CC BY
42University athletes' stress tolerance and conscious self-control: questionnaire survey
PhD, Associate Professor L.A. Belozerova1 PhD, Associate Professor E.A. Bragina1 PhD, Associate Professor I.A. Semikasheva1 PhD, Associate Professor M.M. Silakova1
Ulyanovsk State Pedagogical University named after I.N. Ulyanov, Ulyanovsk
Corresponding author: bla-130880@yandex.ru
Abstract
Objective of the study was to rate and profile the key self-control versus the stress tolerance in university athletes as the basic components of a personality resource for progress and success in academic sports.
Methods and structure of the study. We sampled for the Experimental Group (EG) systemically sporting university athletes (n=41, including 23 males and 18 females) qualified Class III to CMS; and for the Reference Group (RG) their unsporting peers (n=40, including 20 males and 20 females); with both groups aged 19 years on average.
The subjects' stress tolerance was assessed in Y.V. Shcherbatykh's stress tolerance test. The general self-regulation level as an indicator of the degree of formation of the individual system of conscious self-regulation of arbitrary activity was studied using the methodology "Style of behavior self-regulation - 98" (V. Morosanov).
Results and conclusions. The study found that habitual university sports significantly improve the individual self-control and stress tolerance. The university athletes were tested significantly higher on virtually every self-control scale and more independent, with their stress sensitivity test rates being significantly lower than in the unsporting RG. Stress tolerance was found in the highest correlations with a few self-control abilities including the result-valuation, goal setting and self-control independence ones.
Keywords: stress sensitivity, stress tolerance, conscious self-control, sporting activity, skilled athletes, students.
Background. Modern sports are rather challenging in many aspects with athletes facing multiple stressful situations of high demand for their individual self-control and stress tolerance. These challenges in academic sports are complicated by the daily learning activities with their additional physical and emotional stressors and, hence, student athletes need to design and manage their lifestyles in the most efficient manners with a special role played by good self-control and stress tolerance [3].
Objective of the study was to rate and profile the key self-control versus the stress tolerance in university athletes as the basic components of a personality resource for progress and success in academic sports.
Methods and structure of the study. We sampled for the Experimental Group (EG) systemically
sporting university athletes (n=41, including 23 males and 18 females) qualified Class III to CMS; and for the Reference Group (RG) their unsporting peers (n=40, including 20 males and 20 females); with both groups aged 19 years on average.
The sample was tested for the stress tolerance by the YV. Shcherbatykh questionnaire survey with its inversely related stress tolerance and stress sensitivity categories [4] and five test scales to rate: sensitivity to situations beyond control; proneness to complicating things; predisposition to psychosomatic diseases; and destructive stress coping; and constructive stress coping strategies. Note that the key stress tolerance index is assumed as inverse to the specific stress sensitivity index or general stress sensitivity. We computed a dynamic stress sensitivity index as aggregating the above four ones save for the general stress sensitivity.
Furthermore, we tested the general self-control using the V.I. Morosanova "Behavioral Self-control Style - 98" questionnaire survey [2]. The questionnaire survey rates the planning ability i.e. goal setting with realistic and sustainable plans; forecasting ability to design the plans implementation ways; modeling ability to take into account the external and internal conditions; results valuation ability - to adequately assess own self and accomplishments; plus two scales to rate the personality control qualities: flexibility as the ability to adjust to changing conditions; and independence as the autonomy in activity planning and control.
Results and discussion. Given in Table 1 hereun-der are the stress tolerance test rates of the sample.
Statistical analysis found the stress tolerance in EG significantly higher for both gender subgroups on the general and dynamic stress sensitivity scales than in the RG. The RG were tested more prone to excessive responses to situations beyond control and things complicating responses. The RG (f) subgroup was tested more predisposed to psychosomatic diseases and destructive stress coping behavior - and this appears to be the prime reason for the intergroup differences on the stress sensitivity scale. However, the RG was tested as high as the EG on the constructive stress coping scale.
It should be mentioned in this context that the RG and EG males were found equally prone to destructive
stress coping behavior albeit the constructive stress coping rates were still within the moderate range. The destructive stress coping behavior was also found gender-specific, with the females more prone to overeating, and males to aggression. As for the constructive coping strategies analyses, the RG and EG behavior was found dominated by communication and physical activity, respectively. Given in Table 2 hereunder are the test rates yielded by the V.I. Morosanova "Behavioral Self-control Style questionnaire survey.
We used the Mann-Whitney U-criterion to fix significant differences in the general self-control, responses to situations beyond control, results valuation and independence in the EG versus RG. Advantages of the EG on these test scales were explained by more developed self-rating and results valuation abilities, and better planning and management on the way to preset goal, i.e. more mature self-controls in the sporting EG.
Correlation analysis of the self-control and stress tolerance found significant negative correlations of the general stress tolerance, flexibility and independence with every stress sensitivity test rate: see Table 3. This finding gives grounds to conclude that the self-rating and result-valuation abilities associated with good goal setting and achieving ones - heavily contribute to the individual stress tolerance. When these abilities and qualities are well developed, the individual better assesses and controls every situation, avoids drama-
Table 1. Group averages on the stress tolerance test scales, with significant intergroup differences
-^^^^Group RG (m) EG(m) RG (f) EG(f) RG EG
Test rates ■— (n=20) (n=23) (n=20) (n=18) (n=40) (n=41)
Responses to situations beyond control 22,65 18,4* 30,85 22,83** 26,25 20,4**
Stress tolerance 16,65 11,1* 30,6 21,7* 32,2 15,8**
Psychosomatic diseases 13,8 13,1 24 19,6** 18,9 16,0*
Destructive stress coping 16,6 16,3 22,05 16,9** 19,3 16,6**
Constructive stress coping 30,95 30,8 30,3 30,55 30,6 30,7
Dynamic stress sensitivity 38,75 28,1** 77,2 50,48** 57,05 38,1**
General stress sensitivity 69,7 58,9** 107,5 81,03** 87,65 68,8**
Note: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; m - males, f - females
Table 2. Group averages on the self-control test scales, with significant intergroup differences
RG (m) EG(m) RG (f) EG(f) RG EG
Test rates "— (n=20) (n=23) (n=20) (n=18) (n=40) (n=41)
General self-control 28,95 32,4** 25,55 27,4** 27,25 30,22**
Planning ability 6,05 6,35 5,9 6,83 5,975 6,56*
Responses to situations beyond control 5,65 6,3* 5,0 6,4* 5,325 6,32*
Forecasting ability 4,95 5,5 5,8 6,2 5,375 5,83
Modeling 5,75 6,3 5,6 6,2 5,675 6,23**
Flexibility 6,8 6,4 6,75 7,7 6,75 6,8
Independence 5,95 6,6* 5,05 5,9** 5,5 6,27**
Note: *p<0.05; **p<0.01; m - males, f - females
ww.teoriya.ru
41
Table 3. Spearman correlation indices rs for the stress control test rates in the EG
^^^^ Stress ^^^sensitivity Self-control Responses to situations beyond control Stress tolerance Psychosomatic diseases Destructive stress coping Constructive stress coping Dynamic stress sensitivity
General self-control -,623** -,427** -,412** -,672** ,617** -,626**
Planning ability -,316* -,178 -,143 -,342* ,608** -,348*
Responses to situations beyond control -,477** -,508** -,583** -,652** ,336* -,629**
Forecasting ability -,025 ,063 ,036 -,172 ,350* -,073
Modeling -,200 -,142 -,176 -,215 ,317* -,231
Flexibility -,056 ,123 ,090 -,409** ,017 ,060
Independence -,717** -,506** -,427** -,506** ,309* -,592**
Note: *p<0.05; **p<0.01
tizing it and, hence, prevents/ mitigates the situation-specific stresses and the associating negative psychosomatic responses. Note that the EG was tested significantly higher than the RG on these self-control scales: see Table 3.
The responses to situations beyond control rate was found in significant negative correlation with the planning ability - that means that the well-developed goal-setting and planning skills mitigate sensitivity of responses to situations beyond control thereby making an individual more realistic and balanced in assessments.
Every self-control component, save for the flexibility index, was found significantly correlating with the constructive coping index. Knowing that the questionnaire was designed to rate the individual proneness to destructive or constructive stress coping strategies rather than identify the specific ones among them, we would conclude that this finding agrees with the prior study that found no significant correlations between the key stress coping strategies and the general self-control [1].
The self-control flexibility index was found in significant negative correlation with the destructive stress coping index (see Table 3). This means that the self-control flexibility contributes to constructive behavior and safeguards people from addictions to destructive stress coping models. In other words, the self-control flexibility paves the way to different stress-mitigation
options to find the most efficient ones rather than sets the individual constructive stress coping strategies.
Conclusion. The study found that habitual university sports significantly improve the individual self-control and stress tolerance. The university athletes were tested significantly higher on virtually every self-control scale and more independent, with their stress sensitivity test rates being significantly lower than in the unsporting RG. Stress tolerance was found in the highest correlations with a few self-control abilities including the result-valuation, goal setting and self-control independence ones.
References
1. Belozerova L.A., Bragina E.A., Semenova I.A. et al. Self-control and stress-coping strategies in sports. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury, 2018. no 3, pp. 15-17. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury. 2018. No. 3. pp. 15-17.
2. Morosanova V.I., Konoz E.M. Style self-regulation of human behavior. Voprosy psikhologii, 2000, no. 2, pp. 118-127.
3. Povzun V.D., Povzun A.A., Apokin V.V. et al. University sport department students' stress tolerance analysis. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury. 2016. No.9. pp. 89-91.
4. Scherbatykh YV. Psychology of stress and methods of correction. St. Petersburg: Piter publ., 2006. 256 p.
