Drive theory suggests that as an individual’s arousal or state anxiety increases, performance also increases. The relationship is described as linear: more arousal is expected to produce better performance.
In practice, this assumption doesn’t always hold. If arousal becomes excessive, performance can decline due to overexcitement, poor decision-making, or loss of motor control.
A key aspect of drive theory is the dominant response concept: arousal tends to strengthen the response you’re most likely to produce.
For exam recall, it is important to distinguish between:
These distinctions matter because anxiety-management strategies should match the type of anxiety the athlete is experiencing.
Most athletic skills are extremely complex biomechanically, but the more performance-relevant form of complexity is often how much conscious decision-making the skill requires.
For example, running is complex in terms of motor control and functional anatomy, but skilled runners don’t need to consciously manage each movement. In fact, performance can become altered and inefficient if they overthink it, because conscious control can disrupt the neural sequences used to initiate and coordinate movement.
From an attentional standpoint, simple or well-learned skills are less affected by high levels of arousal because they involve fewer task-relevant cues to monitor. In these cases, the physiological arousal that accompanies emotional arousal may even be beneficial.
The situation is different for skills that demand significant conscious decision-making, such as a soccer goalie reading an opponent’s shot or a baseball catcher handling a bases-loaded pitch. In these cases, arousal must be kept relatively low to preserve a broad attentional focus and ensure recognition of all relevant cues. As arousal rises, attention narrows, which can hinder performance in decision-heavy or precision-based tasks.
Building on the basic relationship outlined in drive theory, Yerkes and Dodson proposed one of the major tenets of the arousal-performance relationship: the inverted-U theory. This theory states that arousal facilitates performance up to an optimal level, beyond which further increases in arousal are associated with reduced performance.
Most coaches and athletes accept this idea because it matches common experience: performance can suffer when you feel flat or under-aroused, and it can also suffer when you feel too “amped up” or “out of control.” The inverted-U concept helps explain why arousal affects performance and supports the goal of finding an appropriate arousal level for a given athlete and sport.
However, the generic curve has been criticized because it does not account for factors such as skill complexity, ability, experience, and task demands. In practice, the optimal arousal point shifts depending on these variables. Arousal generally enhances simple or well-learned tasks but can impair complex or novel skills at high levels, consistent with the dominant response concept.
Functioning theories of individual factors that affect optimal arousal for performance developed into the individual zones of optimal functioning theory. Dr. Hanin holds that different people, in different types of performances, perform best with very different levels of arousal.
This theory differs from the inverted-U hypothesis in two ways:
Further, Hanin proposed that there are positive and negative emotions (e.g., excited, nervous) that can generate enhanced performance, just as there are positive and negative emotions (e.g., comfortable, annoyed) that can debilitate performance.
This proposal matters because it recognizes that the same emotion can be helpful for one athlete but harmful for another.
In practice, athletes can reflect on the arousal and emotions associated with several past performances that differed in quality. They can then monitor emotions and arousal levels before an important match and make adjustments to increase the chances of falling into this individual ideal zone.
Catastrophe theory suggests that performance does not decline gradually when arousal becomes excessive. Instead, performance can drop suddenly and dramatically, especially when cognitive anxiety is also high.
Unlike the inverted-U theory, which assumes a gradual decrease in performance beyond the optimal level of arousal, catastrophe theory proposes that once arousal surpasses a critical threshold, performance deteriorates rapidly and is often difficult to reverse in the short term.
This phenomenon occurs because excessive arousal disrupts motor coordination and cognitive processing, making it difficult for an athlete to recover without deliberate relaxation and refocusing strategies.
Key implications of catastrophe theory include:
Catastrophe theory emphasizes the importance of mental preparation for preventing performance breakdowns and promoting consistency in competition.
Kerr’s reversal theory proposes that the effect of arousal and anxiety on performance depends on how the athlete interprets that arousal.
One athlete might interpret high arousal as excitement and a sign of readiness, while another athlete experiencing the same arousal level might interpret it as unpleasant and as evidence of low confidence.
This idea implies that athletes can sometimes “reverse” their interpretation of arousal. Instead of viewing high arousal as scary or worrisome, they may be able to reframe it as excitement and anticipation.
This theory emphasizes that interpretation matters, not just the amount of arousal. It also highlights that whether arousal and anxiety help or hurt performance can be influenced by the individual’s mindset and self-regulation strategies.
Sign up for free to take 5 quiz questions on this topic