The components and formation of attitudes, methods of changing attitudes including cognitive dissonance and persuasive communication, and the theories of arousal (drive, inverted U and catastrophe) and their effect on performance.

What this dot point is asking

AQA wants you to describe the components and formation of attitudes, explain how attitudes can be changed through cognitive dissonance and persuasive communication, and compare the drive, inverted U and catastrophe theories of arousal and how arousal affects performance.

Attitudes and the triadic model

Attitudes are formed through past experiences (a successful or painful first attempt), socialisation by family, peers, coaches and the media, the reinforcement of behaviours, and the influence of high-status role models. A positive attitude does not always lead to positive behaviour because the three components do not always align: a player may believe training is beneficial (cognitive) and even enjoy it (affective) yet still skip sessions (behavioural), which is why attitude change usually targets the weakest or most resistant component. The triadic model is therefore not just a description but a tool: identify which component is negative, then aim the intervention at it.

Changing attitudes

Theories of arousal

• Drive theory: performance is directly proportional to arousal, $P = f(D \times H)$, so more arousal means better performance. As arousal rises the dominant response is more likely, which helps experts (whose dominant response is correct) but harms beginners.
• Inverted U theory: performance improves with arousal up to an optimal point at moderate arousal, then declines if arousal becomes too high. The optimal level varies with the skill (fine skills need lower arousal, gross skills higher) and the stage of learning.
• Catastrophe theory: like the inverted U but predicts that when high arousal combines with high cognitive anxiety, performance does not decline gradually but drops sharply (a catastrophe), with recovery only possible by lowering arousal, and even then performance returns at a lower level. This captures the phenomenon of choking under pressure.

A fourth model AQA references is the zone of optimal functioning (ZOF) developed by Hanin, which argues that each performer has their own individual band of arousal in which they perform best, not a single moderate point as the inverted U assumes. Some athletes peak when highly aroused, others when calm. The practical implication is that arousal control must be individualised: a coach raises arousal for an under-aroused gross-skill performer (a rugby forward) but lowers it for an over-aroused fine-skill performer (a snooker player) to bring each into their own zone.