The role of trait emotional intelligence in emotion regulation and performance under pressure

Personality and Individual Differences 57 (2014) 43–47

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The role of trait emotional intelligence in emotion regulation and performance under pressure Sylvain Laborde a,b,⇑, Franziska Lautenbach a, Mark S. Allen c, Cornelia Herbert a, Silvia Achtzehn d a

Institute of Psychology, Department of Performance Psychology, German Sport University, Cologne, Germany UFR STAPS, EA 4260, University of Caen, France c Department of Applied Science, London South Bank University, London, UK d Institute of Training Science and Sport Informatics, German Sport University, Cologne, Germany b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 25 June 2013 Received in revised form 2 September 2013 Accepted 9 September 2013 Available online 5 October 2013 Keywords: Tennis Sport Hormones Coping Anxiety Emotion Stress Trait and state

a b s t r a c t This study explored the role of trait emotional intelligence (EI) in emotion regulation and performance under pressure. Twenty-eight tennis players performed two series of 35 serves, separated by a pressure manipulation. Reaction to pressure was assessed using both subjective (self-report emotion questionnaire) and objective (cortisol secretion, tennis serve success) measures. The pressure manipulation was successful with observed increases in anxiety and decreases in self-confidence and tennis serve performance. Trait EI was found to predict cortisol secretion over state emotion measures. Performance under pressure was predicted by self-confidence and cortisol secretion, but not by trait EI. These findings provide some preliminary evidence that trait EI and cortisol secretion are important in athlete responses to pressure situations. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Personality-trait-like individual differences have an important role in human performance under pressure (Allen, Greenlees, & Jones, 2011, 2013; Laborde, Breuer-Weissborn, & Dosseville, in press). However, whether individual differences contribute to performance directly, or rather act on other mechanisms such as emotion regulation, has received little empirical attention. In this study, we explore the role of trait emotional intelligence (EI) in emotion regulation and performance under pressure. Competitive pressure can lead to different emotional responses amongst which anxiety is often considered the most relevant, with stress forming part of anxiety according to the view of Lazarus (2000). Emotion regulation is the automatic or controlled use of strategies to initiate, display, maintain, or modify emotions (Gross & Thompson, 2007). We view here emotion regulation as encompassing stress regulation, again according to Lazarus’ (2000) view. Trait EI is defined as a constellation of emotional self-perceptions situated at the lower levels of personality hierarchies (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007). It is now well established that ⇑ Corresponding author at: Institute of Psychology, Department of Performance Psychology, German Sport University, Cologne, Germany. Tel.: +49 221 49 82 56 90. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Laborde). 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.09.013

trait EI has a positive effect on emotion regulation (e.g., Kotsou, Nelis, Grégoire, & Mikolajczak, 2011; Laborde, Brüll, Weber, & Anders, 2011; Mikolajczak, Roy, Luminet, Fillée, & de Timary, 2007). Much of the research on trait EI and emotion regulation has used self-report measures (e.g., Mikolajczak, Menil, & Luminet, 2007) and are therefore susceptible to what Mikolajczak, Roy, et al. (2007) have termed the ‘‘response bias pathway’’ (i.e., self-report measures associated with other self-report measures). Nevertheless, subsequent efforts have extended this research to include biological markers such as cortisol secretion (Kotsou et al., 2011; Mikolajczak, Roy, et al., 2007) and heart rate variability (Laborde et al., 2011). In particular, trait EI has been linked to a lower baseline in cortisol response prior to a stressful event (Mikolajczak, Roy, et al., 2007) and a lower increase of the LF/HF ratio of heart rate variability during a stressful event (Laborde et al., 2011). These two biological parameters reflect the activity of two systems that work in parallel when an individual is facing stress: the sympathetic-adrenomedullary system (SAS) and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis (HPA) (Laborde et al., 2011; Mikolajczak, Roy, et al., 2007). Although both systems work in parallel, their temporal patterning is different such that the effects of the SAS system are much faster than those of the HPA system (neural vs. endocrine). In the current research, we focus on the HPA system in part to avoid the aforementioned ‘‘response pathway bias’’,

44

S. Laborde et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 57 (2014) 43–47

taking salivary cortisol as our emotion regulation marker. An effective emotion regulation is reflected in a lower increase of cortisol secretion when an individual is facing pressure (de Veld, RiksenWalraven, & de Weerth, 2012). Recent studies have successfully extended the research on trait EI to include biological markers related to emotion regulation (Laborde et al., 2011; Mikolajczak, Roy, et al., 2007). However, so far they have not considered whether trait EI explains unique variance in the emotional biological parameters under study, in comparison to an emotional state that an individual is currently experiencing (i.e., state emotion). Thereby, they did not explore whether the biological parameters that are associated with emotion regulation reflect an underlying disposition of the individual or a situation specific response to current competitive pressure. Clarifying this ambiguity is important, not only for theoretical advancement in the field of individual differences, but because uncovering the respective contribution of trait and state emotions in pressure situations would provide clinical practitioners with valuable information on human behavior in such contexts (Laborde, Raab, & Dosseville, in press). It has been shown previously that trait EI predicts cortisol secretion over other trait measures (Mikolajczak, Roy, et al. (2007) and that state emotions relate to cortisol secretion before a stressful event (Filaire, Alix, Ferrand, & Verger, 2009). However, the role of trait EI alongside state emotions has yet to be explored. To understand whether one or two separate processes are at work, this study sought to explore the independent and interrelated variance of trait EI and state emotions on cortisol secretion in a pressure situation. A second aim of this study was to explore the contribution of trait EI to athletic success in an ecologically valid performance environment. To date, research exploring trait EI and biological markers of emotion regulation (Laborde et al., 2011; Mikolajczak, Roy, et al., 2007) have not included a performance measure related to the stressful task. Trait EI has an important role in long-term achievement (e.g., Agnoli et al., 2012; Petrides, Niven, & Mouskounti, 2006; Sanchez-Ruiz, Mavroveli, & Poullis, 2013) but the contribution of trait EI to short-term performance under pressure has rarely been explored (Laborde, Dosseville, & Scelles, 2010). There is evidence that trait EI is important for ballet dancing ability and length of musical training (Petrides et al., 2006) as well as to academic performance (Sanchez-Ruiz et al., 2013) in combination with cognitive ability (Agnoli et al., 2012). These effects are generally explained by a higher ability to motivate oneself toward a long-term goal and to the daily effect of adaptive emotion regulation strategies. To the best of our knowledge, only one study explored the contribution of trait EI to short-term performance under pressure (Laborde et al., 2010). In this study, undergraduate students watched a videotaped lecture and were required to answer a number of questions related to the content of that lecture. Findings showed that trait EI was positively associated with performance scores obtained by the students and that trait EI had a protective role regarding negative affect experienced during the task. Explanations put forward to describe this effect, in addition to the regulation of negative affect, was that trait EI promotes the use of more adaptive coping strategies (Laborde, You, Dosseville, & Salinas, 2012) and that students appraised the stressful task as a challenge rather than a threat (Mikolajczak & Luminet, 2008). In addition to the potential contribution of trait EI to short-term performance, the current study also considers the relative contribution of state emotions and cortisol secretion to performance under pressure. There is good evidence that competition emotions contribute to athletic performance (Laborde, Raab, et al., in press) and anxiety is often considered the most influential emotion (Craft, Magyar, Becker, & Feltz, 2003). There is also some emerging evidence that high cortisol levels are related to poor performance in athletic tasks (Doan, Newton, Kraemer, Kwon, & Scheet, 2007).

The current study aimed to build on this research by considering the contribution of trait EI, state emotions and cortisol secretion to performance in a high pressure situation. Pressure manipulation is an important component of the current study. In the past, cortisol secretion has been assessed in the context of a real competition that, although having the advantage of greater ecological validity, makes it difficult to capture emotional and physiological responses that are exclusive to competitive pressure (e.g., Filaire et al., 2009; Suay et al., 1999). In the current study, we use a standardized pressure induction – namely the second part of the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST; Kirschbaum, Pirke, & Hellhammer, 1993) – to generate a pressure environment. The second part of the TSST is a mental arithmetic task that has been shown to increase cortisol secretion (Laessle & Hansen-Spinger, 2010). In short, this study explores the independent and interrelated variance of trait EI and state emotions (cognitive and somatic anxiety) on a biological marker of emotion regulation (cortisol secretion) during a pressure situation. The study also explores the contribution of trait EI, state emotions, and cortisol secretion to athletes’ performance under pressure (changes in performance following a pressure manipulation). It was hypothesized that both trait EI and state emotions would predict cortisol secretion during the pressure situation. However, no specific hypotheses were made regarding independent or shared variance. It was also hypothesized that trait EI, state emotions and cortisol secretion would predict athletic performance under pressure. However, as individual differences tend to have long-term rather than short-term effects (for a review, see Laborde, Breuer-Weissborn, et al., in press) it was expected that state emotions and cortisol secretion would be most strongly related to performance under pressure. 2. Methods 2.1. Participants Twenty-eight near-expert tennis players (13 females, mean age = 23.88 years, range = 16–36 years) took part in the experiment. They had been involved in tennis practice since a mean of 16.69 years (SD = 5.82) and were training a mean of 4.00 h per week (SD = 2.10). The participants were all non-smokers and had no history of endocrine disorders. There was also no reported drug abuse and the participants were not on any medication. In addition, the participants were not familiar with the TSST (see Section 2.2.5). 2.2. Materials 2.2.1. CSAI-2 To measure changes in anxiety, we used the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2; Martens, Vealey, Burton, Bump, & Smith, 1990). For this measure, participants are required to answer 12 questions that assess three anxiety components: somatic anxiety (e.g., ‘‘at this moment, my body feels tense.’’), self-confidence (e.g., ‘‘at this moment, I’m confident I can meet the challenge.’’), and cognitive anxiety (e.g., ‘‘at this moment, I am concerned about choking under pressure.’’). Each question is rated on a four-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Reliability coefficients for the three subscales ranged from .79 to .82. 2.2.2. TEIQue The German version of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue; Freudenthaler, Neubauer, Gabler, Scherl, & Rindermann, 2008) was used to measure trait EI. This questionnaire comprises 153 items, 15 subscales, four factors (well-being,

45

S. Laborde et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 57 (2014) 43–47

self-control, emotionality, sociability) and a global trait EI score. Participants were required to respond to each of the items on a seven-point scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). Sample items are: ‘‘I know how to snap out of my negative moods’’ and ‘‘I would describe myself as a calm person’’. Reliability coefficients for the four factors ranged from .71 to .79, and for the 15 subscales from .68 to .81.

variable by subtracting the pre-task score from the post-task score. For performance under pressure, we computed a performance change score calculated as the difference between the number of errors in the pre-task phase and the number of errors in the post-task phase.

2.2.3. Cortisol measurement Cortisol was measured six times via saliva (Kirschbaum & Hellhammer, 2000). Participants were required to spit into a plastic tube with the aid of a straw. They were admonished not to drink (except water), to eat or to brush their teeth, 1 h prior to the experiment. Saliva samples were stored at 80 °C until they were analyzed using a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit (Salivary Cortisol ELISA, SLV-2930, DRG Instruments GmbH, Germany) with a sensitivity of 0.537 ng/ml (nanograms per milliliter), inter-assay variation of 7.47% (M = 24.29 ng/ml) and intra-assay variation of 1.80% (M = 12.79 ng/ml). Cortisol data is reported in nmol/l exclusively.

All data distributions appeared normal with no obvious outliers. Descriptive data are reported in Table 1 and a correlation matrix featuring all study variables can be found in Table 2.

2.2.4. Tennis serving task For the serving task, participants were instructed to perform 35 well-aimed second serves as they would in a competition. In competitive tennis the second serve is generally performed with less power and greater accuracy than the first serve. Participants served from the deuce court (i.e., right side). The performance measure was taken as the number of faults (errors) performed by the tennis players over the 35 serves. 2.2.5. Second part of Trier Social Stress Test The second part of the Trier Social Stress Test consists of a mental arithmetic task and has been shown to induce stress as well as increase cortisol levels (Laessle & Hansen-Spinger, 2010). 2.3. Protocol The athletes were welcomed onto the tennis court where they signed an informed consent form prior to data collection. The first saliva sample (T 15) was collected approximately seven minutes into the experiment and the first 35 s serves were then performed. After the 35 s serves, and two minutes before the second part of the TSST, the second saliva sample (T 2) was collected. This was followed by the request of the first experimenter for the participants to go to an off-court setting that was unknown to them. A second experimenter dressed in a white lab coat awaited the participants while preparing a camera and a voice recorder. The first experimenter explained the task and left. Four minutes later the first experimenter returned and took the participant back to the oncourt setting where the third saliva sample was collected and the CSAI-2 was completed 2 min after the TSST (T +2). Participants then completed another 35 s serves. The next saliva samples were collected during the resting phase of the experiment at 12 min (T +12), 17 min (T +17), and 32 min (T +32) after the end of the second part of the TSST. The TEIQue was completed online after the field experiment. 2.4. Data preparation Regarding cortisol measurement, we computed a baseline estimate taking the mean of T 15 and T 2. Then, the area under the curve with respect to the ground (AUCG) was calculated regarding each measurement point (T +2, T +12, T +17, and T +32). The AUCG were then summed to provide an overall index of cortisol response to the pressure manipulation (similar to Mikolajczak, Roy, et al., 2007). For the CSAI-2 subscales, we computed an emotion change

3. Results

3.1. Manipulation check A repeated-measures MANOVA showed a main effect of time (pre vs. post) on CSAI-2 scores, F(3, 25) = 12.083, p < .001, Wilks’ k = .408, g2 = .59. A significant effect was found for somatic anxiety (Greenhouse–Geisser F(1, 27) = 34.603, p < .001, g2 = .56), for cognitive anxiety (Greenhouse–Geisser F(1, 27) = 10.365, p = .003, g2 = .28), and for self-confidence (Greenhouse–Geisser F(1, 27) = 8.643, p = .037, g2 = .15). The direction of these changes was such that cognitive and somatic anxiety increased, and self-confidence decreased, from pre- to post-(TSST) task. 3.2. Performance under pressure A paired samples t-test showed that the number of errors (faults) increased significantly from pre-task (M = 9.00, SD = 4.71) to post-task (M = 10.29, SD = 4.49), t(27) = 2.129, p = .043, d = 0.56. 3.3. Trait EI and state anxiety on cortisol secretion Table 2 shows that cortisol at baseline was unrelated to other variables. Overall cortisol secretion was correlated with age (r = .44, p = .021), with trait EI_well-being (r = .57, p = .002), trait EI_emotionality (r = .43, p = .022), trait EI_sociability (r = .47, p = .001), and the composite trait EI score (r = .59, p = .001). Our purpose here was to explore the shared and independent variance of trait EI and state emotions on cortisol secretion. To this purpose, we ran a multiple sequential regression analysis, entering in a stepwise fashion age as a control variable at Step 1, the three CSAI-2 subscales at Step 2, and trait EI at Step 3, with overall

Table 1 Descriptive statistics.

Age Performance errors pre stress Performance errors post stress CSAI-2 somatic anxiety pre-task CSAI-2 somatic anxiety post-task CSAI-2 cognitive anxiety pre-task CSAI-2 cognitive anxiety post-task CSAI-2 self-confidence pre-task CSAI-2 self-confidence post-task Cortisol baseline (nmol/l) Cortisol at T +2 (nmol/l) Cortisol at T +12 (nmol/l) Cortisol at T +17 (nmol/l) Cortisol at T +32 (nmol/l) Trait EI–well-being Trait EI–self-control Trait EI–emotionality Trait EI–sociability Trait EI–global score

Mean

Std. deviation

23.79 9.00 10.29 5.11 7.54 5.46 6.89 11.46 10.68 10.33 10.36 10.58 10.95 10.69 5.64 4.57 5.07 5.07 5.03

4.87 4.71 4.50 1.06 2.74 1.35 2.49 1.99 2.99 3.99 3.74 4.83 5.32 5.04 0.79 0.49 0.60 0.60 0.48

Note: CSAI-2: Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2; EI: emotional intelligence.

46

S. Laborde et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 57 (2014) 43–47

Table 2 Correlations for all measured variables. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Age Performance errors CSAI-2 somatic anxiety CSAI-2 cognitive anxiety CSAI-2 self confidence Cortisol baseline Cortisol AUCG baseline/T +2 Cortisol AUCG T +2/T +12 Cortisol AUCG T +12/T +17 Cortisol AUCG T +17/T +32 AUCG sum Trait EI–well-being Trait EI–self-control Trait EI–emotionality Trait EI–sociability Trait EI–global score

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

– .55** .84**

– .75**

–

– .28 .16 .02 .01 .21 .30 .39* .46* .46* .44* .00 .00 .10 .16 .02

– .38* .19 .47* .05 .23 .44* .54** .65** .53** .21 .15 .31 .30 .25

– .41* .49** .09 .05 .21 .21 .29 .22 .35 .39* .36 .00 .36

– .76** .22 .02 .15 .19 .17 .14 .34 .23 .32 .19 .32

– .13 .08 .31 .33 .33 .29 .41* .01 .27 .32 .33

– .89** .63** .49** .45* .61** .26 .12 .22 .08 .28

– .89** .77** .71** .86** .49** .14 .33 .29 .47*

– .96** .90** .98** .60** .15 .39* .43* .57**

– .96** .98** .56** .17 .44* .49** .59**

– .96** .52** .19 .45* .52** .59**

– .57** .17 .43* .47* .59**

– .25 .60** .65** .88**

– .32 .03 .45*

Note: EI: emotional intelligence; CSAI-2: Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2; AUCG: area under the curve with respect to the ground. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

cortisol set as the dependent variable. A significant effect was found for age at Step 1 (R2adj = .16, p = .021) with no significant effects shown at Step 2 (DR2adj = .03, p > .05). At Step 3, trait EI predicted overall cortisol secretion over the variance explained by age and anxiety components (R2adj = .47, DR2adj = .28, p = .002). When we re-ran the analysis with age at Step 1, trait EI entered at Step 2 and CSAI-2 subscales entered at Step 3, the state emotion subscales did not explain additional variance over that explained by trait EI. 3.4. Prediction of performance under pressure Table 2 shows that trait EI was unrelated to second serve performance. Second serve performance did however show meaningful correlations with somatic anxiety (r = .38, p = .046), selfconfidence (r = .47, p = .012), and overall cortisol (r = .53, p = .004). To further explore these effects, we ran a stepwise regression analysis, with trait EI, CSAI-2 subscales, and overall cortisol entered as predictors. The stepwise regression retained overall cortisol secretion and self-confidence as significant predictors of tennis serve performance, accounting for 34% of the residual variance (p = .002). 4. Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the independent and interrelated contribution of trait EI and state emotions to a biological marker of emotion regulation (cortisol secretion). We also sought to examine the contribution of trait EI, state anxiety and cortisol secretion to performance under pressure. The pressure manipulation was successful with participants showing greater levels of anxiety and a greater number of serving errors (faults) in the post-test compared to the pre-test. To the best of our knowledge this is the first time that the second part of the TSST has been linked to a decrease in physical, rather than cognitive, performance. The first aim of this research was to determine the relative contribution of trait EI, in comparison to state emotions (anxiety), in predicting cortisol secretion variance. To date, these two potentially interrelated factors have only been considered independently (Filaire et al., 2009; Mikolajczak, Roy, et al., 2007). Our analysis was exploratory in the sense that it tested both parameters concurrently in a sequential regression. We found that trait EI predicted overall cortisol secretion (contributing 28 percent explained

variance) but CSAI-2 subscales did not. This finding highlights the importance of personality-trait-like individual differences in emotion regulation. We can therefore conclude that trait EI has an important role in human behavior in pressure situations as trait EI can explain variance in emotion regulation beyond that explained by current competitive emotions. The second purpose of this study was to understand the role of state emotions, cortisol secretion and trait EI in predicting performance under pressure. We found that a model combining overall cortisol and self-confidence, but not trait EI, predicted performance under pressure (contributing 34% explained variance). This finding indicates that performance under pressure is best understood by considering what the individual is currently experiencing at the subjective and hormonal levels. It seems that a high level of cortisol can be detrimental to sport performance (Doan et al., 2007) and a high level of self-confidence can be beneficial to sport performance (for a meta-analysis, see Craft et al., 2003). Our findings also align with recent suggestions (Allen et al., 2013; Laborde, BreuerWeissborn, et al., in press) that personality-trait-like individual differences have a greater role in long-term performance, or shortterm behaviors (e.g. coping, emotion regulation), than in shortterm performance under pressure. That trait EI was related to emotion regulation (cortisol secretion) and not performance under pressure seems to support this proposition. However, this finding does not support those of Laborde et al. (2010) who found a relationship between trait EI and short-term performance in a cognitive pressure situation. This difference might reflect the nature of the task used in the current study. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the contribution of trait EI to short-term physical performance under pressure. We recommend that research explore further the role of trait EI in performance under pressure in tasks of different nature. There are some potential limitations in our study that should be addressed in order to place the findings firmly in context. First, from a quantitative perspective, the relatively small sample size did not allow for the use of more complex statistical techniques, such as structural equation or mediation models, that may have better demonstrated the variance shared among study variables. The current sample size is justified by the demanding nature of the data collection and specialist population sampled. Second, as this study did not use a control group it is not possible to address cause and effect, and it is possible that the greater pressure observed in the post-task phase originated from sources other than the TSST. Third, the pressure was induced before the serving task and not simultaneously. Even though we used a manipulation

S. Laborde et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 57 (2014) 43–47

check to ensure that anxiety levels were higher when participants performed in the post-task phase, future research might look to include a pressure manipulation more relevant and concurrent with the task being performed. Finally, the state emotions assessed in the current study were limited to those included on the CSAI-2 – namely cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence. It is possible that other emotions (e.g. anger, excitement, dejection) also contribute to emotion regulation and possibly the variance explained by trait EI. We therefore recommend that future research examine a broader range of emotions when exploring the correlates of emotion regulation and performance under pressure. Despite these potential limitations, the findings of the current study may be of interest to those working in applied settings. In particular, practitioners should be mindful of both state emotions and trait dispositions when targeting emotion regulation and performance under pressure. EI is a trait-like construct and although trait-like constructs are more resistant to change they are known to change over the lifespan and to a greater extent in childhood (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006). Therefore, long-term interventions that target EI may be a useful approach to removing emotion regulation problems (Kotsou et al., 2011). To improve performance under pressure our study points towards stress and emotion management techniques that might target self-confidence and influence cortisol secretion. Cognitive restructuring interventions (e.g., positive self-talk, motivational general mastery imagery), for example, could help athletes improve their self-confidence in pressure situations (for an overview see Rumbold, Fletcher, & Daniels, 2012) and cognitive-behavioral stress management training could help to decrease cortisol reactivity (Gaab et al., 2003). 5. Conclusion In short, our study provides some preliminary evidence that trait EI can predict variance in a biological marker of emotion regulation (cortisol secretion), over the variance predicted by state measures of emotion, during a pressure situation. Our study also demonstrated that performance under pressure was best predicted by self-confidence and cortisol secretion, but was unrelated to trait EI. We recommend that future research extend these findings by exploring the role of other state emotions (e.g. anger), targeting different populations and contexts, and using experimental methods that quantify mediation effects. Acknowledgment This study was supported by the DFG (HE5880/3-1). References Agnoli, S., Mancini, G., Pozzoli, T., Baldaro, B., Russo, P. M., & Surcinelli, P. (2012). The interaction between emotional intelligence and cognitive ability in predicting scholastic performance in school-aged children. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 660–665. Allen, M. S., Greenlees, I., & Jones, M. V. (2011). An investigation of the five-factor model of personality and coping behaviour in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29, 841–850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.565064. Allen, M. S., Greenlees, I., & Jones, M. V. (2013). Personality in sport: A comprehensive review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6, 184–208. Craft, L. L., Magyar, T. M., Becker, B. J., & Feltz, D. L. (2003). The relationship between the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 and sport performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 44–65. de Veld, D. M. J., Riksen-Walraven, J. M., & de Weerth, C. (2012). The relation between emotion regulation strategies and physiological stress responses in middle childhood. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(8), 1309–1319. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.01.004. Doan, B. K., Newton, R. U., Kraemer, W. J., Kwon, Y.-H., & Scheet, T. P. (2007). Salivary cortisol, testosterone, and T/C ratio responses during a 36-hole golf competition. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 28, 470–479. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-924557.

47

Filaire, E., Alix, D., Ferrand, C., & Verger, M. (2009). Psychophysiological stress in tennis players during the first single match of a tournament. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34, 150–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen. 2008.08.022. Freudenthaler, H. H., Neubauer, A. C., Gabler, P., Scherl, W. G., & Rindermann, H. (2008). Testing and validating the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue) in a German-speaking sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 673–678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.014. Gaab, J., Blättler, N., Menzi, T., Pabst, B., Stoyer, S., & Ehlert, U. (2003). Randomized controlled evaluation of the effects of cognitive–behavioral stress management on cortisol responses to acute stress in healthy subjects. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 28, 767–779. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S03064530(02)00069-0. Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.). Handbook of emotion regulation (Vol. 3, pp. 3–24). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kirschbaum, C., & Hellhammer, D. H. (2000). Salivary cortisol. In G. Fink (Ed.), Encyclopedia of stress (pp. 379–383). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Kirschbaum, C., Pirke, K. M., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1993). The ‘Trier Social Stress Test’ – A tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology, 28, 76–81. Kotsou, I., Nelis, D., Grégoire, J., & Mikolajczak, M. (2011). Emotional plasticity: Conditions and effects of improving emotional competence in adulthood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 827–839. Laborde, S., Breuer-Weissborn, J., & Dosseville, F. (in press). Personality-Trait-Like Individual Differences in Athletes. In: Psychology of Sports and Exercise: New Research. New York, NY: Nova. Laborde, S., Brüll, A., Weber, J., & Anders, L. S. (2011). Trait emotional intelligence in sports: A protective role against stress through heart rate variability? Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 23–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2011.03.003. Laborde, S., Dosseville, F., & Scelles, N. (2010). Trait emotional intelligence and preference for intuition and deliberation: Respective influence on academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 784–788. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.031. Laborde, S., Raab, M., & Dosseville, F. (in press). Emotions and Performance: Valuable insights from the sports domain. In: Handbook of Psychology of Emotions: Recent Theoretical Perspectives and Novel Empirical Findings. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Nova. Laborde, S., You, M., Dosseville, F., & Salinas, A. (2012). Culture, individual differences, and situation: Influence on coping in French and Chinese table tennis players. European Journal of Sport Science, 12, 261–265. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/17461391.2011.566367. Laessle, R. G., & Hansen-Spinger, E. (2010). Stressinduzierte Herabsetzung der Aufmerksamkeit bei jungen Erwachsenen mit ADHS-ähnlicher Symptomatik. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 39, 213–216. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1026/1616-3443/a000046. Lazarus, R. S. (2000). How emotions influence performance in competitive sports. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 229–252. Martens, R., Vealey, R. S., Burton, D., Bump, L., & Smith, D. E. (1990). Development and validation of the Competitive Sports Anxiety Inventory-2. In R. Martens, R. S. Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive anxiety in sport (pp. 127–173). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Mikolajczak, M., & Luminet, O. (2008). Trait emotional intelligence and the cognitive appraisal of stressful events: An exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1445–1453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.12.012. Mikolajczak, M., Menil, C., & Luminet, O. (2007). Explaining the protective effect of trait emotional intelligence regarding occupational stress: Exploration of emotional labour processes. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1107–1117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.01.003. Mikolajczak, M., Roy, E., Luminet, O., Fillée, C., & de Timary, P. (2007). The moderating impact of emotional intelligence on free cortisol responses to stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32, 1000–1012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.psyneuen.2007.07.009. Petrides, K. V., Niven, L., & Mouskounti, T. (2006). The trait emotional intelligence of ballet dancers and musicians. Psicothema, 18, 101–107. Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 273–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712606X120618. Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1. Rumbold, J. L., Fletcher, D., & Daniels, K. (2012). A systematic review of stress management interventions with sport performers. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 1, 173–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026628. Sanchez-Ruiz, M.-J., Mavroveli, S., & Poullis, J. (2013). Trait emotional intelligence and its links to university performance: An examination. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 658–662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012. 11.013. Suay, F., Salvador, A., Gonzalez-Bono, E., Sanchis, C., Martinez, M., Martinez-Sanchis, S., & Montoro, J. B. (1999). Effects of competition and its outcome on serum testosterone, cortisol and prolactin. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 24, 551–566.