Brazão, Manuella Colin; Castellani, Rafael Moreno

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Ciências do Esporte

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Artigo original • Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Esporte 42 • 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/rbce.42.2019.260 copiar

Relationship between stress components in brazilian judo athletes

Autoria SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

RESUMO

This study aimed to describe the relationship between the main components of stress in 93 male and female competitive level athletes of judo. The participants filled out four forms: the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS); the Brief COPE (related to coping strategies); the Primary Appraisal Adjective Checklist (PAAC) and the Wrestling Coping Resources Questionnaire (WCRQ). The results showed a positive relationship between threat, damage, and negative affection, as well as between challenge, benefit, and positive affection. We found a negative relationship between secondary cognitive assessment and refusal strategies and behavioral divestment. This study confirmed the relationship between the components of the theory of Lazarus and Folkman.

Palavras Chave:
Cognitive Assessment; Coping; Affection; Judo

	Threat	Damage	Challenge	Benefit	secondary evaluation	positive affection	negative affection
self distraction	0,259	0,344^* * Significant values for p ≤0,01. ^W W = weak correlation	0,297	0,277	0,192	0,297	0,382
active coping	0,120	0,104	0,488^* * Significant values for p ≤0,01. ^M M = moderate correlation;	0,367^* * Significant values for p ≤0,01. ^W W = weak correlation	0,204	0,388	0,129
Denial	0,288	0,379^* * Significant values for p ≤0,01. ^W W = weak correlation	0,202	0,185	-0,509^* * Significant values for p ≤0,01. ^M M = moderate correlation;	0,125	0,472^* * Significant values for p ≤0,01. ^M M = moderate correlation;
drug usage	0,015	0,246	0,162	0,039	-0,416^* * Significant values for p ≤0,01. ^M M = moderate correlation;	0,108	0,192
emotional support	0,202	0,294	0,204	0,188	0,035	0,201	0,233
instrumental support	0,245	0,271	0,194	0,194	0,048	0,407^* * Significant values for p ≤0,01. ^M M = moderate correlation;	0,282
behavioral divestment	0,133	0,189	0,102	0,118	-0,708^* * Significant values for p ≤0,01. ^S S = strong correlation.	-0,124	0,194
Ventilation	0,243	0,302	0,299	0,380^* * Significant values for p ≤0,01. ^W W = weak correlation	0,272	0,282	0,289
positive revaluation	0,308	0,208	0,286	0,230	0,079	0,272	0,202
Planning	0,251	0,144	0,483^* * Significant values for p ≤0,01. ^M M = moderate correlation;	0,456^* * Significant values for p ≤0,01. ^M M = moderate correlation;	0,102	0,445^* * Significant values for p ≤0,01. ^M M = moderate correlation;	0,244
Mood	0,032	0,127	0,247	0,094	0,194	0,288	0,102
Acceptance	0,139	0,262	0,202	0,156	0,106	0,284	0,188
Religion	0,292	0,179	0,292	0,276	0,196	0,293	0,293
self-blaming	0,308	0,292	0,391^* * Significant values for p ≤0,01. ^W W = weak correlation	0,292	0,188	0,290	0,388^* * Significant values for p ≤0,01. ^W W = weak correlation

	ANB + APB	BAN + EAP	EAN + BAP	EAN + EAP	Chi Square	MD	Sig.
Threat	2,14 (0,66)	2,26 (0,63)	2,88 (0,52)	3,31 (0,76)^A A = Significantly different from ANB + APB (p < 0.05);	29,26	1,17	0,001*
Challenge	3,45 (0,77)	4,08 (0,60)	3,29 (0,63)	4,18 (0,61)^C C = Significantly different from EAN + BAP (p < 0.05);	26,38	0,89	0,001*
Damage	1,40 (0,38)	1,32 (0,46)	2,47 (0,66)^A A = Significantly different from ANB + APB (p < 0.05); ^,^B B = Significantly different from BAN + EAP (p < 0.05);	2,22 (0,86)^B B = Significantly different from BAN + EAP (p < 0.05);	40,01	1,15	0,001*
Benefit	3,33 (0,63)	3,87 (0,57)^C C = Significantly different from EAN + BAP (p < 0.05);	2,96 (0,68)	3,91 (0,52)^C C = Significantly different from EAN + BAP (p < 0.05);	25,54	0,95	0,001*
secondary evaluation	3,18 (0,56)	3,23 (0,58)	3,14 (0,52)	2,72 (0,94)	5,68	0,51	0,168
self distraction	4,24 (1,02)	4,18 (1,22)	4,15 (1,65)	5,39 (1,49)^A A = Significantly different from ANB + APB (p < 0.05); ^,^B B = Significantly different from BAN + EAP (p < 0.05); ^,^C C = Significantly different from EAN + BAP (p < 0.05);	11,47	1,24	0,003*
active coping	6,08 (1,12)	6,44 (1,19)	6,12 (1,28)	6,81 (1,11)^A A = Significantly different from ANB + APB (p < 0.05); ^,^B B = Significantly different from BAN + EAP (p < 0.05);	8,98	0,73	0,012*
Denial	3,65 (1,28)	3,51 (1,42)	4,56 (1,59)	4,64 (1,12)	6,32	1,13	0,085
use substances	2,57 (0,98)	3,26 (1,83)	2,88 (1,51)	2,62 (1,68)	2,33	0,69	0,482
emotional support	6,07 (1,32)	5,79 (1,55)	5,87 (1,86)	6,33 (1,29)	2,00	0,54	0,525
instrumental support	5,66 (1,71)	5,68 (1.31)	5,83 (1,89)	6,49 (1,08)	5,52	0,83	0,822
behavioral divestment	3,44 (1,52)	3,02 (1,45)	3,59 (1,70)	3,08 (1,70)	3,54	0,57	0,288
Ventilation	5,13 (1,33)	5,11 (1,23)	4,98 (1,11)	5,22 (1,43)^C C = Significantly different from EAN + BAP (p < 0.05);	6,62	0,24	0,009*
positive revaluation	5,98 (1,48)	6,52 (1,08)	5,89 (1,46)	6,56 (1,34)	4,48	0,67	0,214
Planning	5,66 (1,52)	6,52 (1,15)^A A = Significantly different from ANB + APB (p < 0.05);	5,92 (1,47)	6,53 (1,23)^A A = Significantly different from ANB + APB (p < 0.05);	7,15	0,87	0,008*
Mood	5,09 (1,86)	5,81 (1,96)	5,31 (1,25)	5,77 (1,86)	4,57	0,72	0,182
Acceptance	5,35 (1,62)	5,84 (1,55)	5,66 (1,21)	5,79 (1,63)	1,65	0,49	0,523
Religion	4,87 (2,01)	4,79 (1,72)	4,79 (1,69)	5,82 (1,31)	5,98	1,03	0,108
self-blaming	4,94 (1,29)	5,33 (1,38)	5,62 (1,58)^A A = Significantly different from ANB + APB (p < 0.05);	6,24 (1,32)^A A = Significantly different from ANB + APB (p < 0.05); ^,^B B = Significantly different from BAN + EAP (p < 0.05);	9,20	1,3	0,001*

Colégio Brasileiro de Ciências do Esporte Universidade de Brasilia - Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Faculdade de Educação Física, Asa Norte - CEP 70910-970 - Brasilia, DF - Brasil, Telefone: +55 (61) 3107-2542 - Brasília - DF - Brazil
E-mail: rbceonline@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Autor correspondente: Rafael Moreno Castellani E-mail:
rafael.moreno@usp.br