BACKGROUND

Emotions are central to performance. They are complex mental states shaped by neurophysiological change affecting thought, feeling, and behaviour (Frijda, 1986). Athletes face stressors from daily life and competition; coping depends on environmental and dispositional factors (Bojkowski, 2014). State orientation relates to rumination, undermining action-readiness under pressure (Kröhler & Berti, 2019). Pre-start activity (e.g., warm-up, travel) elevates arousal as a natural psychophysiological activation (Gould & Krane, 1992).

Traditionally, arousal was treated mainly as intensity: low may reflect relaxation or disengagement, while high may reflect excitement, anxiety, or anger. Yet intensity alone is insufficient. Reversal theory (RT) stresses directional appraisal – whether symptoms are read as facilitative or debilitative (Apter, in: Borek-Chudek, 2019). Positively appraised, high-intensity states can mobilize attention, speed, decisiveness, and sport confidence (Hanton & Jones, 1999). Negatively appraised, they yield debilitative pre-competition anxiety and performance disruption (Jones & Swain, 1995; Borek-Chudek, 2019).

A related construct, fear of failure, includes worrying cognitions and avoidance of situations that may elicit shame after loss (Bartels & Magun-Jackson, 2009; Łuszczyńska, 2014). In the sport-anxiety tradition, competitive state anxiety (CSA) reflects situational negative emotion arising from subjective appraisal of stressors and demands (Baldock et al., 2020; Martens et al., 1990). Classic models distinguish trait versus state anxiety (Spielberger, 1966, in: Borek-Chudek, 2019): higher trait anxiety increases threat perception and state anxiety, hindering optimal skill use. Within the CSAI-2R/2D framework, competitive anxiety comprises cognitive (e.g., worry, fear of failure) and somatic components and separates intensity from direction – whether symptoms are interpreted as helping or hindering performance (Baldock et al., 2020; Borek-Chudek, 2019; Martens et al., 1990).

In parallel, Vealey’s (1986) sport-confidence (SC) model distinguishes trait SC, state SC, and competitive orientation. Trait SC reflects relatively stable beliefs about capacity to succeed; state SC varies with context. Team sports such as volleyball are well suited to study the interplay of confidence, emotion, and performance. Volleyball’s pace, scoring dynamics, and interdependence elicit strong emotions (Mroczkowska & Supiński, 2018) and demand advanced attentional control, spatial orientation, visuomotor coordination, and emotion regulation (Makurat, 2007). Supportive teams may reduce decision-related anxiety, yet positional roles differ in responsibility and agency.

PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE

RESULTS

Statistical analyses were conducted using a general linear model (GLM/ANCOVA) with Position (offensive players – outside and opposite hitters; defensive players – liberos/defensive OHs; setters; MBs) as a fixed factor and age, playing experience, and contract length as covariates. For each dependent variable (TSCI-PL trait sport-confidence; CSAI-2D cognitive anxiety intensity, somatic anxiety intensity, cognitive anxiety appraisal, and somatic anxiety appraisal), we report adjusted EMMeans (95% CIs), the main effect of Position (F, df, p), and partial η². Pairwise comparisons were Bonferroni-corrected. The analytic sample for GLM/ANCOVA was N = 78 (complete cases on covariates), whereas the correlation matrix used N = 79.

Following Neyman-Pearson principles, non-significant ANOVA tests for demographic variables were not interpreted as evidence of group equivalence; instead, all demographic indicators were retained as covariates. Assumptions of linearity, homogeneity of regression slopes, residual normality, and homoscedasticity were met.

Zero-order correlations (N = 79) are shown in Table 2. Trait sport-confidence correlated negatively with cognitive anxiety intensity (r ≈ −.33, p ≤ .01) and somatic anxiety intensity (r ≈ −.17, not significant [n.s.]), and positively with cognitive anxiety appraisal (r ≈ .24, p ≤ .05) and somatic anxiety appraisal (r ≈ .27, p ≤ .05). These associations indicate that athletes higher in trait sport-confidence report lower pre-competition anxiety intensity and interpret their symptoms more facilitatively.

Omnibus tests for Position are presented in Table 3A. Position was significantly associated with cognitive anxiety appraisal, somatic anxiety appraisal, and trait sport-confidence. For cognitive anxiety intensity, the Position effect approached statistical significance (p = .057). No significant Position effects were found for somatic anxiety intensity or the CSAI-2D self-confidence component.

Adjusted EMMeans (95% CI) and key Bonferroni-corrected pairwise differences are presented in Table 3B. MBs showed the lowest adjusted cognitive anxiety intensity relative to offensive players and setters (non-significant in both comparisons). For cognitive anxiety appraisal, MBs demonstrated the most facilitative evaluations, differing significantly from offensive players, while the comparison with setters did not reach statistical significance. They also showed more facilitative somatic anxiety appraisal than offensive players and setters. MBs further displayed the highest adjusted TSCI-PL scores, with non-significant differences relative to setters and offensive players. Taken together, these adjusted results indicate a comparatively more adaptive pre-competition profile among MBs.

Because age and playing experience were highly collinear, sensitivity models using only age + contract or experience + contract were estimated. Collinearity diagnostics indicated substantial multicollinearity between age and playing experience (tolerance = 0.04 for both variables; VIF = 25.13 and 25.16), while contract length was not collinear with the remaining covariates (tolerance = 0.78; VIF = 1.28). Accordingly, we interpret covariate-adjusted positional effects primarily via adjusted EMMeans and confirm the stability of conclusions in reduced-covariate sensitivity models (age + contract; experience + contract). The overall conclusions were unchanged, and Position effects for cognitive-anxiety outcomes were slightly stronger in the reduced-covariate models (e.g., cognitive-anxiety intensity: F(3, 72) ≈ 2.74, p ≈ .049; cognitive-anxiety appraisal: F(3, 72) ≈ 3.56, p ≈ .018). The three-covariate models remain primary; sensitivity outputs are available on request.

Discussion

Findings were aligned with the rationale. Personality-related differences have also been linked to athletes’ anxiety responses, with evidence that Big Five traits predict both state and trait anxiety in athletic samples under conditions of heightened stress (Üngür & Karagözoğlu, 2021). In addition, ruminative tendencies may mediate links between personality dispositions and adverse stress reactions, highlighting rumination as a plausible process variable in sport contexts (Ogińska-Bulik et al., 2023). Furthermore, generalized self-efficacy and dimensions of perfectionism are significantly associated with anxiety and depression, suggesting that dispositional factors may play an important role in shaping athletes’ emotional functioning (Kozłowska & Kuty-Pachecka, 2023). Consistent with H1-H3, trait sport-confidence was negatively related to cognitive anxiety intensity, showed a small negative association with somatic anxiety intensity, and showed small positive associations with directional appraisal of both components. This accords with ACT accounts linking state orientation to rumination and worry-focused pre-start cognition (Kröhler & Berti, 2019) and with reversal-theory and CSAI-2R/2D views that appraisal shapes emotional responses (Baldock et al., 2020; Borek-Chudek, 2019; Martens et al., 1990).

Regarding H4, SET showed a more adaptive unadjusted profile (lower cognitive anxiety intensity; more facilitative appraisal). After adjusting for age, playing experience, and contract length, MBs exhibited the most facilitative appraisals and the lowest cognitive anxiety intensity (n.s.), with the highest adjusted trait sport-confidence (n.s.). SET retained advantages over OHs/Opp and were broadly comparable to defensive players on selected indices (Tables 3A, 3B). Thus, while unadjusted results favoured SET, the adjusted pattern indicates MBs were more adaptive on appraisal-focused markers central to CSAI-2D and reversal theory.

We made no a priori predictions about positional differences in trait sport-confidence; these findings are therefore exploratory. Higher trait sport-confidence co-occurred with lower cognitive/somatic anxiety and more facilitative symptom interpretations. In adjusted analyses, this advantage was most apparent among MB (n.s.), which may reflect role-related characteristics, as outlined in the theoretical rationale.

Role-based explanations also clarify SET results. However, the translation of “high agency” into pre-start advantages appears context-dependent: SET showed more facilitative appraisal than OHs/Opp, while MBs showed higher appraisal scores than both once covariates were controlled. This suggests that perceived control may vary across roles in ways outlined in the theoretical rationale.

The study partly supports the hypotheses: self-confidence related negatively to cognitive and somatic anxiety and positively to appraisal. This mirrors prior work on positively appraised pre-competition emotions (Hanton & Jones, 1999; Martens et al., 1990). Our adjusted positional results refine this picture: how role demands shape appraisal (more than anxiety magnitude per se) differentiates readiness across positions.

The observed associations between trait sport confidence and anxiety intensity/appraisal are consistent with appraisal-based accounts emphasizing that symptom interpretation (facilitative versus debilitative) is central to pre-start emotional functioning. While ACT and PSI theory offer potentially relevant process explanations (Kuhl, 1994, 2000) linking affect to action control (e.g., rumination versus action readiness), these volitional constructs were not measured in the present study. Accordingly, any references to ACT/PSI mechanisms should be treated as hypothesis generating rather than as explanations supported by the current data.

The pattern is consistent with a task-focused coping orientation (Endler & Parker typology), i.e., addressing challenges directly and reappraising pre-start anxiety as mobilizing (Bojkowski, 2014). Within this lens, post-adjustment SET advantages over OHs/Opp and overall MB superiority may reflect role-linked schemas: central decision routines for SET and highly scripted, time-compressed reads for MBs.

The moderate association between self-confidence and pre-competition emotional intensity warrants further study and suggests additional factors at play. Future work should consider broader demographics (international versus national experience, starter versus reserve, court role). Contractual security may moderate confidence (Swainston et al., 2021). Crucially, future designs should treat “positional agency” as ecology-dependent (team systems; informational load), test whether facilitative appraisal mediates positional effects, and examine whether volitional orientation moderates benefits of decision-focused training – approaches with meta-analytic support in volleyball (Conejero Suárez et al., 2020).

With respect to positional differences, unadjusted data showed lower cognitive anxiety intensity and more facilitative appraisal for SET versus MB and OHs/Opp. These patterns may relate to differences in role responsibilities and perceived control; however, this interpretation remains speculative given the lack of direct measures. Our adjusted results suggest that these patterns may reflect role-related differences, as outlined in the theoretical rationale; however, this interpretation remains speculative.

An alternative account for positional patterns relates to selection and development processes, including early specialization and role assignment based on physical and technical characteristics (Coutinho et al., 2015; Tsoukos et al., 2019). These factors may influence how psychological profiles develop across positions; however, this interpretation requires longitudinal verification. The findings support the potential relevance of psychological skills training in volleyball, particularly approaches focusing on appraisal and perceived control. These implications remain conceptual and require verification using designs with direct measures.

Future studies should directly assess (a) action–state orientation using ACT instruments and PSI-based volitional indicators, plus sport-specific rumination (Kröhler & Berti, 2019), and (b) decision-making with validated paradigms (e.g., in-situ choice tasks, video-occlusion). Pre-registered, adequately powered designs can then test whether positional differences in cognitive-anxiety intensity and appraisal are mediated by volitional variables and whether action–state orientation moderates the benefits of decision-focused training (e.g., disproportionate gains for state-oriented athletes). Parallel work should model role ecology – serve-receive structures, blocking schemes, setter–MB tempo – to quantify how information structure shapes appraisal and confidence across positions.

CONCLUSIONS

The present findings highlight the central role of directional appraisal in shaping pre-competition emotions, consistent with reversal-theory accounts that emphasize the facilitative or debilitative interpretation of arousal (Apter, in: Borek-Chudek, 2019). Trait sport-confidence was closely linked with more adaptive appraisals of cognitive and somatic symptoms, in line with prior work on the relationship between confidence and emotion regulation (Hanton & Jones, 1999; Martens et al., 1990).

In this sample, covariate-adjusted analyses suggested that MBs showed relatively more facilitative cognitive and somatic appraisal patterns, while the effect on cognitive-anxiety intensity did not reach the level of significance. Because no objective performance outcomes were included, we avoid labelling any positional profile as globally “most adaptive”; rather, the present data indicate position-related differences in appraisal that warrant replication in larger samples and designs incorporating performance indicators. The lower cognitive-anxiety intensity and higher adjusted sport-confidence scores (although not significant) observed among MBs may be consistent with descriptions of their highly scripted, cue-driven role structure in the literature (Millán-Sánchez et al., 2019). However, as these role characteristics were not directly assessed in the present study, this interpretation should be treated as speculative. Collinearity diagnostics indicated severe overlap between age and playing experience (tolerance = 0.04; VIF ≈ 25 for both), whereas contract length showed minimal collinearity (VIF ≈ 1.28). Therefore, we do not interpret individual covariate coefficients due to the observed multicollinearity; instead, we primarily emphasize covariate-adjusted Position effects via adjusted EMMeans and corroborate conclusions with reduced-covariate sensitivity models.

These results refine assumptions about agency in volleyball. They suggest that adaptive emotional patterns may be related to positional task characteristics described in the literature, including predictability, temporal compression, and cue richness (Mroczkowska & Supiński, 2018). In positions where informational load is high but direct influence over play is limited – especially among offensive players – psychological interventions targeting appraisal training, cue utilisation, and perceived control may be particularly impactful (Conejero Suárez et al., 2020).

Overall, this study highlights the importance of considering positional ecology, not only physical or technical demands, when analysing pre-competition emotions in team sports.