Author | Honeybourne, John | Title | BTEC national sport : award, certificate, diploma / John Honeybourne | Publisher | Cheltenham : Nelson Thornes, c2003 |

According to the basic tenets derived from this research, optimum performance should be seen at levels of moderate arousal. As arousal approaches extremes (a comatose state on one end and panic attack on the other), performance will decline accordingly. The end result is a curvilinear relationship between arousal and performance that resembles an inverted-U. Landers & Arent, 2001

If the task is complex, requiring fine motor skill, the optimal level of arousal is low. If the task is relatively simple, requiring gross motor skill, the optimal level of arousal is high.
Suggested 'complex' tasks are performed better when one's level of drive
(arousal) is low, while 'simple' tasks are performed better when arousal/drive is high. There are different degrees of arousal (over/under arousal) and people can be affected in different ways, depending on the type of tasks they face.
See graph (pg 583)
The relationship between arousal and performance is curvilinear (inverted u shape of graph) 'Increased arousal improves performance up to a certain point after which further increased levels of arousal will have an adverse effect' - i.e both over and under arousal can inhibit performances.
Implications:
Optimum levels of arousal are not the same for all activities or all performers
Optimum levels of arousal are variable according to the type and complexity of the task in relation to the individual performer - therefore these basic principles can be generalised and used by all coaches/teachers to explain and predict behaviour in many contexts. (i.e the all-rousing pre-match pep talk is not the answer for all performers).
Nature of the tasks/activities
Motor skills - need an above average level of arousal
Gross movements/simple skills (using strength, endurance or speed - requiring little decision making) -then higher levels of arousal will be found more effective. Activities involving (fine, accurate muscle actions or complex tasks requiring higher level of perception, decision making, concentration and attention) will be carried out more effectively if optimum arousal is lightly lower.
It is important that a teacher/coach assesses the appropriate levels of arousal for each task - to ensure that the optimum level is achieved.
The need to adjust arousal levels to suit both the task and situation could involve the coach in trying to increase/decrease a performer's arousal levels.
There may be differences - between teams within different roles (batting/bowling in cricket compared to fielding-in terms of different levels of concentration needed in each role)
Levels of excitement/anxiety caused by high arousal - need to be controlled by stress management techniques.
Many sports/tasks involve combinations of both 'fine' and 'gross' skills/different information processing linked to complexity. Within games players will need different levels of arousal and at different times.
Individual differences:
Beginners - need different levels of arousal to professional sports people.
The level of complexity is relative to the stages of learning and/or experience. At moderate levels of arousal - a beginner may go to pieces/unable to cope-even lower levels of arousal may be more appropriate. http://www.skegnessgrammarsportscollege.co.uk/Physical_Education/A-Level/Mod%201/Recap%20notes%20on%20arousal.pdf

The criticisms of the inverted-U hypothesis have been conceptual and methodological. Investigators (Anderson, 1990; Neiss, 1988) have noted tile mistake of using the terms "arousal" and "anxiety" interchangeably. In the psychology literature, the tern1 arousal is often used synonymously with the term "activation" and refers to a nondirective generalized bodily activation. Arousal is, thus, considered an energizing function responsible for harnessing the body's resources for intense and vigorous activity (Sage, 1984). Anxiety, on the other hand, is an emotional state or reaction often characterized by unpleasant feelings of intensity, preoccupation, disturbance, and apprehension (Spielberger, 1975). Some investigators (Anderson, 1990) have proposed a broader view of arousal that goes beyond a unitary physiological (i.e., electrocortical, autonomic) dimension, to include a behavioral dimension as well. What is clear, however, is that although the constructs of arousal and anxiety may at times be highly related, arousal is conceptually and operationally not the same as anxiety, and, therefore, theories based on the construct of arousal should not be replaced by anxiety-based theories (Anderson, 1990; Neiss, 1988).
Critics of the inverted-U hypothesis have focused on the apparent lack of clear support for the hypothesis (Hockey et al., 1986; Neiss, 1988). However, this criticism is based solely on studies that have manipulated incentive or threat to produce changes in arousal (Neiss, 1988). Therefore, the available research evidence is limited, because in most studies arousal has been examined as a dependent rather than independent variable. Anderson (1990) and Neiss (1988) both argued that, if one wished to examine the effects of arousal on performance, data cannot be derived from anxiety or incentive manipulations. To adequately examine this criticism, it is important that the arousal-performance relationship be examined by actually manipulating arousal levels. Furthermore, these arousal manipulations should be relative to arousal levels of" each participant. In other words, arousal should be standardized as a percentage of a person's maximal arousal to control for baseline differences due to such factors as fitness, experience, and genetics.
Some investigators (Hardy & Fazey, 1987; Jones, 1995) have also questioned the predicted shape of the arousal-performance curve. They have argued that once optimal performance has been achieved, further increases in arousal will produce a sharp drop in performance rather than a more gradual performance decline. Williams, J.M., Landers, D.M., Boutcher, S.H., (1993). Arousal-Performance Relationships, Applied Sport Psychology; Personal Growth to Peak Performance, pgs 170-184, 2

| |

Kuznets’s Inverted U-Curve Hypothesis: The Rise, Demise, and Continued Relevance of a Socioeconomic Law Journal | Sociological Forum | Publisher | Springer NetherlandsTimothy Patrick Moran |
Volume 20, Number 2 / June, 2005