Coach and Athlete Burnout - West Virginia University

Burnout 86
Tennebaum, Jones, Kitsantas, Sacks, and Berwick (2003a) presented the most
recent stress-based model that suggested the related terms such as overtraining, staleness,
and burnout were better explained with a failure adaptation in response to stress (see
Figure 4). Failure adaptation was defined as “a state of physiological, behavioral,
emotional, and/or cognitive malfunction due to inadequate adaptive responses towards
the situation” (p. 20). This model, known as the Stress Response Process, incorporated
previous models (Coakley, 1992; Silva, 1990; Smith, 1986) to extend the perspective of
the stress environment and the complete athlete response to stress (Tennebaum, Jones,
Kitsantas, Sacks, and Berwick, 2003b). Stressors were at the top of the model and were
described as originating from environmental, physical, social, general life (outside of
sport), or secondary (emotional or cognitive) sources. The next stage of the model was
the athlete’s perception or appraisal of the stressor(s). This subjective appraisal, as
opposed to the objective reality of the stressor, dictated the form and intensity of an
athlete’s stress response. Possible ways of perceiving a stressor were as a challenge,
threat, relaxing, or boring. Further, an athlete’s appraisal process consisted of the
athlete’s initial appraisal, his/her appraisal of the coping resources necessary to deal with
the stressor(s), his/her appraisal of the consequences from meeting or failing to meet its
demands, and the level of importance those consequences have for the athlete. An
athlete’s appraisal is mediated by their disposition and state. Important factors included
an athlete’s self-efficacy, social support, goal setting, anxiety, method of attribution, and
attachment.
Following the appraisal process was the athlete’s defense strategy used to cope
with the stressor(s). These reactions were categorized into physiological, behavioral,