COPE

International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rirs20
Stressors and coping strategies in esports: a

systematic review
Oliver Leis, Benjamin T. Sharpe, Vincent Pelikan, Julian Fritsch, Adam R.

Nicholls & Dylan Poulus
To cite this article: Oliver Leis, Benjamin T. Sharpe, Vincent Pelikan, Julian Fritsch,
Adam R. Nicholls & Dylan Poulus (06 Aug 2024): Stressors and coping strategies in
esports: a systematic review, International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, DOI:
10.1080/1750984X.2024.2386528
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2024.2386528
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 06 Aug 2024.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1035
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rirs20
INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2024.2386528
Stressors and coping strategies in esports:

a systematic review
Oliver Leisa, Benjamin T. Sharpeb, Vincent Pelikana, Julian Fritschc*, Adam R. Nichollsd
and Dylan Pouluse,f
a
Sport Psychology, Leipzig University, Leipzig¸ Germany; bInstitute of Psychology, Business, and Human
Sciences, University of Chichester, Chichester, United Kingdom; cInstitute of Sports and Sports Science,
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany; dSchool of Sport, Exercise, and Rehabilitation
Sciences, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom; ePhysical Activity, Sport and Exercise Research Theme,
Faculty of Health, Southern Cross University, Gold Coast, Australia; fManna Institute, Southern Cross
University, Gold Coast, Australia
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this systematic review, we provide an overview of stressors and Received 4 October 2023
coping strategies in esports, emphasizing the goal of informing Accepted 20 May 2024
applied practice and guiding future research. Guided by the
KEYWORDS
PRISMA guidelines and employing the SPIDER framework, we Stress; appraisal;
synthesize findings from 19 studies. Performance stressors such performance; sport
as defeat and performance pressure (e.g. pressure to win) were psychology; competitive
prominently observed, along with team, social, organizational, gaming
and personal stressors. Coping strategies, aligned with Nicholls
et al. ((2016). The development of a new sport-specific
classification of coping and a meta-analysis of the relationship
between different coping strategies and moderators on sporting
outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(11), 1–14), demonstrate
internal regulation was the most frequently reported, followed by
mastery coping, while goal withdrawal strategies were less
frequently reported. Comparing esports to traditional sports
highlights the role of social stressors such as social media and
public perceptionin esports. However, personal stressors remain
relatively unexplored. The review also identifies research gaps in
stressor appraisal and communal coping strategies. Future
research could delve into personal stressors, considering a wide
array of psychological factors, and employing dynamic
methodologies. Practical implications revolve around tailored
interventions, promoting open communication, mastery coping
techniques, and holistic well-being strategies. This review
provides a broader understanding of esports stressors and coping
strategies, offering a starting point for targeted interventions
aimed at enhancing performance and well-being in the
distinctive competitive landscape of esports.
CONTACT Oliver Leis [email protected]

*Present address: Institute of Sport Science, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s)
or with their consent.
2 O. LEIS ET AL.
In recent years, the world of esports has gained immense popularity, attracting a diverse
global audience and becoming an area of interest for sport and exercise psychology
research (e.g. Leis et al., 2021). Esports, defined as individual- or team-based activities
involving specific competitive video games with ranking systems at amateur and
professional levels (Pedraza-Ramirez et al., 2020), share similarities with traditional sports
in terms of performance demands. Success in esports is associated with high levels of confi
dence, sustained focus, and immersion in flow states (Nagorsky & Wiemeyer, 2020; Poulus
et al., 2022a). To maintain cognitive (e.g. strategical thinking) and motor performance
(e.g. eye-hand coordination) as well as well-being, esports demand effective coping
with stressors within the competitive environment (Leis et al., 2021, 2022). Guided primar
ily by Lazarus’ transactional perspective (Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), research
has provided insights into key stressors and coping strategies in esports (Leis et al., 2022;
Poulus et al., 2022b, 2022c; Smith et al., 2019). While an expanding body of literature
explores stressors and coping in esports, diverse methodologies (e.g. participant
samples, data collection methods, and stressor/coping descriptions) pose challenges
for meaningful comparisons and conclusions across studies (e.g. Nicholls et al., 2016;
Nicholls & Polman, 2007). Acknowledging this heterogeneity, we provide an overview
of stressors and coping strategies in esports. By synthesizing existing findings, our aim
is to gather insights and enhance our understanding of the multifaceted nature of stres
sors and coping in esports. This synthesis offers an overview that not only captures the
diversity of stressors and coping strategies, but also serves as a resource to guide and
inform future research and inform applied practices.
Theoretical framework
Stress can be defined as the result of a transaction between the individual and the
environment (Lazarus, 1999, 2000). According to this transactional perspective, stress is
dependent on the appraisal of stimuli (Lazarus, 1966), which involves primary and second
ary appraisal (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Primary appraisal describes the evaluation of a
stimulus as relevant to one’s beliefs, values, goal commitments, and situational intentions
(Lazarus, 1999), while secondary appraisal involves the evaluation of one’s control,
resources, and likelihood to manage the stimulus (Lazarus, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). If an individual perceives external and/or internal demands as taxing or exceeding
one’s resources (i.e. stressors), they may employ coping strategies. Coping involves
ongoing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific stressors (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984).
Building on this transactional perspective, Fletcher and Fletcher (2005) developed the
meta-model of stress, emotion, and performance. This meta-model includes three stages:
person-environment fit, emotion-performance fit, and coping and overall outcome (see
Fletcher et al., 2006). In the first stage, the primary and secondary appraisal of the
person-environment transaction takes place (e.g. Lazarus, 2000), followed by a second cog
nitive process of relational meaning, including tertiary and quaternary appraisal, in the
second stage. Tertiary appraisal describes the evaluation of one’s positive and negative
response to primary and secondary appraisal as relevant to an individual’s performance,
while quaternary appraisal assesses available coping strategies. In the last stage of the
meta-model (i.e. coping and overall outcome) coping strategies are employed, leading
INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY 3
to positive and negative outcomes that affect the perception of future stressors (e.g.
Fletcher & Fletcher, 2005). Overall, the meta-model provides an appropriate framework
to investigate stressors and coping relating to stress in competitive environments (e.g.
Fletcher et al., 2006).
Empirical evidence
Research providing support for the meta-model of stress, emotion, and performance in
the sports context highlights a variety of stressors resulting from the person-environment
transaction (e.g. Fletcher et al., 2006). In sports, stressors are frequently categorized into
competitive, organizational, and personal stressors (Fletcher et al., 2006; Neil et al., 2011;
Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014). Whereas competitive stressors are directly related to aspects of
sports performance (e.g. rivalry, poor preparation, match outcome), organizational stres
sors are primarily and/or directly associated with the sports organization (e.g. travel, sche
dules, coaching style; Didymus et al., 2021). Personal stressors refer to an individual’s
personal life outside of sport (e.g. finances, family issues, work-life balance; Didymus &
Jones, 2021).
Coping strategies in sports are classified in different ways (see review by Crocker et al.,
2015; Nicholls & Polman, 2007), but were traditionally categorized as either problem- or
emotion-focused (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Problem-focused coping strategies describe
attempts to manage the respective stressor (e.g. planning and goal setting), whereas
emotion-focused strategies describe attempts to regulate the emotions tied to the
stress situation (e.g. breathing and visualization; Lazarus, 1999). Additional categories of
coping have since been proposed (e.g. Nicholls & Polman, 2007; Skinner et al., 2003).
Nicholls et al. (2016) proposed a classification of coping, including mastery coping, internal
regulation, and goal withdrawal, so that comparisons could be made across different
studies that used different classifications of coping. Mastery coping can be defined as
attempts to take control of a stressful situation and thus eliminate the stressor (e.g.
problem-focused, task-oriented, approach coping). Internal regulation refers to attempts
to manage internal resources to stress (e.g. emotion-focused, avoidance-focused; Nicholls
et al., 2016). Goal withdrawal defines individuals ceasing in their efforts to achieve a goal
(e.g. disengagement-oriented coping, mental disengagement; Nicholls et al., 2016).
Lazarus (1999) argued that coping strategies are intertwined, affect each other, and are
part of a complex process that aims to influence the transaction between a person and
the environment. In addition, research shows that personal (e.g. age, gender) and situa
tional characteristics (e.g. type of stressor) influence the use and effectiveness of
coping strategies (e.g. Anshel & Wells, 2000; Nicholls & Polman, 2007). Furthermore,
studies indicated that athletes’ cognitive appraisal (e.g. primary and secondary appraisal)
is related to both, the use of coping strategies and performance outcomes (see review by
Nicholls & Polman, 2007). In 2013, Crum et al. introduced the concept of the stress
mindset, which refers to an individual’s believes in whether stress contributes to enhan
cing or debilitating associated outcomes (e.g. performance, health, well-being, and
growth). Research has provided substantial evidence regarding the role of ‘stress-is-
enhancing’ and ‘stress-is-debilitating’ mindsets across domains such as performance
(Akinola et al., 2016; Crum et al., 2017), well-being (Crum et al., 2013), and psychophysio
logical responses (e.g. Crum et al., 2017; Journault et al., 2023). Regarding coping, a meta-
4 O. LEIS ET AL.
analysis by Nicholls et al. (2016) demonstrated a relationship between mastery coping and
positive affect, whereas internal regulation was associated with negative affect. Conver
sely, mastery coping was positively associated with sports performance, while goal with
drawal was negatively associated with performance. However, no significant association
was found between performance and internal regulation (Nicholls et al., 2016). In
summary, research among athletes has highlighted the relationship between stress
appraisals, emotions, and coping and performance satisfaction (Britton et al., 2019; Mar
tinent & Ferrand, 2015; Neil et al., 2011; Nicholls et al., 2012).
Study purpose
Leis and Lautenbach (2020) provided an overview of empirical evidence on stress
responses in esports, highlighting varied results related to competitive gameplay.
Among the five studies reviewed in competitive gameplay, three showed no hormonal
reaction (Chaput et al., 2011; Gray et al., 2018; Oxford et al., 2010), one demonstrated
increased anxiety and cortisol levels in winners postgame (Schmidt et al., 2020), and
two studies identified sympathetic nervous system activation (Behnke et al., 2020;
Chaput et al., 2011). Following the authors’ call for more research on psychological and
physiological stress in esports, studies have demonstrated endocrine and cardiovascular
responses during competitive gameplay (e.g. Kraemer et al., 2022; Mendoza et al., 2021).
Although research on esports players’ experiences (e.g. stressors) and behaviors (e.g.
coping) has proliferated over recent years (e.g. Leis et al., 2022; Poulus et al., 2022b;
Smith et al., 2019), there is a lack of an overview of stressors and coping in esports
similar to Leis and Lautenbach’s (2020) review of stress responses. In addition, existing
esports research uses various categories to report stressors and coping strategies. For
instance, Leis et al. (2022) categorized stressors into performance expectations, internal
evaluation, team issues, audience and social media, and environmental constraints. In
contrast, Poulus et al. (2022b) outlined performance, teammate, external individuals, bal
ancing life commitments, and technical issues as stressor categories. This diversity under
scores the absence of standardized approaches in the field, impacting the comparability
and generalizability of findings. The substantial increase in the number of studies on stres
sors and coping strategies, along with heterogeneity among participant samples, descrip
tions of stressors and coping, and classifications used, contributes to ambiguity when
comparing studies (e.g. Nicholls et al., 2016; Nicholls & Polman, 2007). Practitioners in
esports (e.g. coaches and sport psychologists) would find it difficult to compare existing
studies to identify the most prevalent stressors and coping strategies. Additionally, prac
titioners new to esports may encounter challenges in transferring knowledge from more
established areas, such as traditional sports, due to the nuances of the demands associ
ated with esports and traditional sports. Therefore, summarizing this information in
one paper and providing stressor and coping categories across esports research could
benefit research by generating new ideas and the applied practices of practitioners
such as coaches and psychologists working in esports. (e.g. Leis et al., 2021). For
example, this resource could enable coaches to efficiently assess prevalent stressors
and coping strategies within their teams, optimizing their engagement with esport
players within the constraints of their time (e.g. Norris et al., 2017). To inform future
research and applied work on a broader basis, this review also focused on associations
between stressors and coping strategies with other constructs that likely influence esports
players’ experiences (e.g. appraisals, gender dynamics). Additionally, providing a
summary of existing research is also needed to identify gaps in the literature and to
provide ideas for future research. Accordingly, the main aim of this review was to syn
thesize findings on stressors esports players’ experience and coping strategies these
players use to manage the demands in the competitive esports environment. Through
this synthesis, we aimed to identify recurring themes and patterns in stressors and
coping in esports. The secondary aim was to synthesize existing research on the relation
ship between stressors and coping with related constructs, including appraisals (e.g.
threat vs challenge), gender dynamics, emotional responses, and heatlh outcomes. There
fore, this review will highlight directions for future research and facilitates the identifi
cation of common stressors and coping strategies in esports, and their associations
with related constructs, offering a practical resource for coaches and sport psychologists.
Method
Protocol and eligibility criteria
The literature review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA; Page et al., 2021). In addition, we also considered
guidelines for systematic reviews in the field of sport and exercise psychology (Gunnell
et al., 2020; Gunnell et al., 2022), such as publishing study materials and using the
SPIDER framework (Cooke et al., 2012). The SPIDER framework was used to ensure the
identification of studies relevant to the aim of this review, as shown in Table 1 (Cooke
et al., 2012). While stressors referred to ‘environmental demands (i.e. stimuli) encountered
by an individual’ (Lazarus, 1999, p. 329), coping referred to ‘constantly changing cognitive
and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are
appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person’ (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984, p. 141). Due to the ongoing debate regarding which games represent esports
(e.g. Pedraza-Ramirez et al., 2020), the literature search was restricted to certain competi
tive video games. These games are presented in the online supplementary material
(https://osf.io/sd8vm/?view_only=7e2f862be5be485699af0535a60940da). To narrow our
focus on valid results, unpublished studies were excluded to reduce the risk of bias. Simi
larly, exclusion criteria were applied for psychological (e.g. drug addiction) and physio
logical conditions (e.g. heart disease) as participant health can significantly affect stress
appraisal and coping strategies. The study and protocol were pre-registered through
the Open Science Framework on May 8, 2023: https://osf.io/xauv8?view_only=
Table 1. SPIDER Criteria for the Systematic Review.

Sample Esport players at any age and level of competition (e.g. amateur, professional) and other esport
roles (e.g. coaches, performance coaches) addressing the Phenomenon of Interest in esports
players
Phenomenon of Stressors and coping strategies in esports
Interest
Design Questionnaire, survey, observation, interview, case study, Delphi study, phenomenological/
ethnographic study
Evaluation View, experience, opinion, perception, appraisal, feeling, thoughts
Research type Peer-reviewed studies
6 O. LEIS ET AL.
1505fa57d59b4e6abc06407b0d5afdcd. Experimental studies were excluded from this

review, as they had been addressed in a previous review (Leis & Lautenbach, 2020).
This review’s focus centered on studies aligning with the SPIDER criteria, with the
primary objective of identifying studies on the subjective experience of players on stres
sors and coping. Although the pre-registration initially reported a qualitative systematic
review, the study design was updated and the criterion’ research type’ was changed to
allow identifying studies of quantitative nature.
Information sources and search strategy

Search parameters were established using prevalent terms associated with esports, as
reported in previous studies (e.g. Leis & Lautenbach, 2020). These terms were developed
through an initial search of the literature across different databases, which identified per
tinent search terms and appropriate databases for the review. The search included Web of
Science and EbscoHost (i.e. PsychArticles, PsychInfo, SportDiscuss) without restricting the
publication date. After piloting the search strategy, the original search was conducted on
March 8, 2023. Given the rapid advancements in esports research, the search was carried
out on January 3, 2024, to include new papers in the revised manuscript. The search terms
remained consistent with the original search and included the following keywords: (Stres
sor* OR stress OR appraisal* OR coping OR cope OR ‘emotional regulation’ OR Pressure*) AND
(esport OR esports OR ‘electronic sport*’ OR ‘electronic gam*’ OR ‘competitive gam*’ OR
‘online gam*’ OR ‘video gam*’ OR ‘computer gam*’). The following term was used to
exclude studies that examine gambling, which is outside the scope of this study:
gambl*. Due to the search specificity limitations of certain databases, an additional
search using a different search string was performed on Google Scholar, Sponet, and
Science Direct (see supplementary material). The search also comprised reference list
searching, citation searching, and hand searching. In addition, the tool ResearchRabbit
(i.e. a mapping tool that can be used to create networks of papers) was used to identify
additional relevant articles. Although studies not published in peer-reviewed journals
were excluded, grey literature was checked and considered to establish a state of the
art (e.g. Gunnell et al., 2020). As a result, relevant papers were considered to discuss
the findings of this review. Furthermore, eight experts associated with stress and
coping in esports were contacted in August 2023 to illuminate blind spots.
Data analysis
Selection process
At first, all results (i.e. titles and abstracts) were uploaded to the reference manager soft
ware Mendeley (Version 1.19.8) to check for duplicates. To minimize bias and reduce
errors, two reviewers (authors 1 and 3) independently screened all titles and abstracts,
and then retrieved full-texts for papers that met inclusion criteria for full eligibility screen
ing. Consistency in this approach was maintained by repeating the same process during
the updated search. Uncertainty regarding the inclusion of full-text articles was resolved
through discussion, with no major disagreement. Overall, interrater reliability was κ =
0.99, representing almost perfect agreement (Landis & Koch, 1977). This high level of
agreement between the two researchers could be attributed to factors including the
clarification of inclusion criteria, alignment in their interpretations of these criteria, and

the large number of records screened.
Data collection process

The analysis of selected full-text articles consisted of two main components. Firstly, a
descriptive analysis of general information (year, author, journal) and characteristics of
participants (e.g. age, gender, and experience). Secondly, an in-depth analysis was per
formed to investigate the identified studies’ findings regarding stressors and coping strat
egies. To ensure the accuracy of data extraction into an Excel spreadsheet, the initial
extraction performed by the first author underwent a comprehensive review by author
3. This was only conducted following the initial search on March 3, 2023, as the sub
sequent search did not identify any additional articles. For data validation, all authors
of the identified studies were contacted between July and August 2023. As a result of
this process, there was one instance in which the extracted data underwent revision
based on feedback from the corresponding author. However, we encountered difficulties
in reaching one author due to the unavailability of contact information, while another cor
responding author remained unresponsive after two formal requests, yielding a response
rate of 92%.
Synthesis methods
The in-depth analysis was conducted collaboratively by the first and last author and
started with familiarization and initial assessment of the included studies. Relevant sec
tions from each study, addressing stressors and coping strategies, were extracted and
organized in an Excel spreadsheet. Subsequently, the two researchers immersed them
selves in the data, reflecting on the most appropriate way to categorize the information
regarding stressors and coping. To ensure consistency and build upon existing frame
works, the researchers adopted the stressor classification framework proposed by
Didymus et al. (2021), which includes competitive, organizational, and personal stressor
categories. For coping strategies, the framework by Nicholls et al. (2016) was utilized,
including mastery coping, internal regulation, and goal withdrawal strategies. To
ensure accurate and reliable coding, a codebook was used for the analytic process (see
supplementary material). After independently coding the data, the coding of both
reviewers was compared to determine inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability was k
= 0.75 for stressors and k = 0.72 for coping, indicating substantial agreement between
the researchers. Challenges influencing the agreement included incomplete reporting
of stressors and coping contexts and limited access to raw data from identified studies.
The subsequent discussion with the fifth author helped resolve disagreements in
coding the coping strategies. In addition, this discussion prompted the two researchers
to explore alternative ways of coding the stressors due to potential overlaps between
competitive and organizational stressors. Following three additional discussions
between the first and last author, stressors were re-coded into demands associated
directly or indirectly with esports performance in competition and training (i.e. perform
ance stressors), members of the team during and outside of competition (i.e. team stres
sors), interactions and relationships outside the team environment (i.e. social stressors),
the esports organization (i.e. organizational stressors), and personal life outside of
esports (i.e. personal stressors). Both researchers performed this process simultaneously
8 O. LEIS ET AL.
to ensure consistency and suitability. The verification process revealed no significant dis
agreements regarding the new coding scheme (for the coding spreadsheet, see sup
plementary material). Finally, both stressors and coping strategies were summarized in
a table with representative codes, that provide a comprehensive understanding of the
data. This process was performed by the first author and verified by the last author.
Quality assessment
To assess the quality of the identified studies, an own checklist adapted from the Standard
Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers (Kmet et al., 2004) was
used. Two researchers independently assessed the quality of each included study using a
three-point-scale (‘1′ = yes, ‘0′ = unclear, and ‘−1′ = no) across nine criteria. These criteria
encompassed methodological appropriateness (‘Was the methodological approach used
in the study appropriate for addressing the research question and problem?), theoretical
framework (‘Is there a clear connection between the research question, methodological
approach, and a reported theoretical framework?’), participant characteristics (‘Are
there sufficient and relevant baseline characteristics or demographic data describing
the participants (e.g. N, age, gender) provided?’), eligibility criteria (‘Are the eligibility cri
teria clearly specified?’), measurements (‘Are the measurement instruments well-
described and suitable for replication?’), data analysis (‘Is the data analysis adequately
described and appropriate?’), reporting the results (‘Are the results adequately detailed?’),
control of confounding and verification procedures (‘Was confounding controlled for or
addressed using verification procedures?’), and acknowledgement of limitations (‘Are
study limitations acknowledged?’). In cases where discrepancies arose between the two
assessors, a consensus approach was employed to resolve disagreements. This involved
the two researchers (authors 1 and 4) discussing their differing assessments and
working together to find a resolution that both agreed upon. Following the independent
quality assessment, the interrater agreement was κ = 0.75, representing substantial agree
ment (Landis & Koch, 1977). Factors contributing to this agreement may include variances
in the interpretation of criteria among researchers and subjectivity in assessing aspects
such as data analysis, control of confounding variables and verification procedures.
Results
Study selection
As shown in Figure 1, the search via databases resulted in 4.120 articles. Following the
removal of 42 duplicates and 882 records marked as ineligible by automation tools,
titles, and abstracts of 3.196 articles were screened. A total of 3097 records were excluded
due to not meeting eligibility criteria (i.e. peer-reviewed studies focusing on stressors and/
or coping in esports), resulting in 99 full-texts for further screening. Of these, 88 were
excluded because: they did not focus on stressors and/or coping (k = 44), they did not
include esports (k = 30), their study design was inappropriate for the research question
(k = 11; e.g. intervention study), or did not appear in peer-reviewed publications (k = 7).
Multiple reasons could be applied to the same article. The search of studies, conducted
through contacting experts, citation searching, reference list searching, and Research
Rabbit, resulted in 3.040 records. This search led to the identification of additional eligible
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram.
records by checking reference lists of included articles (k = 3) and citation searching (k =

2). Overall, 14 studies were identified via databases, while five studies were identified via
other methods. As a result, 19 articles were included in the review.
Study characteristics
Within the 19 identified studies, 15 articles focused on players’ experiences of stres
sors and/or coping strategies, whereas seven articles addressed the association
between stress, coping, and other constructs such as gender, personality or mental
toughness. Several studies covered both aspects (e.g. Poulus et al., 2020; 2022b). In
alignment with the systematic literature review’s objective, the results will be pre
sented in two sections: one for stressors and coping strategies and another for their
relationships with other constructs. Consequently, this review will detail the study
characteristics of stressors and coping first, followed by associations with other con
structs separately.
Methodologies
The following research methods were included in the 15 studies that examined stres
sors and coping (see Table 2), which included five survey studies (Behnke et al., 2021;
Leis et al., 2023; Pereira et al., 2021; Poulus et al., 2020, 2022c), one observational
study (Hussain et al., 2021), and ten interview studies. The interview-based studies
comprised eight semi-structured interviews (Cote, 2017; Himmelstein et al., 2017;
Hussain et al., 2021; Leis et al., 2022; Poulus et al., 2022a; Sabtan et al., 2022; Schubert
et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2019) and one focus-group interview (Polat et al., 2023).
In the seven studies focusing on the relationship between stressors, coping, and other
constructs (see Table 2, highlighted with asterisk), methodologies included six survey
10
Table 2. Descriptive Study Summary.

Study Aim(s) Theoretical framework Participant information Instrumentation Key findings
Behnke et al. To identify which gaming Motivational Dimensional 652 CS:GO players, 617 Survey study with participants Anger was frequently related to
(2021), POL * situations elicit positive and Model of Affect (Gable & male gamers asked to describe a situation they negative own team (43%), negative
negative emotions. Harmon-Jones, 2010) Mage = 20.75 (3.58) felt intensely excited or zealous, performance outcomes (28%),
years amused or entertained, sad or negative rival-team (20%),
Mexperience = 5.20 (4.19) miserable, enraged or angry communication (16%),
O. LEIS ET AL.
years during gameplay. underperforming (14%), and

Mgameplay/week = 19.57 technical issues (13%).
(19.81) hrs Sadness related to negative
performance outcomes (45%),
underperforming (25%), negative
own team (17%), negative rival-
team (9%), and communication
(7%).
Cote (2017), To explore women’s strategies for NR 37 self-identified female Semi-structured interviews Coping strategies included leaving
USA coping with online game- gamers covering questions about online gaming, avoiding strangers,
related harassment. Mage = NR (range 19– positive and negative online camouflaging gender, deploying
45) experiences. skill and experience, personality
Mexperience = NR strategies, technical solutions (e.g.
Mgameplay/week = NR blocking harassers), relying on male
assistance, and calculated use of
flirtation (‘unpopular alternatives).
Himmelstein To identify specific mental Flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) 5 male competitive LoL Semi-structured interviews Obstacles included ineffective
et al. (2017), obstacles players face and any players covering future goals, mental attentional control, negative
USA mental techniques gamers Mage = 20.80 (1.64) strengths, challenges and consequences of mistakes, going
utilize. years obstacles, participation on teams, on tilt and being harassed, limited
Mexperience = 3.20 (1.64) and mental preparation. emotional regulation, dwelling on
years competing past performance, performance
Mgameplay/week = NR pressure, confidence issues, flow
repetition, inadequate preparation,
lack of team reliance, ineffective
communication, difficulty
separating life and gaming, lack of
commitment to gaming, and
limited game understanding.
Techniques included playing smart,
playing forward, staying motivated,
staying in the moment, mitigating
tilt and harassment, mindset
monitoring, pre-performance
routines, competitor adaptation,
team reliance, effective
communication, and team building.
Hong and To investigate esports players’ Transactional Model of Stress 33 esports players (21 Semi-structured interviews Stressors included physical fatigue
Connelly coping skills and strategies to and Coping (Lazarus & professional, 6 semi- covering background of esports and mental fatigue.
(2022), UK enhance their physical and Folkman, 1984) professional, 4 career, general player experience, Coping strategies included lifestyle
mental health during their amateur, 2 retired challenges and difficulties, balance (e.g. engaging in other
esports career. players) coping skills and strategies. activities), seeking social support,
Mage = NR (range 17– and sleep management.
36)
Mexperience = NR
Mgameplay/week = NR
Hussain et al. To understand the motives and Uses and Gratification thory 9 female tournament Observations and semi-structured Stressors included the embodiment
(2021), USA lived experiences of esports’ (Blumler, 1979) players from a variety interviews on players behaviors of whiteness (i.e. unconscious
Muslim woman participants of esports including the selection and embodiment of the dominant
from Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan. Mage = 22.00 (3.08) creation of gaming avatars, discourse in the social setting),
years teamwork, participants gaming reception of sexualized messages,
Mexperience = NR strategy, and communication and experience of discrimination.
Mgameplay/week = NR during gameplay.
Leis et al. To provide insights into stressors Meta-model of stress, 12 professional male LoL Semi-structured interview covering Stressors included performance
(2022), GER experienced by professional LoL emotion, and performance players players experience related to expectations (e.g. high-self
players, perceived stress (Fletcher et al., 2006) Mage = 21.83 (2.85) stressors, perceived stress expectations), internal evaluation
responses, and coping years responses, and coping strategies. (opponents performance), team
strategies. Mexperience = 8.83 (1.52) issues (e.g. intra-team criticism),
years audience and social media (e.g.
Mgameplay/week = 56.92 being the favorite team), and
(20.61) hrs environmental issues (e.g.
unprofessional environment).
Coping strategies included social
network (e.g. communicating with
others), attention regulation (e.g.
focusing on the game), self-
regulation (e.g. imagery), increasing
effort (e.g. analyzing games),
consumption strategies (e.g.
drinking coffee), and dissociation
(e.g. stop talking to teammates).
Leis et al. To investigate internal and NR 25 practitioners from a Survey study with participants Internal factors negatively impacting
(2023), GER external factors perceived by variety of esports asked to report the three main performance most frequently
practitioners to negatively (7 female; 8 internal/external factors that included limited coping ability, lack
11
impact esports players’ performance coaches, negatively influence the of self-confidence, unhealthy
(Continued )
Table 2. Continued.
12

performance and explore stress 3 sport psychologists, performance of esports players lifestyle, grinding mentality, and
management strategies used etc.) and the three strategies that they lack of attention. External factors
before and after competition. Mage = 28.84 (5.93) most frequently use to support most frequently included schedule
years players experiencing stress [1–2 issues, an unprofessional
Mexperience = 2.88 (2.60) hrs, immediately before, environment, performance
years working in immediately after, 1–2 hrs. after] pressure, communication issues,
O. LEIS ET AL.
esports a competitive match. and team issues.

Stress management included
strategies such as imagery,
breathing techniques, physical
exercise, social support related to
time of competition.
Pereira et al. To develop a model to explore NR 292 eFootball players Survey study including the Distress Relationships included distress
(2021), BRA * the association between (7 female; 18 Screener, General Health correlating with anxiety and
distress and anxiety/depression professional) Questionnaire, Brief Cope, Sleep depressive symptoms. Maladaptive
symptoms and potential Mage = 27.00 (8.10) Disturbance Domain of the coping strategies were related to
associations between adaptive years Patient-Reported Outcomes sleep disturbance, alcohol
or maladaptive coping Mexperience = NR Measurement Information consumption, and poor eating
strategies, sleep disturbance, Mgameplay/week = NR System, three-item version of the habits, while adaptive coping was
alcohol consumption and Alcohol Use Disorders associated with less sleep
eating habits in electronic Identification Test Consumption disturbance, reduced alcohol
football players. (AUDIT-C), and questions on consumption, and better eating
eating habits. habits.
Pereira et al. To investigate the association Big Five / Big Five Factors 138 Brazilian LoL players Survey study including the Big Five Conscientiousness indicated the use
(2022), BRA * between measurements of Big (John & Srivastava 1999) (7 female) Inventory – 2 (BFI-2) and Athletic of coping strategies focused on
Five Factor and coping Mage = 21.24 (3.77) Coping Skills Inventory-28 (ACSI- emotion, while neuroticism was
strategies in LoL players. years 25BR). related with the skills of coping
Mexperience = 5.12 (1.71) with adversity, motivation, and free
years playing from worries.
professional
Mgameplay/week = 27.97
(26.70)
Polat et al. To understand the stress Transactional Model of Stress 8 University team Focus-group interviews with a Stressors included excitement before
(2023), TURK experience of players and the and Coping (Lazarus & esports players semi-structured interview guide matches, individual performance
type of coping methods they Folkman, 1984) Mage = range 18–20 covering stressors and coping concerns, opponents performance,
use. Mexperience = NR strategies among esports players. lack of communication between the
Mgameplay/week = NR team, and desire to win the match.
Coping strategies included
emotion-focused coping (e.g.
listening to music), problem-
focused (e.g. discussing the game),
avoidance- (e.g. avoiding
communication), and approach
coping (e.g. changing style of
playing), and search for support
(e.g. communicating with other
players).
Poulus et al. To explore stress and coping in Cognitive-motivational- 316 esports athletes Survey including stress appraisal Stressors included technical issues
(2020), AUS * esports athletes and the relational theory of stress from a variety of via analog scales, Brief COPE and antisocial behavior.
influence of mental toughness. (Lazarus, 2000); 4/6Cs esports (33 female) inventory (Carver, 1997), Mental Coping strategies highlighted
Model of Mental Toughness Mage = 22.61 (4.35) Toughness Index, Mental greater use of problem-focused
(Clough et al., 2002) years Toughness Questionnaire 6 coping (mastery coping) than
Mexperience = NR (MTQ6). emotion focused and avoidance
Mgameplay/week = NR coping (internal regulation).
Mental toughness was associated
with greater use of problem- and
emotion-focused coping and less
avoidance coping strategies. Mental
toughness was also associated with
perceived control, while MTQ6
subscales were associated with
stress intensity.
Poulus et al. To qualitatively investigate the Bioecological Model 7 elite/professional male Semi-structured interviews Mental strategies were used by
(2022a), AUS perceived determinants of (Bronfenbrenner & players from a variety covering the participants players to regulate their emotions
success in professional esports Morris, 2006) of esports mindset when playing well, and remain mindful in the presence
athletes. Mage = 24.0 (4.20) mental strategies used and their of ‘tilt’, while breathing techniques
years perceived effectiveness, and tactical breaks were used to
Mexperience = NR experienced stressors, coping manage nervousness or facilitate a
Mgameplay/week = NR strategies, training, skill and ‘reset’ during stressful situations.
knowledge development, coach- Players also reported using
athlete relationship, and strategies to improve team
challenges in esports teams. cohesion, with the main challenge
being interpersonal disagreements.
Poulus et al. To examine the stressors, stress Cognitive-motivational- 6 elite male LoL players Longitudinal online diary study Stressors included general
(2022b), AUS appraisal, coping, and coping relational theory of stress … (weekly over 87 days) on performance, outcome, critical
* effectiveness by elite esports (Lazarus, 2000) Mage = 21.00 (1.90) stressors experienced, stressor moment performance, and
players. years intensity, and threat/challenge teammate mistakes accounting for
Mexperience = NR appraisal, coping strategies used, 55% of the stressors reported.
Mgameplay/week = NR and perceived coping Competitive diaries noted more

effectiveness. stressors compared to training
diaries, with competitive stressors
13
(Continued )
Table 2. Continued.
14

rated as more intense. While overall
challenge and threat appraisals
showed no difference, performance
stressors tended to be seen as
challenge, while teammate
stressors were more likely perceived
O. LEIS ET AL.
as threats.
Problem-focused coping (mastery
coping) was the most frequently
used coping strategy., and both
problem-focused and emotion-
focused coping (internal regulation)
were considered more effective at
reducing stress than avoidance
coping (internal regulation).
Poulus et al. To explore the sources of stress Cognitive-motivational- 270 esports players from Cross-sectional survey with Stressors included performance
(2022c), AUS experienced by competitive relational theory of stress a variety of esports participants asked to list a single (general performance, outcome,
esports athletes. (Lazarus, 2000) Mage = 22.40 (4.12) stressor they had encountered critical moment performance,
years recently when competing in an injury), teammate (teammate
Mexperience = NR open-ended stressor box. communication, teammate mistake,
Mgameplay/week = NR teammate general, anti-social
86.3% non- behavior, criticism), external
professional individuals (crowd, coach, official,
opponent), balancing life
commitments, and technical issues.
Ruvalcaba To understand female gamers’ NR Study 1: 92 gamers (61 Study 1:Survey study No gender difference was observed in
et al. (2018), experiences with positive and female) 13 questions on time spent receiving criticism among gamers
USA * negative feedback and sexual Mage = NR (NR) years playing, frequency of interaction and in negative comments directed
harassment in esports. Mexperience = 3.43 (1.37) with others (1–10), and questions at female (1.6%) and male
years on praise/criticism from male/ streamers (1.8%). Female streamers
Mgameplay/week = 4.90 female gamers. received a higher proportion of
(5.66) hours Study 2: Observation study sexual harassment comment
Study 2: 87 Twitch Text from chat during Twitch (1.83%) than male streamers
streaming players (39 streams (14.284 chat messages). (0.18%).
female)
Sabtan et al. To investigate current coaching NR 4 head coaches, 1 Interviews covering performance Challenges included long practice
(2022), CAN practices and challenges in LoL analyst, 1 general assessment methods, training, hours, player attitudes, mental
professional teams. manager (1 female) general game knowledge, and stress, and other health concerns
Mage = 28.80 (NR) challenges a coach faces in such as back and wrist injuries.
years esports.
Mexperience = NR
Mgameplay/week = NR
Schubert et al. To shed light on the perceptions Classification of doping and 9 male professional Semi-structured interviews Stressors included high-performance
(2022), BEL of doing and performance- enhancement in sport esports players in the covering esports knowledge, pressure, a volatile playing field
enhancing substances in subject to legality and ‘bevestor Virtual perceptions about esports and (annual rhythm with new releases,
professional esports players. (perceived) legitimacy Bundesliga Club FIFA, knowledge and experience patches, and relearning), and rather
(Schubert & Könecke, 2015) Championship’ with performance-enhancing a low prize money with
Mage = NR (range 18– practices, and anti-doping qualification tournaments.
27) efforts.
Mexperience = NR
Mgameplay/week = NR
Smith et al. To extend an understanding of Transactional Model of Stress 7 male CS:GO players Semi-structured interviews Stressors included team issues (e.g.
(2019), UK the stressors that esports and Coping (Lazarus & Mage = 20.57 (2.07) covering stressors and coping communication issues, intra-team
players experience and coping Folkman, 1984) years strategies during the competition criticism), individual issues (life
strategies players use to deal Mexperience = 3.43 (1.37) weekend and general balance and difficulty with
with these stressors. years competitive experience. managing lifestyle), scrutiny and
Mgameplay/week = NR criticism (opposition and social
media), and event issues (e.g. event
audience and media interviews).
Coping strategies were organized
into five forms: emotion-focused-
(e.g. exercise), problem-focused-
(e.g. communicating with
teammate), approach- (e.g. non-
game related group activities),
avoidance-(e.g. not doing
interviews), and appraisal coping
(e.g. re-framing comments from
teammates).
Smith et al. To examine the predictors of NR 313 competitive Survey including an own stressors Stressors significantly predict sleep
(2022), UK * mental ill health in esports university level measure, Pittsburgh Sleep quality, burnout, and social phobia
athletes. esports athletes from Quality Index, Athlete Burnout anxiety. Stressors, sleep quality,
a variety of esports (30 Questionnaire, Social Phobia burnout, and social phobia anxiety
female) Inventory, General Health were positive predictors of mental
Mage = 19.80 (2.00) Questionnaire – short form, ill health.
years Patient Health Questionnaire,
Mexperience = 2.80 (4.90) and Distress Screener.
years
Mgameplay/week = NR
Note. Studies highlighted with asterisk indicate those that examined the relationship between stressors, coping, and additional constructs. POL = Poland; USA = United States of America; UK =
United Kingdom; GER = Germany; BRA = Brazil; TURK = Turkey; AUS = Australia; CAN = Canada; BEL = Belgium; NR = not reported; CS:GO = Counter-Strike: Global Offensive; LoL = League of
15
Legends.
16 O. LEIS ET AL.
studies (Behnke et al., 2021; Pereira et al., 2021; Pereira et al., 2022; Poulus et al., 2020;
Ruvalcaba et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2022), one observational (Ruvalcaba et al., 2018),
and one diary study (Poulus et al., 2022b). Some of these studies employed a combination
of methods.
Study focus
The stressor and coping studies’ research questions focused on various aspects, such as
situations eliciting positive and negative emotions (Behnke et al., 2021), stressors and
coping strategies (Leis et al., 2022; Poulus et al., 2022c; Smith et al., 2019), and challenges
in professional esports teams (Sabtan et al., 2022). Four studies exclusively focused on
competitive contexts (Leis et al., 2022, 2023; Poulus et al., 2022b; Smith et al., 2019),
whereas 11 studies focused on aspects such as challenges experienced by players relating
to training and competition.
On the other hand, the seven studies on relationships focused on esports in general,
including training and competitive contexts (Behnke et al., 2021; Pereira et al., 2021;
Pereira et al., 2022; Poulus et al., 2020; Poulus et al., 2022b; Ruvalcaba et al., 2018;
Smith et al., 2022). The studies focused on the relationship between emotions and
gaming situations, distress, anxiety/depression symptoms, big five personality traits,
mental toughness, stress, stress appraisal, coping effectiveness, predictors of mental ill
health, and feedback and sexual harassment, including coping strategies, in esports.
Sample characteristics
Among the 15 studies focused on stressors and coping strategies, sample sizes varied,
ranging from 5 to 652 participants, with an average of 93.3 participants (SD = 183.1).
Gender information was absent in one study (Polat et al., 2023), but the majority of
studies predominantly included male esports players (89%), with none including non-
binary participants. Four out of 15 studies did not report the mean age of their sample
(Cote, 2017; Hong & Connelly, 2022; Polat et al., 2023; Sabtan et al., 2022). Among
studies that did report the average age, the average age of the participants was 22.8
years (SD = 3.1). Moreover, 11 studies did not provide information on player experience,
and 13 studies lacked detail on weekly playing time. Among studies with available
data, the average playing experience was 4.4 years (SD = 2.4), and the mean weekly
playing time was 38.3 h (SD = 26.4). The participants engaged in League of Legends (n
= 10), Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (k = 7), Defense of the Ancient 2 (k = 4), Overwatch
(k = 4), Rainbox Six Siege (k = 5), FIFA (k = 4), Tekken (k = 3), Pro Evolution Soccer (k = 2),
Streetfighter (k = 2), PUBG (k = 2), Fortnite (k = 2), and Valorant (k = 2).
The number of participants across the seven studies ranged from 6 to 617 participants,
with an average of 258.7 participants (SD = 212.1). The total participant pool across all
studies was 1804, with 162 female players (12%). No study reported non-binary partici
pants. The participants had an average age of 22.1 years (2.6). Three out of seven
studies reported player experience (M = 4.4 years; SD = 3.6), and two studies acknowl
edged the hours spent playing per week (M = 23.8; SD = 23.3). Participants were involved
in various esports, including League of Legends (k = 3), Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (k
= 4), Overwatch (k = 2), Defense of the Ancient 2 (k = 2), Rainbox Six Siege (k = 2), FIFA (k =
2), Valorant (k = 1), HeartStone (k = 1). For a brief description of included esports games,
please see supplementary material.
Categorization of stressors and coping strategies

Categorization of stressors
Stressors reported across the 15 studies were categorized into performance, team, social,
organizational, and personal stressors (e.g., Didymus et al., 2021). Performance stressors
emerged as the most frequently reported stressor, including defeat (k = 9), performance
pressure (k = 5; negative evaluation and emotional response to insufficient performance
for goal achievement), expectations to win (k = 5), opponents’ performance (k = 5), game
changes and meta shifts (k = 5), and equipment challenges (k = 5). Team stressors, includ
ing communication challenges (k = 7), unfavorable team plays (k = 5), antisocial behavior
(k = 5), and intra-team conflicts (k = 4), were less frequently reported. Social stressors
encompassed audience reactions (k = 5), social media and public perception (k = 4),
online harassment and toxicity (k = 3), external judgement (e.g. fans, opponents, and
casters; k = 3), media interviews (k = 2), and interactions with officials (k = 1). Organizational
stressors included unprofessional environment (k = 3), travel and transportation challenges
(k = 3), schedule and time conflicts (k = 2), and organizational expectations (k = 2). Personal
stressors, comparatively less frequently reported, included balancing life commitments
(e.g. difficulties separating life from gaming, organizing study around practice and compe
tition; k = 5) and job insecurities (k = 2). Table 3 presents the stressors mentioned in the
identified studies, categorized according to the overarching stressor categories.
Categorization of coping strategies

Coping strategies reported across the 19 identified studies were classified into three main
categories: mastery coping, internal regulation, and goal withdrawal (Nicholls et al., 2016).
Internal regulation emerged as the most frequently mentioned coping strategy (see
Table 4), followed by mastery coping, while goal withdrawal strategies were comparatively
less prevalent. In managing internal responses to stress (i.e. internal regulation), players
commonly engaged in team interactions (k = 5), communication with teammates, friends,
and family (k = 4), avoidance behaviors (e.g. not doing interviews, not reading social
media; k = 4), as well as meditation techniques (k = 4). Other strategies, such as non-
game related activities, team support, and utilizing humor (k = 3, each) were also commonly
mentioned. Mastery coping, focused on controlling situations and eliminating stressors,
involved physical activity (warm-up, stretching, exercise; k = 5), self-focus in gaming, atten
tion management, addressing issues to teammates and coaches, and employing techniques
to block harassers (k = 4, each). The most recurrent goal withdrawal strategies included
players resorting to substance use (k = 3) and venting negative emotions (k = 2).
Explored associations
This section investigates the relationships of stressors and coping strategies among ident
ified studies with other constructs, including appraisals (Poulus et al., 2020: Poulus et al.,
2022a), gender (Ruvalcaba et al., 2018), personality (Pereira et al., 2021; 2022), emotional
responses (Behnke et al., 2021) and health outcomes (Pereira et al., 2021; Smith et al.,
2022). Focusing on stress appraisal, Poulus et al. (2020) found that players more frequently
appraised stressors as a challenge (M = 6.2; SD = 2.6) than a threat (M = 4.1; SD = 3.0).
Expanding on this, Poulus et al. (2022a) noted that team stressors were more likely to
18 O. LEIS ET AL.
Table 3. Stressors within Identified Studies.

Stressors Study Stressor category
Defeat 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 14
Performance pressure 3, 6, 11, 13, 15
Expectations to win 1, 6, 8, 11, 13
Opponents’ performance 6, 8, 9, 10, 14
Game changes and meta shifts 4, 7, 11, 13, 15
Equipment challenges 6, 9, 11, 12, 14
Preparation shortcomings 3, 7, 12, 14
Live audience performance 6, 11, 12, 13
Lack of control and focus 3, 7, 10
Game-specific worries 10, 12, 15
Worry of underperformance 6, 8, 13
Dwelling on past performance 1, 3, 10 Performance stressor
Technical challenges (e.g. lags, bugs, trolls, hackers) 1, 9, 11
Tilt 1, 6
In-game deaths 1, 2
Critical moment pressure 9, 10
Dealing with mistakes 1, 9
Injuries 9, 12
Lack of game understanding 3, 7
Lack of values, empathy, motivation, experience 3, 7
Clutch situations 11
Coping with substance use 12
Overemphasis of grinding 7
Communication challenges 1, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14
Unfavorable team plays 1, 6, 9, 11, 14
Antisocial behavior 1, 2, 6, 9, 11
Intra-team conflicts 1, 6, 10, 15
Underperforming teammates 1, 6, 14
Lack of teammate effort 10, 14
Stats vs. team success dilemma 11, 14 Team stressor
Emotional teammates in failure 1, 11
Worry about teammate judgement 6, 12
Criticism of mistakes 7, 11
IGL communication style 14, 15
Lack of team support 3, 7
Unclear game plan / decisions 14
Audience reactions 6, 7, 8, 9, 14
Social media and public perception 6, 9, 12, 14
External judgement (e.g. fans, casters) 6, 12, 14
Online harassment and toxicity 2, 5, 14
Social stressors
Media interviews 6
Interactions with officials 9
Unprofessional environment 6, 7, 13
Travel and transportation challenges 6, 7, 14
Schedule and time conflicts 7, 14
Organizational expectations 14
Coaching pressure 12
Limited training hours 6
Organizational stressor
Excessive practice 6
Jetlag 6
Limited prize money 13
Lack of personal development resources 7
Balancing life commitments 3, 9, 10, 11, 14
Job insecurities 7, 12
Psychological safety 7, 14
Esports career commitment 14 Personal stressors
Limited prize money 13
Sleep habits during practice 14
Personal concerns 15
Note. 1 = Behnke et al. (2021); 2 = Cote (2017); 3 = Himmelstein et al. (2017); 4 = Hong and Connelly (2022); 5 = Hussain
et al. (2021); 6 = Leis et al. (2022); 7 = Leis et al. (2023); 8 = Polat et al. (2023); 9 = Poulus et al. (2022b); 10 = Poulus et al.
(2022a); 11 = Poulus et al. (2022c); 12 = Sabtan et al. (2022); 13 = Schubert et al. (2022); 14 = Smith et al. (2019); 15 =
Smith et al. (2022).
Table 4. Coping Strategies within Identified Studies.

Coping strategies Study Coping category
Communication 4, 6, 8, 14 Internal regulation
Team interaction 6, 7, 14, 18
Avoidance behaviors 2, 6, 8, 14
Meditation 4, 6, 7, 12
Breathing exercises 6, 7, 10
Non-game related activities 4, 6, 14
Going to the gym 6, 7, 12
Taking breaks 4, 8, 14
Team support 2, 6, 14
Humor 6, 17, 18
Self-distraction 17, 18
Acceptance 17, 18
Self-talk 6, 7
Music 6, 7
Religion 17, 18
Sleep 4, 6
Sarcasm 2
Partying 6
Cold showers 6
Emotional eating 14
Walking 7
Massage 7
Physical activity 2, 6, 7, 10, 14 Mastery coping
Blocking harassers 2, 12, 17, 18
Self-focus in gaming 2, 6, 8, 16
Attention management 10, 14, 17, 18
Address issues to teammates and coaches 4, 6, 8, 14
Goal setting 4, 17, 18
Strategic planning 2, 6, 14
Lifestyle balance 3, 7, 16
Adaptive play style 3, 7, 8
Intensity increase 6, 8
Skill and expertise reliance 3, 8
Nutrition support (e.g. coffee, energy drinks, water, fruits) 6, 8
Forward-oriented play 3
Team dynamic building 10
Performance analysis 2
Sleep optimization 6
Tactical breaks 7
Mental training 10
Instrumental support 12
Calculated use of flirtations 2
Substance use (e.g. alcohol, tobacco) 6, 17, 18 Goal withdrawal
Venting negative emotions 17, 18
Leaving the team 14
Leaving online gaming 2
Behavioral disengagement 17
Not playing aggressively 14
Microphone muting 14
Avatar selection 5
Avoid using overtly feminine usernames 5
Note. 1 = Behnke et al. (2021); 2 = Cote (2017); 3 = Himmelstein et al. (2017); 4 = Hong and Connelly (2022); 5 = Hussain
et al. (2021); 6 = Leis et al. (2022); 7 = Leis et al. (2023); 8 = Polat et al. (2023); 9 = Poulus et al. (2022b); 10 = Poulus et al.
(2022a); 11 = Poulus et al. (2022c); 12 = Sabtan et al. (2022); 13 = Schubert et al. (2022); 14 = Smith et al. (2019); 15 =
Smith et al. (2022); 16 = Pereira et al. (2021); 17 = Pereira et al. (2022); 18 = Poulus et al. (2020).
be appraised as a threat, whereas performance stressors were predominantly appraised a

challenge. In addition, a higher prevalence of stressors was observed in competitive than
training settings (Poulus et al., 2022a). Poulus et al. (2020) reported an average stress
intensity of 6.4 (SD = 2.3) and an average perceived control of 3.9 (SD = 2.9). Moreover,
20 O. LEIS ET AL.
perceived stress intensity was negatively associated with mental toughness, while perceived
control was positively associated with mental toughness (Poulus et al., 2020).
Regarding gender dynamics stressors among esports players, Ruvalcaba et al. (2018)
explored feedback and sexual harassment differences. Despite most comments being
neutral for male (96%) and female streamers (93%), female streamers received more posi
tive feedback directed towards themselves (3%) and appearance-related compliments
(37%) compared to males (1% and 8%, respectively). This feedback coexisted with a
higher incidence of sexual comments for female streamers (approximately 2% vs. 0%).
Stressors also impact emotional responses and mental health outcomes (Behnke et al.,
2021; Smith et al., 2022). Behnke et al. (2021) found that anger and sadness are related to
performance and team stressors. Specifically, they found anger was associated with team
issues (43%), negative performance outcomes (28%), and opponents’ actions (20%), while
sadness was primarily associated with negative performance outcomes (45%) and under
performing (25%). Examining stressors, including team and performance stressors, Smith
et al. (2022) identified a negative impact on sleep quality and a positive prediction for
burnout and social phobia anxiety. The most influential predictors across the three
social phobia anxiety components were personal concerns and in-game pressure (27%
fear, 16% avoidance, 16% physiological symptoms).
With a focus on coping strategies, Pereira et al. (2021) observed that both effect sizes
were small, with a stronger association of maladaptive coping with anxiety symptoms (r =
0.14**) compared to adaptive coping (r = −0.06**). The coping strategies categorized as
maladaptive coping also correlated with sleep disturbances, alcohol consumption and
poor eating habits (i.e. internal regulation, goal withdrawal), whereas adaptive coping
related to better sleep, reduced alcohol intake, and healthier eating habits (i.e. mastery
coping). Another study found several personality factors were positively associated
with the Athletic Coping Skills Inventory-28 (ACSI-25BR) dimensions, with conscientious
ness related to emotion-focused coping (internal regulation) and neuroticism correlating
with coping skills for adversity, motivation, and being worry-free (Pereira et al., 2022).
Quality assessment
The quality assessment of the 19 studies against nine criteria generally suggests good
quality of the included studies. Across all criteria, studies received a range of two to
nine ‘yes’ ratings (M = 6.4, SD = 2.3), zero to five ‘no’ ratings (M = 1.4, SD = 1.5), and zero
to five ‘unclear’ ratings (M = 1.2, SD = 1.4), as shown in Table 5. Specifically, the methodo
logical appropriateness (item 1) and reporting of results (item 7) received 18 ‘yes’ ratings
and one ‘unclear’ rating each. However, six ‘no’ scores were reported for the theoretical
framework (item 2) and participant characteristics (item 3), while eligibility criteria (item
4) and control of confounding variables (item 8) received five ‘no’ scores each. Overall,
studies demonstrated variability in meeting the nine criteria, highlighting areas for con
sideration in the interpretation of the findings.
Discussion
The purpose of this systematic review was to provide an overview of the existing literature
on stressors and coping strategies in esports, while demonstrating their relationship with
Table 5. Quality Assessment.

Study 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Yes ratings No ratings Unclear ratings
Behnke et al. (2021) ✓ O ✓ O ✓ ✓ ✓ O ✓ 6 0 3
Cote (2017) O X X ✓ X X ✓ X O 2 5 2
Himmelstein et al. (2017) ✓ O ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ O ✓ 7 0 2
Hong and Connelly (2022) ✓ ✓ X X ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 7 2 0
Hussain et al. (2021) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ O ✓ ✓ X X 6 2 1
Leis et al. (2022) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 9 0 0
Leis et al. (2023) ✓ X ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ O ✓ 7 1 1
Pereira et al. (2021) ✓ X ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 8 1 0
Pereira et al. (2022) ✓ ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ ✓ X ✓ 7 2 0
Polat et al. (2023) ✓ ✓ X X X O ✓ X O 3 4 2
Poulus et al. (2020) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 9 0 0
Poulus et al. (2022a) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 9 0 0
Poulus et al. (2022b) ✓ ✓ ✓ X ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 8 1 0
Poulus et al. (2022c) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ O ✓ ✓ O ✓ 7 0 2
Ruvalcaba et al. (2018) ✓ X X O X O ✓ X ✓ 3 4 2
Sabtan et al. (2022) ✓ X X ✓ O O O O O 2 2 5
Schubert et al. (2022) ✓ ✓ X ✓ O O ✓ ✓ ✓ 6 1 2
Smith et al. (2019) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 9 0 0
Smith et al. (2022) ✓ X ✓ X ✓ ✓ ✓ O ✓ 6 2 1
Total yes scores 18 11 13 12 12 14 18 8 15
Total no scores 0 6 6 5 3 1 0 5 1
Total unclear scores 1 2 0 2 4 4 1 6 3
Note. 1 = Methodological appropriateness; 2 = Theoretical framework; 3 = Participant characteristics; 4 = Eligibility cri
teria; 5 = Measurements; 6 = Data analysis; 7 = Reporting of results; 8 = Control for confounding and verification pro
cedures; 9 = Acknowledgement of limitations.
✓ = denotes criterion is met; X = denotes criterion is not met; O = denotes unclear if criterion is met.
related constructs such as appraisals and gender. Adhering to the PRISMA guidelines
(PRISMA; Page et al., 2021) and guidelines for systematic reviews in the field of sport
and exercise psychology (Gunnell et al., 2020; Gunnell et al., 2022), we synthesized
findings from 19 studies. Specifically, performance stressors, notably performance
pressure, emerged as the most frequently reported stressor, along with team stressors,
social stressors, organizational stressors, and personal stressors. The predominant
coping classification used was internal regulation (e.g. communicating with teammates)
and mastery coping (e.g. increasing effort). Goal withdrawal strategies, such as venting
negative emotions, were infrequently reported. While this review demonstrates the
association between stressors and psychological aspects (e.g. anger, sadness, sleep
quality, burnout), and coping strategies with psychological factors (e.g. mental toughness,
personality traits), there remains limited depth in understanding mediating and moderat
ing factors. For example, the competitive characteristics of participants, such as their
levels of competition (e.g. amateur, professional), roles (e.g. players, streamers), and
specific esports contexts, can influence the stress and coping process. Advancing our
current understanding of stressors and coping strategies in esports is needed to
develop targeted interventions that support esports players’ well-being and performance
in the competitive environment.
Comparison with traditional sports reveals parallels in experienced stressors. Specifi
cally, similarities include performance stressors (e.g. inadequate preparation, injury,
underperformance, opponent rivalry, and self-presentation), team issues (e.g. teammates
behaviors, personality, and goals), organizational stressors (e.g. schedule and time
conflicts), and personal stressors (e.g. academic commitments, balancing personal com
mitments with a job; e.g. Arnold & Fletcher, 2012; Arnold & Fletcher, 2021; Sarkar &
22 O. LEIS ET AL.
Fletcher, 2014). In contrast to athletes who frequently report organizational stressors

associated with leadership and other personnel (e.g. Arnold & Fletcher, 2012; Simpson
et al., 2021), esports literature seldom addresses these stressors (e.g. Smith et al., 2019).
This disparity may be attributed to factors such as characteristics of study samples,
research questions, and variations in leadership models within esports (e.g. shared leader
ship). Despite limited evidence on stressors such as in-game leader communication style
(Smith et al., 2019; Smith et al., 2022) and interactions with officials (Poulus et al., 2022b), it
is reasonable to assume that team-based esport players also experience stressors associ
ated with leadership and other personnel. Noteworthy among the more unique stressors
presented in esports research are social media pressures, online harassment, toxicity,
game changes, meta shifts, and equipment challenges. Highlighting the differences,
social stressors were a category developed based on this review to encompass stressors
not fitting into existing categories such as organizational stressors, including interactions
outside the organization (e.g. social media).
While personal stressors remain underexplored in esports studies, they are presumed
to align with those experienced by traditional athletes. The lack of personal stressors in
identified studies may be attributed to their specific focus, such as interview guides focus
ing on competition-related stressors (e.g. Leis et al., 2022). Additionally, while traditional
sports stressors, such as weather conditions (e.g. Nicholls et al., 2006; Weston et al., 2009)
may not directly translate to the esports environment. However, esport players may
experience temperature-related issues due to heating in venues or restrictions on
outdoor breaks during series warranting further research (Yeganeh et al., 2018).
Moreover, similar coping strategies emerge in esports players and traditional athletes,
including communication, team interaction, physical activity, and mental strategies such
as self-talk and meditation. Both esports research (e.g. Leis et al., 2022; Polat et al., 2023;
Smith et al., 2019) and sports research emphasize the role of social networks in coping
(e.g. Leprince et al., 2018; Weston et al., 2009). While esport players and athletes share
coping strategies such as concentration, effort, planning, self-talk, and acceptance, they
less frequently resort to goal withdrawal strategies (e.g. Didymus & Fletcher, 2014;
McGreary et al., 2021; Swettenham et al., 2020). Noteworthy differences, such as micro
phone muting and avatar selection, are attributed to the distinctive esports environment
(Hussain et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2019). The present findings also align with research in
traditional sports, indicating a higher prevalence of mastery coping compared to internal
regulation and goal withdrawal strategies (e.g. Simpson et al., 2021). Due to the lack of
research on the efficacy of coping strategies in esports, no meaningful comparison
with findings from traditional sports research can be made.
Research on sports athletes has highlighted five key psychological factors protecting
them from stressors’ potential negative effects: personality, motivation, confidence,
focus, and perceived social support (Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014). In esports, the importance
of perceived social support in esports is indicated, particularly through the number of
internal regulation strategies related to the player’s team (e.g. communication with team
mates, relying on teammates, team environment; e.g. Leis et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2019).
In contrast to sport research, current esports research is limited to multiple components of
the transactional stress process, including appraisals (e.g. Bartholomew et al., 2017;
Didymus & Fletcher, 2017), coping (e.g. Arnold et al., 2017; Didymus & Fletcher, 2017), per
formance (see meta-analysis by Nicholls et al., 2016), personality (including adaptive
perfectionism, optimism, competitiveness, hope and proactivity; see review by Sarkar &
Fletcher, 2014), and self-confidence (see meta-analysis by Jekauc et al., 2023). Similarly,
while existing evidence in traditional sport has explored variations in factors such as
age, gender, and sports types (e.g. Nicholls & Polman, 2007; Simpson et al., 2021), a
gap exists in the study of similar distinctions among esports players.
Limitations
Theoretical and methodological limitations in identified studies
A notable limitation of the present review is the paucity in this domain, in comparison to
traditional sports. The lack of studies impairs the comprehensive understanding of how
esports players assess stressors within the esports environment and tailor their coping
responses accordingly. A more detailed understanding is further limited by several of
the included study’s research questions that specifically focused on stressors and
coping in the competitive environment. Since the identified studies primarily focused
on esports players’ experiences of the competitive environment, insights into personal
stressors are limited. However, understanding personal stressors seems of particular
importance as a professional career in esports is considered highly difficult (Salo, 2017;
Smithies et al., 2020) with players struggling to balance life commitments and esports
(Poulus et al., 2022b, 2022c). Similarly, research on shared stressors (demands experienced
by two or more players within a team) and communal coping strategies (collective efforts
to manage a stressor) is limited, restricting understanding of how players collectively
appraise and navigate stressors in esports. There also remains a limited understanding
of the impact of factors such as age, gender (especially among female gamers), cultural
context, and experience on appraisal and coping. Moreover, the quality assessment of
the included studies underscored deficiencies in reporting regarding a theoretical frame
work, participant characteristics, eligibility criteria, and control for confounding variables.
These limitations, in turn, constrain the interpretation of their findings.
Limitations within this review

The review’s findings were influenced by the eligibility criteria, encompassing language,
topic, publication status, and sample characteristics. Exclusions were made for studies
lacking specificity on the video game under consideration, thereby excluding research
addressing stressors and/or coping within the broader context of online gaming. For
instance, research has shown a range of stressors and coping strategies associated with
general and sexual harassment (e.g. Fox & Tang, 2017; McLean & Griffiths, 2019). Exper
imental designs were also excluded in line with the methodological scope (e.g. Behnke
et al., 2020), focusing on previous research on stress responses through experimental
designs (Leis & Lautenbach, 2020). The review’s emphasis on stressors and coping
among esports players omitted insights into other populations, such as esports
coaches (e.g. coaches in sport: Norris et al., 2017). Additionally, the focus on amateur
and professional players limits the generalizability of conclusions across specific levels
of performance. Although stressor and coping categories cover a broad range, specific
nuances within these domains are underexplored in esports. Notably, potential errors
in categorization arose from reliance on extracted information rather than direct access
to the transcripts or raw data sheets, acknowledging the possibility for misclassifications.
24 O. LEIS ET AL.
For instance, the classification of ‘partying’ as internal regulation, despite its potential
alignment with goal withdrawal, stems from its utilization by players for emotional regu
lation after victories and losses (Leis et al., 2022). Moreover, this review does not provide
detailed insights into protective factors such as motivation, confidence, and perceived
social support (Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014).
Future research
While this review offers valuable insights, several avenues remain limited, offering oppor
tunities for future research. To advance the interpretation of future research, it is crucial
for studies to define key terms, including stressors and coping. Drawing upon Lazarus and
Folkman’s (1984) definition, as presented in our introduction, provides a framework for
conceptualizing stressors and coping strategies in esports. While Nicholls et al.’s (2016)
framework could enhance the categorization of coping strategies, the stressor categories
identified in this review (i.e. performance, team, social, organizational, and personal stres
sors) could foster a better understanding of stress and coping within esports. The devel
opment of the new category, social stressors, may enhance future research by addressing
interactions outside the organization, such as social media, and providing a more holistic
view of stress affecting performers. Furthermore, frameworks, as used in the present
review, should be validated for future relevance, ensuring their applicability to evolving
contexts. To enhance our understanding, contextual reporting of stressors and coping
strategies is crucial. For a broader perspective, future research should examine stressors
by considering the frequency, intensity, duration, perceived controllability, and severity
(e.g. Arnold & Fletcher, 2021). Moreover, exploring personal stressors in greater detail
can inform intervention strategies for players’ personal development, well-being, and per
formance. Future research could enhance our understanding of stressors and coping by
incorporating additional variables such as personality traits, motivation, self-confidence,
perceived support, performance, and well-being. In addition, a dynamic approach
could reveal how appraisal and coping strategies evolve over time in relation to personal
and environmental factors. Studies should also differentiate among various levels of per
formance, considering the definition outlined by Bubna et al. (2023) regarding esport
players and the classification system provided by Poulus et al. (in press). Existing theoreti
cal frameworks, such as the meta-model (Fletcher et al., 2006) may be applied to better
understand how appraisals, coping, and esports performance are related. Similarly,
exploring the effectiveness of combined coping strategies, especially within specific
player demographics (e.g. age, gender, cultural context, performance levels), can lead
to tailored interventions (e.g. Crocker et al., 2015; Tamminen, 2021). For instance, the
research highlighted the role of performance levels, stress appraisal, self-regulation,
psychological skill use, and perceived social support in esports, pointing toward tailored
interventions for specific populations (Poulus et al., 2023; Trotter et al., 2021, 2023). While
initial steps have been taken in developing esports specific interventions, such as work
shops to develop team cohesion (Swettenham & Whitehead, 2022) or adapting coping
effectiveness training for esports contexts (Poulus et al., 2023), future research should
refine and expand upon existing approaches. Exploring individual and collective apprai
sals and coping efforts, such as player-player, player-coach, and player-parent inter
actions, can yield valuable insights into the potential benefits of group-based
interventions. To facilitate these investigations, innovative and prospective designs (e.g.

longitudinal studies, diary approaches, think-aloud protocols) can be applied to identify
fluctuations in appraisal and coping strategies throughout the competitive season,
drawing parallels with studies on athletes in rugby (Nicholls et al., 2006) and golf (Nicholls
et al., 2005). In this regard, it is recommended that research follows established guidelines,
ensuring adequate reporting of their methodologies, including aspects such as partici
pant characteristics, eligibility criteria, and theoretical framework. This approach would
enable more robust and nuanced interpretation of future research.
Practical implications
Effective intervention strategies should be tailored to individual players (Cottrell et al.,
2019), encompassing the player’s holistic environment, including coaches and staff
(Henriksen et al., 2014). Given research indicating the efficacy of mastery coping in
stress reduction (e.g. Nicholls et al., 2010), players may benefit from teachings on
mastery coping (e.g. goal setting, attention management), supporting players to
control and, thus, eliminate stressors (Nicholls et al., 2016). In contrast, avoiding goal
withdrawal strategies during competitive events seems advisable due to their negative
impact on coping effectiveness. Importantly, this process of change requires time and
effort from players and, potentially sports psychologists (e.g. Henriksen et al., 2019).
Interventions aimed at fostering trust, communication, and team cohesion can
enhance perceived and available social support, supporting players in coordinating col
lective activities under pressure and openly communicating challenges. This approach
facilitates collective problem-solving under pressure and encourages discussions
among teammates, including interactions with sports psychologists, to refine strategies
and address stressors such as online harassment and antisocial behavior (e.g. Swetten
ham & Whitehead, 2022). Practical initiatives, such as tailored workshops, can serve as
effective initial steps in implementing these interventions (e.g. Leis et al., 2023). These
workshops could prioritize discussions on effective communication, nutrition, and
recovery strategies. For example, interventions could focus on enhancing team cohe
sion by fostering players’ self-awareness and understanding of others through colla
borative exploration of their individual strengths profiles (Swettenham & Whitehead,
2022). Encouraging non-game related activities, such as physical exercise (e.g. gym ses
sions and leisurely walks), weekly board game nights, watching movies, or engaging in
hobbies, can positively contribute to player’s overall well-being and team cohesion
(e.g. Pedraza-Ramirez et al., 2024). Encouraging players to openly discuss performance,
organizational, team dynamics, and personal stressors with researchers or stakeholders
can help identify individual challenges and inform more inclusive intervention
strategies.
Conclusion
Although research on stressors and coping in esports is limited, the present review
provides an overview of the current state of research. The review highlights several
performance, team, social, organizational, and personal stressors. Particularly notable
is the addition of social stressors, which enriches the understanding of stressors in
26 O. LEIS ET AL.
this performance context. This study further emphasizes mastery, internal regulation,
and goal withdrawal coping strategies in esports. Thereby, this review provides a prac
tical resource for players and coaches and offers a starting point for future research on
stressors and coping in esports. In conclusion, exploring appraisal and coping as a
dynamic process with interpersonal elements, and different effectiveness across
diverse populations while accounting for personal and environmental aspects can
pave the way for targeted interventions that support performance and well-being in
esports.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all authors that responded to our requests.
Author contributions
Oliver Leis Conceptualization, Methodology, Study Selection Process, Data analysis, Risk
of Bias Assessment, Writing – Original Draft, Project Administration; Benjamin T Sharpe:
Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing; Critical Friend; Vincent Pelikan: Study Selec
tion Process; Julian Fritsch: Quality Assessment, Writing – Review & Editing; Adam
Nicholls: Critical Friend, Writing – Review & Editing; Dylan R Poulus: Methodology,
Data Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This research did not receive grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-
profit sectors.
Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon
reasonable request.
References
Akinola, M., Fridman, I., Mor, S., Morris, M. W., & Crum, A. J. (2016). Adaptive appraisals of anxiety
moderate the association between cortisol reactivity and performance in salary negotiations.
PLoS One, 11(12), e0167977. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167977
Anshel, M. H., & Wells, B. (2000). Sources of acute stress and coping styles in competitive sport.
Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 13(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800008248331
Arnold, R., & Fletcher, D. (2012). A research synthesis and taxonomic classification of the organiz
ational stressors encountered by sport performers. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 34
(3), 397–429. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.34.3.397
Arnold, R., & Fletcher, D. (2021). Stressors, hassles, and adversity. In A. Rachel & D. Fletcher (Eds.),
Stress, well-being, and performance in sport (pp. 31–62). Routledge.
Arnold, R., Fletcher, D., & Daniels, K. (2017). Organisational stressors, coping, and outcomes in competi
tive sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(7), 694–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1184299
Bartholomew, K. J., Arnold, R., Hampson, R. J., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Organizational stressors and
basic psychological needs: The mediating role of athletes’ appraisal mechanisms. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine \& Science in Sports, 27(12), 2127–2139. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12851
Behnke, M., Chwiłkowska, P., & Kaczmarek, L. D. (2021). What makes male gamers angry, sad,
amused, and enthusiastic while playing violent video games? Entertainment Computing, 37(8),
100397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2020.100397
Behnke, M., Kosakowski, M., & Kaczmarek, L. D. (2020). Social challenge and threat predict perform
ance and cardiovascular responses during competitive video gaming. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 46, 101584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101584
Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6
(1), 9–36. http://doi.org/10.1177/009365027900600102
Britton, D. M., Kavanagh, E. J., & Polman, R. C. J. (2019). A path analysis of adolescent athletes’ per
ceived stress reactivity, competition appraisals, emotions, coping, and performance satisfaction.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1151. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01151
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In
Handbook of Child Psychology (pp. 793–828). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Bubna, K., Trotter, M. G., Polman, R., & Poulus, D. R. (2023). Terminology matters: Defining the esports
athlete. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 5, 1232028. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2023.
1232028
Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: Consider the brief
cope. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 92–100. http://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327558ijbm0401_6
Chaput, J.-P. P., Visby, T., Nyby, S., Klingenberg, L., Gregersen, N. T., Tremblay, A., Astrup, A., Sjödin, A.,
& Sjodin, A. (2011). Video game playing increases food intake in adolescents: A randomized cross
over study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 93(6), 1196–1203. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.
110.008680
Clough, P., Earle, K., & Sewell, D. (2002). Mental toughness: The concept andits measurement. In
Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 32–43). Thomson.
Cooke, A., Smith, D., & Booth, A. (2012). Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence syn
thesis. Qualitative Health Research, 22(10), 1435–1443. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1049732312452938
Cote, A. C. (2017). “I can defend myself”: Women’s strategies for coping with harassment while
gaming online. Games and Culture, 12(2), 136–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412015587603
Cottrell, C., McMillen, N., & Harris, B. S. (2019). Sport psychology in a virtual world: Considerations for
practitioners working in eSports. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 10(2), 73–81. https://doi.
org/10.1080/21520704.2018.1518280
Crocker, P. R. E., Tamminen, K. A., & Gaudreau, P. (2015). Coping in sport. In S. D. Mellalieu & S.
Hanton (Eds.), Contemporary advances in sport psychology: A review (pp. 28–67). Routledge.
Crum, A. J., Akinola, M., Martin, A., & Fath, S. (2017). The role of stress mindset in shaping cognitive,
emotional, and physiological responses to challenging and threatening stress. Anxiety, Stress and
Coping, 30(4), 379–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2016.1275585
Crum, A. J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013). Rethinking stress: The role of mindsets in determining the
stress response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 716. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0031201
Czikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience (pp. 75–77). Harper and Row.
Didymus, F. F., & Fletcher, D. (2014). Swimmers’ experiences of organizational stress: Exploring the
role of cognitive appraisal and coping strategies. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 8(2), 159–
183. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2014-0020
Didymus, F. F., & Fletcher, D. (2017). Organizational stress in high-level field hockey: Examining
transactional pathways between stressors, appraisals, coping and performance satisfaction.
International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 12(2), 252–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1747954117694737
28 O. LEIS ET AL.
Didymus, F. F., & Jones, M. V. (2021). Cognitive appraisals. In R. Arnold & F. D (Eds.), Stress, well-being,
and performance in sport (pp. 63–77). Routledge.
Didymus, F., Norris, L., Potts, A. J., & Staff, H. R. (2021). Psychological stress and performance. In Z.
Zenko & L. Jones (Eds.), Essentials of exercise and sport psychology: An open access textbook (pp.
683–709). Society for Transparency, Openness, and Replication in Kinesiology.
Fletcher, D., & Fletcher, J. (2005). A meta-model of stress, emotions and performance: Conceptual
foundations, theoretical framework, and research directions. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(2),
157–158.
Fletcher, D., Hanton, S., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2006). An organizational stress review: Conceptual and
theoretical issues in competitive sport. In S. Hanton & S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in
sport psychology (pp. 321–373). Nova Science Publishers.
Fox, J., & Tang, W. Y. (2017). Women’s experiences with general and sexual harassment in online
video games: Rumination, organizational responsiveness, withdrawal, and coping strategies.
NEW MEDIA & SOCIETY, 19(8), 1290–1307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816635778
Gable, P., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2010). The motivational dimensional model of affect: Implications for
breadth of attention, memory, and cognitive categorisation. Cognition & Emotion, 24(2), 322–337.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02699930903378305
Gray, P. B., Vuong, J., Zava, D. T., & McHale, T. S. (2018). Testing men’s hormone responses to playing
league of legends: No changes in testosterone, cortisol, DHEA or androstenedione but decreases
in aldosterone. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 230–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.
004
Gunnell, K. E., Belcourt, V. J., Tomasone, J. R., & Weeks, L. C. (2022). Systematic review methods.
International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1750984X.2021.1966823
Gunnell, K., Poitras, V. J., & Tod, D. (2020). Questions and answers about conducting systematic
reviews in sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
13(1), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2019.1695141
Henriksen, K., Larsen, C. H., Storm, L. K., & Ryom, K. (2014). Sport psychology interventions with
young athletes: The perspective of the sport psychology practitioner. Journal of Clinical Sport
Psychology, 8(3), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2014-0033
Henriksen, K., Storm, L. K., Stambulova, N., Pyrdol, N., & Larsen, C. H. (2019). Successful and less suc
cessful interventions with youth and senior athletes: Insights from expert sport psychology prac
titioners. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 13(1), 72–94. https://doi.org/10.1123/jcsp.2017-0005
Himmelstein, D., Liu, Y., & Shapiro, J. L. (2017). An exploration of mental skills among competitive
league of legend players. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations,
9(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGCMS.2017040101
Hong, H. J., & Connelly, J. (2022). High e-performance: Esports players` coping skills and strategies.
International Journal of Esports, 2(2), 93. https://www.ijesports.org/article/93/html
Hussain, U., Yu, B., Cunningham, G. B., & Bennett, G. (2021). “I can be who I am when I play Tekken 7”:
E-sports women participants from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Games and Culture, 16(8), 978–
1000. https://doi.org/10.1177/15554120211005360
Jekauc, D., Fiedler, J., Wunsch, K., Mülberger, L., Burkart, D., Kilgus, A., & Fritsch, J. (2023). The effect of
self-confidence on performance in sports: A meta-analysis and narrative review. International
Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2023.2222376
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoreti
cal perspectives. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2(510), 102–138.
Journault, A.-A., Cernik, R., Charbonneau, S., Sauvageau, C., Giguère, C-É, Jamieson, J. P., Plante, I.,
Geoffrion, S., & Lupien, S. J. (2023). Learning to embrace one’s stress: The selective effects of
short videos on youth’s stress mindsets. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 37(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10615806.2023.2234309
Kmet, L. M., Cook, L. S., & Lee, R. C. (2004). Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary
research papers from a variety of fields. Health Technology Assessment Initiative, 13.
Kraemer, W. J., Caldwell, L. K., Post, E. M., Beeler, M. K., Emerson, A., Volek, J. S., Maresh, C. M., Fogt, J. S.,
Fogt, N., Häkkinen, K., Newton, R. U., Lopez, P., Sanchez, B. N., & Onate, J. A. (2022). Arousal/stress
effects of “overwatch” eSports game competition in collegiate gamers. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 36(10), 2671–2675. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000004319
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assess
ment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33(2), 363–374. https://doi.
org/10.2307/2529786
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. Springer publishing company.
Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. In Y. L. Hanin (Ed.),
Emotions in sport (pp. 39–63). Human Kinetics.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer publishing company.
Leis, O., & Lautenbach, F. (2020). Psychological and physiological stress in non-competitive and com
petitive esports settings: A systematic review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 51(3), 101738.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101738
Leis, O., Lautenbach, F., Birch, P. D. J., & Elbe, A.-M. (2022). Stressors, associated responses, and
coping strategies in professional esports players: A qualitative study. International Journal of
Esports, 3(3), 76. https://www.ijesports.org/article/76/html
Leis, O., Raue, C., Dreiskämper, D., & Lautenbach, F. (2021). To be or not to be (e) sports? That is not the
question! Why and how sport and exercise psychology could research esports. German Journal of
Exercise and Sport Research, 51(2), 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-021-00715-9
Leis, O., Watson, M., Swettenham, L., Pedraza-Ramirez, I., & Lautenbach, F. (2023). Stress manage
ment strategies in esports: An exploratory online survey on applied practice. Journal of
Electronic Gaming and Esports, 1(1), 1–11.
Leprince, C., D’Arripe-Longueville, F., & Doron, J. (2018). Coping in teams: Exploring athletes’ com
munal coping strategies to deal with shared stressors. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(OCT), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01908
Martinent, G., & Ferrand, C. (2015). A field study of discrete emotions: Athletes’ cognitive appraisals
during competition. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 86(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02701367.2014.975176
McGreary, M., Birch, P., Eubank, M., & Whitehead, A. (2021). Thinking Aloud. A qualitative analysis of
stressors and coping responses in cricket bowlers during a competitive match. Qualitative
Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(6), 972–989. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2020.
1829013
McLean, L., & Griffiths, M. D. (2019). Female gamers’ experience of online harassment and social
support in online gaming: A qualitative study. International Journal of Mental Health and
Addiction, 17(4), 970–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-018-9962-0
Mendoza, G., Clemente-Suárez, V. J., Alvero-Cruz, J. R., Rivilla, I., García-Romero, J., Fernández-Navas,
M., de Albornoz-Gil, M. C., & Jiménez, M. (2021). The role of experience, perceived match impor
tance, and anxiety on cortisol response in an official esports competition. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(6), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062893
Nagorsky, E., & Wiemeyer, J. (2020). The structure of performance and training in esports. PLoS One,
15(8), e0237584. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237584
Neil, R., Hanton, S., Mellalieu, S. D., & Fletcher, D. (2011). Competition stress and emotions in sport
performers: The role of further appraisals. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(4), 460–470. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.02.001
Nicholls, A. R., Holt, N. L., Polman, R. C. J., & Bloomfield, J. (2006). Stressors, coping, and coping effec
tiveness among professional rugby union players. Sport Psychologist, 20(3), 314–329. https://doi.
org/10.1123/tsp.20.3.314
Nicholls, A., Holt, N. L., Polman, R., & James, D. W. G. (2005). Stress, coping, and coping effectiveness
among international adolescent golfers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(2), 166–167.
Nicholls, A. R., & Polman, R. C. J. (2007). Coping in sport: A systematic review. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 25(1), 11–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410600630654
Nicholls, A. R., Polman, R. C. J. J., & Levy, A. R. (2012). A path analysis of stress appraisals, emotions,
coping, and performance satisfaction among athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(3),
263–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.12.003
30 O. LEIS ET AL.
Nicholls, A. R., Polman, R. C. J., Levy, A. R., & Borkoles, E. (2010). The mediating role of coping: A cross-
sectional analysis of the relationship between coping self-efficacy and coping effectiveness
among athletes. International Journal of Stress Management, 17(3), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0020064
Nicholls, A. R., Taylor, N. J., Carroll, S., & Perry, J. L. (2016). The development of a new sport-specific
classification of coping and a meta-analysis of the relationship between different coping strat
egies and moderators on sporting outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(11), 1–14. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01674
Norris, L. A., Didymus, F. F., & Kaiseler, M. (2017). Stressors, coping, and well-being among sports
coaches: A systematic review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 33, 93–112. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.psychsport.2017.08.005
Oxford, J., Ponzi, D. D., & Geary, D. C. (2010). Hormonal responses differ when playing violent video
games against an ingroup and outgroup. Evoltion and Human Behavior, 31(3), 201–209. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.07.002
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L.,
Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., & Chou, R. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An
updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88,
105906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906
Pedraza-Ramirez, I., Musculus, L., Raab, M., & Laborde, S. (2020). Setting the scientific stage for
esports psychology: A systematic review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
13(1), 319–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2020.1723122
Pedraza-Ramirez, I., Ramaker, B., Mathorne, O. W., Watson, M., & Laborde, S. (2024). Behind the cur
tains of elite esports: A case study from a holistic ecological approach to talent development.
Case Studies in Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8(S1), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1123/cssep.2023-
0017
Pereira, R., da Silva Nunes, C. H. S., & Pires, J. G. (2022). Personality and coping in league of legends
pro players. Avaliação Psicológica, 21(1), 25–33.
Pereira, A. M., Teques, P., Verhagen, E., Gouttebarge, V., Figueiredo, P., & Brito, J. J. (2021). Mental
health symptoms in electronic football players. BMJ Open Sport and Exercise Medicine, 7(4),
1149. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2021-001149
Polat, S., Aslan, F. E., Yalin, H., Kenger, E. B., & Pişirici, P. (2023). Examination of stress and coping
methods among esports players: A qualitative study. International Journal of Caring Sciences,
16(1), 457–463.
Poulus, D. R., Bennett, K., Swann, C., Moyle, G., & Polman, R. (2023, November). The influence of an
esports-adapted coping effectiveness training (E-CET) on resilience, mental health, and subjective
performance among elite league of legends players: A pilot study. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 69, 102510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2023.102510
Poulus, D. R., Coulter, T. J., Trotter, M. G., & Polman, R. (2020). Stress and coping in esports and the
influence of mental toughness. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(628), 628. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2020.00628
Poulus, D. R., Coulter, T. J., Trotter, M. G., & Polman, R. (2022a). A qualitative analysis of the perceived
determinants of success in elite esports athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 40(6), 742–753.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2021.2015916
Poulus, D. R., Coulter, T., Trotter, M., & Polman, R. (2022b). Longitudinal analysis of stressors, stress,
coping and coping effectiveness in elite esports athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 60,
102093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.102093
Poulus, D. R., Coulter, T., Trotter, M., & Polman, R. (2022c). Perceived stressors experienced by com
petitive esports athletes. International Journal of Esports, 1(1), 73. https://www.ijesports.org/
article/73/html
Poulus, D. R., Sharpe, B. T., Jackman, P. C., Swann, C., & Bennett, K. (in press). Defining elite in esports:
A scoping review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology.
Ruvalcaba, O., Shulze, J., Kim, A., Berzenski, S. R., & Otten, M. P. (2018). Women’s experiences in
eSports: Gendered differences in peer and spectator feedback during competitive video game
play. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 42(4), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.0.4.153/

0193723518773287
Sabtan, B., Cao, S., & Paul, N. (2022). Current practice and challenges in coaching Esports players: An
interview study with league of legends professional team coaches. Entertainment Computing, 42,
100481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2022.100481
Salo, M. (2017). Career transitions of esports athletes: A proposal for a research framework.
International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 9(2), 22–32. https://doi.
org/10.4018/IJGCMS.2017040102
Sarkar, M., & Fletcher, D. (2014). Psychological resilience in sport performers: A review of stressors
and protective factors. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32(15), 1419–1434. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02640414.2014.901551
Schmidt, S. C. E., Gnam, J. P., Kopf, M., Rathgeber, T., & Woll, A. (2020). The influence of cortisol, flow,
and anxiety on performance in e-sports: A field study. BioMed Research International, 9651245,, 1–
6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9651245
Schubert, M., Eing, F., & Könecke, T. (2022). Perceptions of professional esports players on perform
ance-enhancing substances. Performance Enhancement and Health, 10(4), 100236. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.peh.2022.100236
Schubert, M., & Könecke, T. (2015). ‘Classical’ doping, financial doping and beyond: UEFA’s financial
fair play as a policy of anti-doping. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 7(1), 63–86.
http://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2013.854824
Simpson, R. A., Didymus, F. F., & Williams, T. L. (2021). Organizational stress and well-being in com
petitive sport: A systematic review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17(1),
116–144.
Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: A
review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin,
192(2), 216–269. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.216
Smith, M. J., Birch, P. D. J., & Bright, D. (2019). Identifying stressors and coping strategies of elite
esports competitors. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 11(2),
22–39. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJGCMS.2019040102
Smith, M., Sharpe, B., Arumuham, A., & Birch, P. (2022). Examining the predictors of mental ill health
in esport competitors. Healthcare, 10(4), 626. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10040626
Smithies, T. D., Toth, A. J., Conroy, E., Ramsbottom, N., Kowal, M., & Campbell, M. J. (2020). Life after
esports: A grand field challenge. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(2020), 883. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2020.00883
Swettenham, L., Eubank, M., Won, D., & Whitehead, A. E. (2020). Investigating stress and coping
during practice and competition in tennis using think aloud. International Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 18(2), 218–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2018.1511622
Swettenham, L., & Whitehead, A. (2022). Working in esports: Developing team cohesion. Case Studies
in Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1123/cssep.2021-0023
Tamminen, K. A. (2021). Coping. In R. Arnold & D. Fletcher (Eds.), Stress, well-being, and performance
in sport (pp. 78–94). Routledge.
Trotter, M. G., Coulter, T. J., Davis, P. A., Poulus, D. R., & Polman, R. (2021). Social support, self-regu
lation, and psychological skill use in e-athletes. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(2021), 722030. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.722030
Trotter, M. G., Obine, E. A., & Sharpe, B. T. (2023). Self-regulation, stress appraisal, and esport action
performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1265778. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1265778
Weston, N. J. V., Thelwell, R. C., Bond, S., & Hutchings, N. V. (2009). Stress and coping in single-
handed round-the-world ocean sailing. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(4), 460–474.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200903232607
Yeganeh, A. J., Reichard, G., McCoy, A. P., Bulbul, T., & Jazizadeh, F. (2018). Correlation of ambient air
temperature and cognitive performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Building and
Environment, 143, 701–716. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.07.002

COPE

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

COPE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

COPE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rirs20

Stressors and coping strategies in esports: a

Oliver Leis, Benjamin T. Sharpe, Vincent Pelikan, Julian Fritsch, Adam R.

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2024.2386528

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

Published online: 06 Aug 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1035

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Stressors and coping strategies in esports:

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Oliver Leis [email protected]

Table 1. SPIDER Criteria for the Systematic Review.

1505fa57d59b4e6abc06407b0d5afdcd. Experimental studies were excluded from this

Information sources and search strategy

clarification of inclusion criteria, alignment in their interpretations of these criteria, and

Data collection process

Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram.

records by checking reference lists of included articles (k = 3) and citation searching (k =

Table 2. Descriptive Study Summary.

years during gameplay. underperforming (14%), and

Study Aim(s) Theoretical framework Participant information Instrumentation Key findings

esports a competitive match. and team issues.

Mgameplay/week = NR and perceived coping Competitive diaries noted more

Study Aim(s) Theoretical framework Participant information Instrumentation Key findings

Categorization of stressors and coping strategies

Categorization of coping strategies

Table 3. Stressors within Identified Studies.

Table 4. Coping Strategies within Identified Studies.

be appraised as a threat, whereas performance stressors were predominantly appraised a

Table 5. Quality Assessment.

Fletcher, 2014). In contrast to athletes who frequently report organizational stressors

Limitations within this review

interventions. To facilitate these investigations, innovative and prospective designs (e.g.

Data availability statement

play. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 42(4), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.0.4.153/

You might also like