. 20. 188-194.
Feltz, D. L., Landers, D. M., & Raeder, U. (1979).
Enhancing self-efficacy in high-avoidance motor
tasks: A comparison of modeling technigues. Journal
of Sport Psychology. 1, 112-122.
Fenz, W. D. (1988). Learning to anticipate stressful
events. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology.
10, 223-228.
Frankl, V. E. (1969). The will to meaning: Foundations
and applications of logotherapy. New York: Plume.
Gerson, R., & Deshaies, P. (1978). Competitive trait
anxiety and performance as predictors of
precompetitive state anxiety. International Journal
of Sport Psychology. 9, 16-26.
Gould, D., & Krane, V. (in press). The arousal-athletic
performance relationship: Current status and future
directions. In T. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport
psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Gould, D., Petlichkoff, L., & Weinberg, R. S. (1984).
Antecedents of temporal changes in, and between,
CSAI-2 subcomponents. Journal of Sport Psychology.
6, 289-304.


5
competitive anxiety and sports performance. To date,
research in this area has been hampered by methodological
problems (e.g., Gould, Petlichkoff, Simons, & Vevera,
1987; McCauley, 1985), statistical problems (cf. Smith,
1989), the use of poor outcome measures (cf., Martens,
Vealey, & Burton, 1990) and definitional inconsistencies
(cf. Gould & Krane, in press; Weinberg, 1990). Clearly,
more methodologically sophisticated research in this area
is needed, as several current sources recommend (e.g.,
Gould & Krane, in press; Jones & Hardy, 1990; Martens,
Vealey, & Burton, 1990; Weinberg, 1990).
Some of the confusion in this area stems from
definitional problems. The terms anxiety, arousal,
somatic anxiety, and stress, for example, have often been
used interchangeably in the basic and applied research
literature (Gould & Krane, in press; Weinberg, 1990).
This has posed more than merely a semantic problem, in
that different constructs have been proposed to have
varying relationships to skilled motor performance. For
example, what is the difference between somatic anxiety
and arousal or between cognitive anxiety and arousal?
And, do they have different effects on sports
performance? Issues pertaining to the definition of
constructs such as anxiety and arousal will be addressed
in a later section.
Apart from strictly definitional problems, another
important issue has to do with the multidimensional


113
sports performance. Also, the sample that was tested in
this study was relatively small.
This study was also designed to examine the testing
procedures at United States Swimming to discern whether
information obtained on swimmers was affected by excessive
anxiety. Clearly, the analyses in this study did not
confirm any problems related to the assessment of swimming
with regards to anxiety. Indeed, the current findings
suggest that assessment in the flume is likely less anxiety-
producing than most competitive events. However, it was
demonstrated that swimmers new to the flume reported more
anxiety and less self-confidence than did those who had been
previously tested. Despite the fact that these variables
did not significantly predict stroke efficiency for those
swimmers who were more anxious when facing the flume
evaluation, there may have been other factors that were
affected (e.g., maximal oxygen uptake, catecholamines) and
which could be measured in subsequent investigations. Also,
the finding that a difference may exist in the manner in
which some swimmers approach their initial testing session
might be utilized by U.S. Swimming, if only to help
examiners be sensitive to some swimmers' uncomfortable
feelings in approaching the flume evaluation. Obviously,
however, based on the non-significant findings, the results
of the current study provide no basis for recommending
alterations of the testing protocol.


63
is likely due to the conceptual and methodological
problems that there is no consensus as to the nature of
the relationship of competitive anxiety to competitive
performance.
To recapitulate, it has been suggested that
competitive anxiety be recognized as having both state
and trait components, and both cognitive and somatic
components. It is accepted that state competitive
anxiety is more closely related to performance than is
trait competitive anxiety. However, beyond this obvious
conclusion, there is no definite evidence as to the
relationship among the rest of the factors. Depending on
the study, it has been suggested that cognitive anxiety
is more associated with sports performance than is
somatic anxiety (and vice-versa). It has been suggested
that the relationship between somatic (and/or cognitive)
anxiety and performance is of an inverted-U nature, is
negatively linear, or is irrelevant. In the next
section, this issue will addressed in demonstrating the
need for the current study.
Summary of Literature Review and Restatement
of Need for Current Study
Anxiety can be defined as the experience of
distressing thoughts (e.g., fear of evaluation, worry,
self-doubt) and usually physiological sensations (e.g.,
dry mouth, racing heart rate) which are induced in


44
performance at an individual level; that is, each athlete
has a particular arousal level where performance is
optimal, regardless of the absolute level which can be
low, medium, or high. This level has been declared the
"zone of optimal functioning" (ZOF). The ZOF theory is
generally endorsed by Jones and Hardy (1989) who suggest
that in explaining or predicting sport performance, one
should take into account the nature of the stressor, the
mental demands of the competitive task, and the
psychological characteristics of the athlete.
In two studies purporting to examine the ZOF theory,
Raglin and his associates (Raglin & Morgan, 1988; Raglin,
Wise, & Morgan, 1990) demonstrated that swimmers reported
increased state anxiety (the authors' measure of arousal)
before competition, and significantly more anxiety prior
to a difficult meet as compared to an easy one.
Interestingly, swimmers who had the most successful
performances were best at predicting their pre-
competitive anxiety levels 24 to 48 hours in advance of
actual competition. The researchers conclude in support
for Hanin's ZOF theory and reject the inverted-U
hypothesis which they suggest does not take into account
individual differences. This is not an appropriate
conclusion because of their misinterpretation of the
inverted-U hypothesis. Raglin, Wise, and Morgan (1990)
state that "the inverted U-theory [sic] is the most well-
known theory of anxiety and sport performance, and this


129
Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., & Pierce, G. R. (1990).
Social support, personality, and performance.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 2, 117-127.
Scanlan, T. K. (1984). Competitive stress and the child
athlete. In J. Silva & R. Weinberg (Eds.),
Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 118-129).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Scanlan, T. K., Stein, G. L., & Ravizza, K. (1991). An
in-depth study of former elite figure skaters III:
Sources of stress. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology. 13. 103-120.
Schleihauf, R. E. (1979). A hydrodynamic analysis of
swimming propulsion. In J. Terauds & W. Bedingfield
(Eds.), Swimming III (pp. 70-109). Baltimore:
University Park Press.
Silva, J. M. (1992). On advancement: An editorial.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 4, 1-9.
Singer, R. N. (1989). Applied sport psychology in the
United States. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology.
1, 61-80.
Singer, R. N. (1992). What in the world is happening in
sport psychology? Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology. 4, 63-76.
Singer, R. N., Cauraugh, J. H., Tennant, L. K., Murphey,
M., Chen, D., & Lidor, R. (1991). Attention and
distractors: Considerations for enhancing sport
performances. International Journal of Sport
Psychology. 22., 95-114.
Singer, R. N., Flora, L. A., & Abourezk, T. L., (1989).
The effect of a five-step cognitive learning strategy
on the acguisition of a complex motor task. Journal
of Applied Sport Psychology. 1, 98-108.
Smith, R. E. (1989). Conceptual and statistical issues
in research involving multidimensional anxiety
scales. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology.
11. 452-457.
Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1990). Sport performance
anxiety. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social
and evaluation anxiety (417-454). New York: Plenum
Press.


RESULTS
The primary purpose of the analyses was to determine
the effects of different imposed degrees of anxiety on
performance as well as the nature of the relationship
among the various measures of anxiety, physiological
arousal, and the sport performance outcome measure (i.e.,
freestyle swimming efficiency). In all analyses, an
alpha level of .05 was set as the criterion for
determining statistical significance. All significance
tests were examined using a conservative two-tailed
approach, despite having directional predictions. This
offset slightly the less conservative approach of
utilizing the alpha level of .05 in multiple analyses.
Subjects
As mentioned in the methodology section, swimmers
were assigned to one of three groups to ensure that each
group would have a subject composition that was
equivalent on trait anxiety in sport (Sport Anxiety Scale
scores), skill level (best freestyle time), and age.
This procedure was followed (instead of utilizing
randomization for subject assignment) due to the small
subject sample size and in order to increase the power of
statistical analyses by eliminating the need for
85


71
Measures
This section contains descriptions of swimming
performance variables, physiological indices, and
psychological measures.
Performance and Physiological Indices
Flume evaluation
Each swimmer was instructed to swim freestyle in the
flume, during which time they were videotaped in order to
assess swimming efficiency. Analyzing the arm stroke is
vital to evaluating the swimmer's technique. Reilly,
Kame, Termin, Tendesco, and Pendergast (1990) describe
the basic mechanics of swimming as follows:
In swimming, a propulsive force equal to or greater
than the water resistance (body drag) must be
generated by the swimmer to maintain a constant
speed or to accelerate . The propulsive force
is provided by a combination of arm stroke and leg
kick, although it would appear that the arm stroke
is more important than the leg kick in freestyle
swimming. (Reilly et al., 1990, p. 19)
Subjects were filmed with two genlocked video
cameras in underwater housings (Pulnix 740 cameras, 60
Hz.) These cameras provided videotape to be digitized
for hydrodynamic biomechanical analysis. For digitizing,
one representative armstroke was chosen for analysis.
According to standard protocol of the flume, the
representative armstroke to be digitized for the
biomechanical analysis was approximately five strokes
from the end of the swim. Frames in each camera were
synchronized using the right arm entry. The following


132
Zaichkowsky, L. D., & Takenaka, K.
Optimizing arousal levels. In
Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.)
in sport psychology. New York:
(in press).
R. N. Singer, M.
, Handbook on research
Macmillan.


49
inverted-U function could describe the relationship
between competitive A-trait and basketball performance on
an intraindividual basis. In a similar study utilizing
golfers, Weinberg and Genuchi (1980) found that the
athletes lowest in competitive trait anxiety performed
better than moderate and high competitive A-trait golfers
(although there was no difference in performance between
the latter two groups). Also, competitive A-state was a
better predictor of performance than was competitive A-
trait.
Investigators have increasingly focused on the
effects of competitive state anxiety on performance.
Smith and Smoll (1990) assert that competitive state
anxiety is moderated by three factors. First is the
nature of the sporting situation in which the athlete is
competing (e.g., strength of opponents, significance of
the event, presence of spectators or significant others,
and social support from coaches or teammates). Second is
the magnitude of the athlete's competitive trait anxiety.
Third are the "psychological defenses that the athlete
may have developed to cope with anxiety-arousing
competitive situations" (p. 421). Furthermore, these
three factors are assumed to jointly influence the
athlete's appraisal processes. These processes include:
Appraisal of the situational demands; appraisal of
the resources available to deal with them; appraisal
of the nature and likelihood of the potential
consequences if the demands are not met (that is,
the expectancies and valances [sic] relating to


2
programs are integrated within an overall sports science
program (Gould, Tammen, Murphy, & May, 1989). Silva
(1992) writes that there has been "meteoric growth of the
professionalization of sport psychology" (p. 2), within
collegiate, professional, and Olympic sports. According
to Singer (1992), sport psychology is emerging at a swift
rate all around the world, with interventions and
instructional programs being offered by sport
psychologists to athletes and coaches in increasing
numbers. Others concur that the growth of sport
psychology has been substantial in the last decade, but
express concern about what they see as a lack of identity
in the field (Rejeski & Brawley, 1988).
There has also been an increase in sport psychology
research. This can be partially attributed to a growing
recognition that an understanding of relevant
psychological factors is essential to bringing about
improved sports performance. Research in this area has
included the analysis of attentional factors (e.g.,
Singer et al., 1991), burnout (e.g., Dale & Weinberg,
1990), developmental issues (e.g., Brodkin & Weiss,
1990), gender issues (e.g., Allison, 1991), goals (e.g.,
Lewthwaite, 1990), imagery (e.g., Rodgers, Hall, &
Buckholz, 1991), injury (e.g., Brewer, Van Raalte, &
Linder, 1991), mental errors (e.g., Bird & Horn, 1990),
motivation (e.g., Davis, 1991), self-confidence and
efficacy (e.g., Martin & Gill, 1991), skill acquisition


69
the swimmer received any instructions regarding
performance expectations and conditions {see methodology
section}.)
After obtaining consent, the Sport Anxiety Scale
(SAS; Smith, Smoll, & Schtz, 1990), which assesses the
tendency to experience anxiety within competitive sport
situations, was administered. Each swimmers7 best 100 yd
freestyle time over the past season (by self-report and
cross validation with the swimmer's coach) was also
recorded.
(2) Subjects were assigned to one of three groups and
were equivalent on scores of the SAS, age, and best
freestyle time (see Table 1, p. 88).
Flume Testing Procedures
(3) Two psychological questionnaires were administered:
the State component of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
(SAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) which
measures transitory emotional responses to a specific
situation, and the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory
(CSAI-2; Martens, Burton, et al., 1990) which measures
cognitive and somatic components of sport-specific state
anxiety, as well as self-confidence. Also, a one-item
Likert scale regarding the perceived importance of the
pending flume test was administered (i.e., "How important
to you is the upcoming flume evaluation on a scale of 1
to 10 [very important]?").
(4) Resting heart rate (RHR) was taken.


127
Morris, L., Davis, D., & Hutchings, C. (1981). Cognitive
and emotional components of anxiety: Literature
review and revised worry-emotionality scale. Journal
of Educational Psychology. 73. 541-555.
Morris, L., Harris, E. W., & Rovins, D. S. (1981).
Interactive effects of generalized and situational
expectancies on cognitive and emotional components of
social anxiety. Journal of Research in Personality.
15, 302-311.
Morris, L., Smith, L. R., Andrews, E. S., & Morris, N. C.
(1975). The relationship of emotionality and worry
components of anxiety to motor skills performance.
Journal of Motor Behavior. 7, 121-130.
Murphy, S. M. (1988). The on-site provision of sport
psychology services at the 1987 U.S. Olympic
Festival. The Sport Psychologist. 2, 337-350.
Murphy, S. M., & Woolfolk, R. L. (1987). The effects of
cognitive interventions on competitive anxiety and
performance on a fine motor skill accuracy task.
International Journal of Psychology. 18, 152-166.
Neiss, R. (1988a). Reconceptualizing arousal:
Psychobiological states in motor performance.
Psychological Bulletin. 103. 345-366.
Neiss, R. (1988b). Reconceptualizing relaxation
treatments: Psychobiological states in sports.
Clinical Psychology Review. 8, 139-159.
Neiss, R. (1990). Ending arousal's reign of error: A
reply to Anderson. Psychological Bulletin. 107,
101-105.
Noble, B. J. (1986). Physiology of exercise and sport.
St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing.
Ogilvie, B. C., Haase, H., Jokl, E., Krandiotis, D. T.,
Mahoney, M., & Nideffer, R. (1979). Critical issues
in the application of clinical psychology in the
sport setting. International Journal of Sport
Psychology. 10, 178-183.
Oxendine, J. B. (1970). Emotional arousal and motor
performance. Quest. 13, 23-32.
Oxendine, J. B. (1980). Emotional arousal and motor
performance. In R. Suinn (Ed.), Psychology in
sports: Methods and applications (pp. 103-111).
Minneapolis: Burgess.


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA