A Pre-Performance Routine to Alleviate Choking in Choking-Susceptible Athletes

Transcription

1 The Sport Psychologist, 2008, 22, Human Kinetics, Inc. A Pre-Performance Routine to Alleviate Choking in Choking-Susceptible Athletes Christopher Mesagno, Daryl Marchant, and Tony Morris Victoria University Choking under pressure is a maladaptive response to performance pressure whereby choking models have been identified, yet, theory-matched interventions have not empirically tested. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether a preperformance routine (PPR) could reduce choking effects, based on the distraction model of choking. Three choking-susceptible, experienced participants were purposively sampled, from 88 participants, to complete ten-pin bowling deliveries in a single-case A 1 -B 1 -A 2 -B 2 design (A phases = low-pressure ; B phases = high-pressure ), with an interview following the single-case design. Participants experienced choking in the B 1 phase, which the interviews indicated was partially due to an increase in self-awareness (S-A). During the B 2 phase, improved accuracy occurred when using the personalized PPR and, qualitatively, positive psychological outcomes included reduced S-A and decreased conscious processing. Using the personalized PPR produced adaptive and relevant, task-focused attention. Athletes who react adaptively to pressure can be described as psychologically resilient, whereas athletes who exhibit maladaptive responses to pressure may experience choking under pressure (hereafter we simply use choking because pressure is subsumed in the definition and is redundant). Although researchers may not entirely agree on an operational definition, based on recently proposed definitions (e.g., Hall, 2004; Wang, Marchant, Morris, & Gibbs, 2004) we define choking as a critical deterioration in the execution of habitual processes as a result of an elevation in anxiety levels under perceived pressure, leading to substandard performance. Over the past 25 years, researchers (see Beilock & Carr, 2001; Beilock, Kulp, Holt, & Carr, 2004) have advanced the understanding of the mechanisms that underpin choking. A current challenge for researchers is to convert theoretical explanations of choking into evidence-based treatments suitable for application to athletes. Researchers have developed two models to explain choking effects. Advocates of the self-focus model (e.g., Beilock & Carr, 2001; Jackson, Ashford, & Mesagno, Marchant, and Morris are with the School of Movement, Recreation, and Performance, Centre for Aging, Rehabilitation, and Exercise Science, Victoria University, Melbourne, Victoria 8001 Australia. 439

2 440 Mesagno, Marchant, and Morris Norsworthy, 2006; Lewis & Linder, 1997; Masters, 1992) have adopted Baumeister s (1984) explanation whereby choking occurs when a highly motivated performer consciously processes task execution because of an increase in anxiety and self-awareness (S-A) about performing correctly. Masters explained that pressure creates increased attention to internal performance through conscious processing of explicit rules. Paradoxically, monitoring the step-by-step procedures may disrupt processes of high-level skills (Beilock & Carr). Recently, Jackson et al. expanded Baumeister s explanation suggesting that explicit monitoring may have a general disruptive effect on motor skills, but detrimental performance occurs when the athlete attempts to both consciously monitor and control movements. Alternatively, advocates of the distraction model (Beilock, Kulp, et al., 2004; Nideffer, 1992) have explained that a performance decrement under pressure occurs because attention shifts from task-relevant to irrelevant cues. According to Nideffer, as arousal increases, athletes become too internally immersed in task-irrelevant thoughts, resulting in the failure to attend to important cues. Researchers (e.g., Hardy, Mullen, & Martin, 2001; Mullen, Hardy, & Tattersall, 2005) have extended the distraction model by arguing that anxiety-related cognitions (e.g., worry) and explicit instructions do not individually diminish performance, but may exceed a threshold of attentional capacity and together they may have operated additively and depleted the attentional resources available to maintain performance (Hardy et al., 2001, p. 946). To date, sport psychologists have not empirically examined the efficacy of choking interventions possibly because of the unresolved debate about whether the self-focus or the distraction model provides the best explanation. Baumeister and Showers (1986) suggested, The development of therapeutic techniques for ameliorating choking must wait until this debate is resolved (p. 377). Recently, Beilock and Carr (2001; Lewis & Linder, 1997; Masters, 1992) have provided substantial support for the self-focus model, but both accounts may still be germane (Beilock, Kulp et al., 2004). Thus, we believe researchers should focus on developing theory-matched interventions to assist athletes in reducing choking effects. A central tenet of the distraction model (Nideffer, 1992) is that athletes experience choking because attention is shifted away from task-relevant cues. Although not specifically matched to the distraction model, researchers have posited that a preperformance routine (PPR) could be a suitable intervention for pressure situations (e.g., Bartholomew, 2003; Dale, 2004). A PPR is a sequence of task-relevant thoughts and actions an athlete systematically engages in before performance of a sport skill (Moran, 1996). According to Nideffer, the objective when performing closed skills is to efficiently focus attention on task-relevant cues, while ignoring irrelevant cues. If applying a theory-matched intervention scheme, a PPR is best described as a distraction model intervention because the intention is for the performer to maintain appropriate attention control under pressure. Cohn, Rotella, and Lloyd (1990) explained that a PPR minimizes attention to irrelevant information and directs attention to task-relevant cues. Thus, adherence to a PPR may assist in processing task-relevant cues before execution while disregarding irrelevant cues, thereby minimizing choking. Thus, the primary purpose of the current study was to investigate whether a PPR would alleviate or diminish choking. It was hypothesized that the PPR would

3 Alleviating Choking in Choking-Susceptible Athletes 441 reduce or at least buffer choking effects under pressure. A secondary purpose was to examine cognitions associated with choking and subsequent use of a PPR, using qualitative methods. Participants Method Eighty-eight experienced tenpin bowlers, between the ages of 16 and 61 (M = 33.27, SD = 12.25), completed three psychological inventories as a prelude to the selection of a small number of choking-susceptible participants athletes more likely to experience choking. Participants were skilled tenpin bowlers with league averages ranging from 170 to 219 (M = , SD = 10.91). Researchers that use single-case designs generally recruit 3 5 participants (Barlow & Hersen, 1984). Thus, 5 participants (four males, one female) who met the selection criterion were purposively chosen to participate in the planned choking intervention (i.e., the PPR) in anticipation that at least some participants would experience choking. For brevity, we report on 3 participants who met the choking-susceptible selection criterion and experienced choking in the first pressure phase. We have not included results of 2 participants who met the criteria for choking susceptibility but did not experience choking in the first pressure phase. Equipment and Specifications Bowling Ball Track and Target. Only a small portion (the ball track) of a bowling ball contacts the lane surface. The ball track, measuring 1 cm wide, was used to determine accuracy. A laminated target (see Figure 1), 8.30 cm long by cm wide, was positioned on the lane 3.96 m past the foul line (near the arrows). Colored powder was placed across the width of the target to determine specifically where the ball crossed the target. The powder was wiped off each time the ball crossed the target, consequently, after performance accuracy was measured, the powder was replaced. A point system was used based on mean absolute error (accuracy). We decided to use this objective measure of accuracy because score, or pins knocked down, is somewhat serendipitous. In the pressure phases, a video camera recorded shot attempts and was located in front of the participant, directly adjacent to the bowling lane. Measures Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975). The Self-Consciousness Scale (SCS) is a 23-item questionnaire with 10 items measuring private self-consciousness, seven items measuring public self-consciousness, and six items measuring social anxiety. Total scores range from 23 to 92, with higher scores equating to high self-consciousness. Feningstein et al. reported acceptable internal consistency ( >.73) for all subscales. Sport Anxiety Scale (Smith, Smoll, & Schutz, 1990). Trait anxiety was assessed with the 21-item Sport Anxiety Scale (SAS) specifically measuring worry, somatic anxiety, and concentration disruption. Total scores ranged from 21 to 84, with

4 Figure 1 Target for bowling task. higher scores associated with high trait anxiety. The SAS has undergone rigorous validation procedures (e.g., Dunn, Causgrove-Dunn, Wilson, & Syrotuik, 2000), with Dunn et al. reporting Cronbach alphas of =.87 (cognitive anxiety), =.88 (somatic anxiety), and =.69 (concentration disruption). 442

5 Alleviating Choking in Choking-Susceptible Athletes 443 Coping Style Inventory for Athletes (Anshel & Kaissidis, 1997). The Coping Style Inventory for Athletes (CSIA) is a 16-item questionnaire used to measure participants approach and avoidance coping strategies. Total scores range from 8 to 40 on each subscale, with higher scores indicating a greater propensity to use that particular coping style. Kaissidis-Rodafinos, Anshel, and Porter (1997) reported that the CSIA has acceptable internal consistency, with Cronbach s alphas of =.79 and =.84 for the approach and avoidance scales, respectively. Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1990). The Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2) was used to measure how anxious participants felt directly before taking part in the experiment (i.e., intensity levels). The CSAI-2 consists of 27 self-report statements designed to measure three components of state anxiety (i.e., cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence). This study focused on anxiety responses, thus only the 18 cognitive and somatic anxiety items were used and the self-confidence questions were excluded. For each subscale, intensity level responses were scored on a 4-point Likert scale with total scores ranging from 9 to 36. Martens et al. reported Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients of =.83 for cognitive and =.83 for somatic state anxiety. Performance. Absolute error, in centimeters (cm), from center of the target to center of the ball track was measured on each attempt. Mean absolute error (MAE) was the dependent variable for all trial blocks; reduced MAE indicated improved accuracy. Mean variable error is also provided as a measure of performance consistency. Preperformance Routine Completion Time And Variability. Using the video camera footage from the pressure phases, a comparison of each participant s completion time and variability (in seconds) in each trial block was used to determine PPR temporal consistency. Interviews. Open-ended questions were based on a purpose-designed interview guide (available upon request from the first author) derived from the relevant literature, feedback from pilot testing, and finalized after consulting two sport psychologists. Interviews ranged from 40 to 75 min with clarification and elaboration probes stimulating participant responses to the research question (Patton, 2002). Design Researchers investigating choking have tended to focus primarily on quantitative studies. Quantitative designs, however, may not fully explain choking because the experience involves underlying cognitive processes that are not easily quantified. Culver, Gilbert, and Trudel (2003) stated, When other sources of data relating to human behavior are combined with interviews to study human activity, it is possible to capture a more complete picture of the processes involved (p. 7). Accordingly, a single-case A 1 -B 1 -A 2 -B 2 design in combination with a collective case study (Stake, 1998) was employed. Single-case designs provide an efficacious test

6 444 Mesagno, Marchant, and Morris for treatment-produced effects that is essential in the examination of applied sport psychology techniques (Bryan, 1987). In this study, we also interviewed participants to explore reactions to a choking experience. The A phases were low-pressure (hereafter referred to as baseline phases) and the B phases were high-pressure. The four phases included a first baseline (A 1 ), first pressure (B 1 ), second baseline (A 2 ), and intervention with pressure (B 2 ) phase, and were scheduled separately over four weeks. Procedure Participants were recruited from tenpin-bowling leagues and completed standard informed consent procedures, a demographic information sheet, and inventories (i.e., SCS, SAS, & CSIA). The purpose of the study was to determine whether a PPR would alleviate the likelihood of choking, thus, it was necessary to purposively recruit choking-susceptible participants. The criterion for inclusion was as follows: Score in the 75th 100th percentile on at least two of the three inventories based on the initial sample of 88 bowlers tested, with the remaining score in the 50th 100th percentile range. Thus, selected participants should be high in self-consciousness (SCS score), high in trait anxiety (SAS score), and have a positive differential CSIA score (e.g., approach coping [38] avoidance coping [21] = differential score [+17]). Interested readers are referred to Masters, Polman, and Hammond (1993), Wang, Marchant, Morris, and Gibbs (2004), and Wang, Marchant, and Morris (2004) regarding psychological characteristics that predict choking-susceptibility. Before the A 1 phase, participants were briefed about the study, completed the CSAI-2, and performed a 10-shot warm-up. Testing commenced immediately after warm-up and consisted of 60 shots with one-minute rest periods separating each 10 shots (trial block). Before the B 1 phase, participants were briefed about the pressure manipulation, and then completed the CSAI-2 and 10 warm-up shots. The same procedures as the A 1 phase were used, with the addition of the pressure manipulation. The pressure manipulation consisted of videotaping all shot attempts, presence of a small audience (eight students), and a performance-contingent financial incentive. In the B 1 phase, participants earned AUS$10 for equaling their accuracy score from the A 1 phase with an additional AUS$1 for each point above the A 1 phase score. During the A 2 phase, the same procedures as the A 1 testing were resumed. Immediately preceding the commencement of the B 2 phase, participants were instructed about the PPR. Three components of the PPR intervention (i.e., preintervention, education, & establishment) were included. During the preintervention period, the first author (a USA Bowling certified instructor) determined the modification procedures through annotations taken in the initial three phases. The education component involved defining and demonstrating a typical bowling PPR. Boutcher (1990) indicated that PPRs involve a series of physiological, psychological, and behavioral steps. With the first author s assistance, the PPR training included modification of optimal arousal levels, behavioral steps, attention control (e.g., focusing on a target), and cue words. In the establishment component, the participant practiced and developed the routine to the satisfaction of both the participant and first author and performed five consecutive observably repeatable shadow shots (i.e., shots without the ball). During the B 2 phase, the same pro-

7 Alleviating Choking in Choking-Susceptible Athletes 445 cedures as the B 1 phase were used, with the addition of the PPR. The pressure manipulation was identical to the B 1 phase with the exception that the financial reward was based on B 1 phase accuracy, rather than the A 1 phase score. The first author observed each shot to verify PPR adherence and also reminded each participant before the 31st attempt, about PPR execution. Interviews were conducted following the completion of the B 2 phase. Analyses The split-middle technique (White, 1974, 2005) was employed to detect changes in accuracy of shots within phases and resultant trend lines (Barlow & Hersen, 1984). White (1974) proposed that level and slope of the celeration (or trend) line should be assessed as two descriptive analyses for conclusions. The level enables assessment of performance change from the last trial block of one phase to the first data point of another phase. Given that a point on the celeration line does not actually explain the performance level (i.e., the first or last trial block in each phase does not necessarily represent participant s ability level), we have not included level calculations in the results. Celeration lines are used as descriptors of patterns to predict values beyond the immediate data set (see White, 2005). Constructing a celeration line enables change in slope across phases to be calculated (see Kazdin, 1982 for details of slope and level calculations). The slope of celeration lines is expressed in a ratio with a multiplication sign ( ) to signify an increasing trend (positive slope) or a division sign ( ) to signify a decreasing trend (negative slope). Interviews were audio taped with participant consent and transcribed verbatim. Using content analysis outlined by Patton (2002), raw data (i.e., significant quotes and paraphrased quotes) were first organized into related groups by comparing tags (i.e., important pieces of information) with similar meanings that best captured the substance of the topic (Côté, Salmela, Baria, & Russell, 1993). Basic units were defined as any comment by the participant about emotions, cognitive processes, coping strategies, or behaviors related to the experience. It would be unrealistic to expect researchers to conduct qualitative studies without knowledge of the phenomena under investigation (Krane, Andersen, & Strean, 1997), thus, decisions regarding text classification were guided by the secondary aims, our knowledge of choking, and the meanings made explicit by participants. Each participant was then sent a copy of their interview text and the researchers interpretation of interview data (member checking), and asked to comment on the accuracy (or inaccuracy). In most cases, our analysis was subsequently discussed with the participant and minor adjustments made. To enhance trustworthiness and reduce potential analyst bias, a consensus validation procedure was used whereby an independent investigator trained in content analysis, but blind to the purpose of the study completed each stage of the analysis. The trained researcher verified that themes were congruent with our interpretation, representing a second content analysis. After both content analyses were conducted, separate analyses were compared, investigators came to agreement on the specific themes, and differences were resolved through discussion. After the study completion, two researchers viewed the videotapes from the B 1 and B 2 phases to independently record the PPR completion time, defined as the time from when the participant lifted the bowling ball to their first approach step.

8 446 Mesagno, Marchant, and Morris The average difference between observers recorded times was 0.14 s and the largest discrepancy between observers time analysis was 0.26 s. The 0.26-s discrepancy equates to only 3% of the overall time taken to complete a routine, thus, interobserver agreement was considered acceptable and mean recorded time of the two observers for each trial was used. A behavioral analysis of the PPR in the B 2 phase was also conducted. Before analyzing each participant s videotape, the first author documented a checklist of behavioral steps and a research assistant was trained to identify each step. Both observers (i.e., first author and research assistant) recorded all steps independently and compared them to the behavioral checklist. After behavioral steps analysis, a point-by-point agreement ratio (PBPAR; Kazdin, 1982) was calculated to determine interobserver reliability. The PBPAR was calculated by comparing observers responses to PPR adherence on a trial-by-trial basis. The PBPAR calculated was.99, indicating strong interobserver agreement regarding participants adherence to the PPR. Results Table 1 illustrates the descriptive information, SCS score, SAS score, and CSIA differential scores for each participant. Consistent with the tenets of mixed-methods research, we present each case separately by first reporting data relating to perceived pressure, followed by the single-case design results. Finally, we provide in-case themes and descriptions for each case study interview. Case #1 Jason (pseudonym) Perceived anxiety was expected to increase before the B 1 and B 2 phases compared with the A 1 and A 2 phases. Jason s intensity scores for cognitive anxiety preceding the A 1, B 1, A 2, and B 2 phases were 13, 21, 13, and 22 and intensity scores for somatic anxiety before the four phases were 15, 24, 12, and 19, respectively. Jason elaborated about the B 1 phase by stating, I took notice of the people, the money, video camera.... I tensed up, (my) stomach started to sink, started to feel jittery and nervous... I just crumbled. Jason, thus, experienced classic somatic anxiety symptoms in the B 1 phase that related directly to cognition. He then explained that the anxiety intensity was different in the B 1 compared with the B 2 phase, When everyone swamped up the back of the lane, you came up with the camera, it was like, oh god, we re going through this again. Knowing the pressure from Session 2 (B 1 phase), it wasn t as severe (in B 2 phase). It seems that the pressure caused Jason to experience a feeling of being ambushed in both phases, yet greater anxiety was experienced in the B 1 phase. Jason s qualitative anxiety explanation in the phases is analogous to his reported CSAI-2 results. Regarding Jason s performance, MAE increased from 2.79 ± 0.56 in the A 1 phase to 3.26 ± 0.79 in the B 1 phase, indicating a 17% decrease in accuracy between the A 1 and B 1 phase. During the A 2 phase, MAE was 2.83 ± 0.55, representing a 13% increase in accuracy between the B 1 and A 2 phase. In the B 2 phase, MAE was 2.64 ± 0.16, indicating a 7% increase in accuracy from the A 2 to the B 2 phase. The change in MAE between the baseline phases was assessed to determine if the A 2 phase performance was similar to the A 1 phase. Researchers (e.g.,

9 Table 1 Participants Descriptive Information Participant Age Bowling Experience League Average SCS Score (Percentile) Jason 21 6 years (75th to 100th) Karl years (50th to 75th) Linda years (75th to 100th) SAS Score (Percentile) 45 (75th to 100th) 49 (75th to 100th) 47 (75th to 100th) CSIA Diff Score (Percentile) + 7 (75th to 100th) + 7 (75th to 100th) + 7 (75th to 100th) 447

10 448 Mesagno, Marchant, and Morris Barlow & Hersen, 1984; Kazdin, 1982) who use single-case designs would likely suggest that if a similar MAE occurs in the baseline phases with a subsequent decrease in performance in the B 1 phase, the pressure manipulation was effective in disrupting typical performance. The MAE increased by 1% from the A 1 to the A 2 phase whereas MAE in the B 1 phase changed considerably, providing further support for an effective pressure manipulation. The change in MAE between the high-pressure phases was also assessed; MAE decreased by 19% from the B 1 to the B 2 phase, representing a substantial accuracy increase (see Figure 2). During the B 1 phase, mean completion time of Jason s usual routine for each trial block ranged from 8.91 to 9.92 s (SD range of ). In the B 2 phase and after the PPR modification, mean completion time ranged from to s (SD range of ). Clearly, Jason spent considerably more time performing the routine in the B 2 phase. Crews and Boutcher (1986) found that successful athletes have PPRs that are more temporally consistent; therefore, completion time variability in the high-pressure phases was assessed. The range in SD for the B 1 phase was 0.75, whereas the range in SD for the B 2 phase was 0.38, indicating Jason s PPR was more consistent in the B 2 than the B 1 phase. During the interview, two themes were evident for Jason: public self-awareness (S-A) and benefits of the PPR. Public S-A, an ephemeral state of an inward focus due to the perception of self as a social object (Buss, 1980), was evident as Jason commented about the video camera, audience, and performance decline. Figure 2 Split-middle analysis, Case #1 Jason. Note. In all performance figures, solid vertical lines represent the point of phase change, solid black lines indicate celeration lines, dotted lines signify projected celeration lines, and horizontal dashed lines indicate mean performance.

11 Alleviating Choking in Choking-Susceptible Athletes 449 When I saw the camera, it was exactly the same as having someone stare straight at me...it s hard to ignore.... I think that (camera) started the bad performance, but when I turned around to walk off the approach, it was, ok there are people here.... It was like I couldn t get away from either one. Jason s explanation was typical of an individual high in self-consciousness. The constant mental engagement with the audience exemplifies negative distraction from the bowling task. It appears that Jason expressed varying degrees of self-criticism during the phases. I was more lenient on myself if I missed my target during the first (A 1 phase) and third (A 2 phase). In the second (phase) it wasn t just a slap in the face and what are you doing, it was multiple slaps. Basically, you re an idiot, you can t hit your target. Self-denigrating statements increased in the B 1 phase, leading Jason into a myriad of negative cognitions, which corroborated results by Fenigstein (1979), who found that S-A was related to an increase in negative cognitions during socialevaluative tasks. It seems the increase in anxiety and public S-A intensified unsuccessful consequences, including self-criticism. Another theme, from the interview, was benefits of the PPR, such as decreased negative self-talk and reduced S-A. Jason perceived, as he stated, a heap of difference in the B 2 compared with the B 1 phase, explicitly stating that one benefit was decreased negative self-talk. I was nowhere near as severe on myself (in the B 2 phase) as I was the second session. Even if I missed my target by a large margin, it was, oh well, go through the routine and throw the next shot, block that one out and don t worry. It seems the personalized PPR mitigated harsh self-talk, helping Jason to maintain a broad task-related focus. It seems that a decrease in negative introspection resulted from a reduction in public S-A in the B 2 phase, as Jason stated, I think the pre-shot routine helped me focus on getting the ball where I had to put it, and forgetting everyone and the video camera. it just basically erased everything else. Jason s results are in accordance with other studies identifying reduced negative introspection (Beauchamp, Halliwell, Fournier, & Koestner, 1996) and increased attention to task (Cohn et al., 1990) as possible benefits of a PPR. Case #2 Karl (pseudonym) Karl s intensity scores for cognitive anxiety were 17, 23, 11, and 18 before the A 1, B 1, A 2, and B 2 phases, and his intensity scores for somatic anxiety were 11, 22, 11, and 16, respectively. It appears that the audience affected Karl s perception of the pressure in the B 1 phase, as he stated, When they walked in, that changed the way I felt. I was a bit stressed about everything. Karl also compared his anxiety in the high-pressure phases, (During the B 2 phase) I tensed up a bit again. I didn t think they (audience) would be here, but because of what we discussed (PPR), I thought, This

12 450 Mesagno, Marchant, and Morris would be a good test. I was nervous in Session 4 (B 2 phase), but more confident than Session 2 (B 1 phase). Karl s subjective perception was similar to Cohn et al. (1990) who found that collegiate golfers expressed immediate subjective confidence improvements and decreased anxiety after developing a PPR. The CSAI-2 and interview results indicate that Karl perceived a similar elevation in anxiety preceding the B 1 phase in particular, and to a lesser degree the B 2 phase. Karl s MAE increased from 2.75 ± 0.27 in the A 1 phase to 3.57 ± 0.33 in the B 1 phase, a 30% decrease in accuracy between the A 1 and B 1 phase. In the A 2 phase, MAE was 3.08 ± 0.32, representing a 14% increase in accuracy between the B 1 and A 2 phase. During the B 2 phase, MAE was 2.47 ± 0.26, a 20% increase in accuracy from the A 2 to B 2 phase. MAE increased by 12% from the A 1 to the A 2 phase with the B 1 phase changing considerably. The MAE decreased by 31% between the B 1 and B 2 phase, indicating a substantial accuracy improvement when using the PPR under pressure (see Figure 3). Karl s mean completion time in the B 1 phase ranged from to s (SD range of ), whereas time taken for the personalized PPR in the B 2 phase ranged from to s (SD range of ). Karl performed the PPR slower than his usual routine. The B 1 phase SD range was 1.05, whereas the B 2 phase SD range was 0.44, indicating Karl performed the PPR more consistently in the B 2 than in the B 1 phase From Karl s interview, two cognitive themes were public S-A and benefits of the PPR. Public S-A was first mentioned when Karl referred to being self-conscious in the A 1 phase, I am one of these people, if I m going to bowl, I at least want to look like I can bowl. Even though the first author was the only person observing performance, Karl was still self-aware and concerned with personal appearance, which is consistent with his high self-consciousness predisposition. When discussing the audience in the B 1 phase, Karl became more concerned with the public self, for example, they (audience) were only focused on me and I was worried about those people watching me. Karl explained how his attention was also affected, I was worrying more about what they were thinking than what I should have been doing in the first place. As the number of observers increased from one (the first author) in the A 1 phase to eight (audience members) in the B 1 phase, Karl s concern over social approval intensified, diverting attention to a selffocus, rather than a task-focus. One psychological benefit Karl experienced, when using the personalized PPR was decreased S-A. It seems that the PPR reduced the propensity for Karl to become self-aware, Thinking about the routine and having to do each step, it took my mind off the fact that they (audience) were there. Apparently, the PPR provided a method of maintaining task-relevant cues, especially after an unsuccessful shot, as Karl compared his cognitions in the high-pressure phases. I remember thinking I did a couple really bad ones in Session 4. I didn t even worry that they (audience) thought I had done a dumb shot. Instead of thinking, gees, they (audience) saw me do a bad shot, which is what I was thinking in Session In Session 4, it was easier to refocus.

13 Figure 3 Split-middle analysis, Case #2 Karl. 451

14 452 Mesagno, Marchant, and Morris Masters et al. (1993) found that a self-conscious predisposition promoted the tendency to be self-aware in pressure situations. In this way, during the B 1 phase, Karl s high self-consciousness predisposition may have led to involuntary shifts in attention to S-A, yet, in the B 2 phase, Karl s adherence to the PPR helped him maintain task-focused attention. Case #3 Linda (Pseudonym) Linda s intensity scores for cognitive anxiety before the A 1, B 1, A 2, and B 2 phases were 16, 16, 10, and 15, respectively. Intensity scores for somatic anxiety were 13, 14, 12, and 14, indicating Linda perceived similar somatic anxiety intensity before the four phases. In the interview, when comparing her anxiety in the initial phases, Linda did not allude to symptoms of cognitive or somatic anxiety, but simply explained, During Session 1 (A 1 phase), I wasn t nervous. During Session 2 (B 1 phase), I was a little nervous. I don t mind people watching me, but I was caught off guard. Session 3 (A 2 phase), I was more relaxed compared to Session 2. It appears that Linda s interpretation is at odds with her scores on the cognitive anxiety component of the CSAI-2 before the A 1 phase. Linda then compared her nervousness in the high-pressure phases by saying, During Session 4 (B 2 phase), I was more relaxed compared to Session 2. I sort of laughed, considering that you didn t tell me that they (audience) were coming back. It appears that Linda adapted quickly to the audience during the B 2 phase, I think the routine definitely helped. Sometimes I just get up and bowl. In Session 2, I didn t use the towel; I didn t dry my hand on the vent I wasn t thinking about my usual routine, it was just getting up there and bowl. It was more of a rushed shot because of the pressure... compared to Session 4, when I was more relaxed. Linda rushed to the point of not following her usual routine in the B 1 phase, yet it seems that the PPR helped her relax in the B 2 phase. Linda s MAE increased from 2.90 ± 0.36 in the A 1 phase to 3.20 ± 0.70 in the B 1 phase, indicating a 10% decrease in accuracy. During the A 2 phase, MAE was 2.90 ± 0.68, representing an accuracy increase of 10% between the B 1 and A 2 phase. During the B 2 phase, MAE was 1.97 ± 0.62, which was a 32% increase in accuracy from the A 2 to B 2 phase. MAE was equivalent in the baseline phases, whereas MAE increased greatly in the B 1 phase. The 38% decrease in MAE from the B 1 to the B 2 phase indicated Linda was considerably more accurate when using the PPR under pressure than when using her usual routine in the B 1 phase (Figure 4). This was a robust improvement relative to other participants in this study, yet may also have been influenced by the minimal effect of the pressure manipulation. Mean completion time for Linda s usual routine, in the B 1 phase, varied from 7.71 to 9.22 s (SD range of ). In the B 2 phase, mean completion time for the PPR for each trial block ranged from to s (SD range of ). Thus, Linda performed the PPR more slowly and consistently than her B 1 phase routine. For Linda, two themes in the interview were public S-A and benefits of the PPR. Public S-A was evident in the B 1 phase, when Linda described reactions to

15 453 Figure 4 Split-middle analysis, Case #3 Linda.

16 454 Mesagno, Marchant, and Morris the audience, In Session 2 I was a bit self-conscious of what they were watching more than what I was doing. Linda s predisposition to high self-consciousness manifested itself in elevated S-A in the audience-observed condition (Masters et al., 1993). To illustrate concern over social acceptance, Linda discussed her reaction to the audience, I was self-conscious because they were looking at me. I was worried about whether they were judging me by how I am bowling and the way I bowl. Linda explained that she was constantly processing information related to the audience s judgments and reactions, that may have negatively affected her ability to process task-related information, I m very self-conscious and that (audience) was in the back of my mind instead of thinking that they weren t there and just bowling as if no one was watching. My concentration wasn t all there. Linda clearly felt her capacity to execute effectively was compromised because of her constant self-attention. During the interview, another interview theme was benefits of the PPR, which included decreased S-A. To illustrate a decrease in S-A, Linda explained, The first time they were there (in the B 1 phase), I didn t know what they were thinking or doing. This time (B 2 phase), I knew that they were watching, but I blocked it out. I didn t think, self-consciously, they were there. Essentially, the PPR was an effective replacement strategy to combat an increase in S-A, by helping Linda to block out the audience in the B 2 phase, as Linda explained, I think the PPR helped because it helped me concentrate on preparing for my shot. I wasn t self-conscious of them (audience) watching, I was just concentrating on my own routine. Discussion The primary purpose of the current study was to investigate whether a PPR can facilitate performance under pressure. All participants improved performance using the PPR by an average of 29% in the B 2 compared with the B 1 phase, thus, tentatively supporting the contention that a personalized PPR can facilitate performance under pressure. Although we expected an improvement, the relative size of the performance improvement was surprising. These results are consistent with Marlow, Bull, Heath, and Shambrook (1998) study, who found employing a PPR before a water polo penalty shot increased experienced participants performance by 21%, 25%, and 28%. A secondary purpose was to more comprehensively understand choking and to investigate the psychological benefits of using the PPR. During the B 1 phase, participants expressed choking-related cognitions, including public S-A, and greater negative self-talk. Conversely, in the B 2 phase, participants thoughts were related to decreased S-A, and decreased negative self-talk. Researchers (e.g., Jackson et al., 2006; Wang, Marchant, Morris, & Gibbs, 2004) have found that S-A is a maladaptive state when performing under pressure. The propensity for self-consciousness (trait) manifests itself in a tendency toward S-A (state) in pressure situations. The qualitative results from the B 1 phase provide partial support for both the self-focus (Baumeister, 1984) and the distraction (Nideffer, 1992) model of choking with the common denominator being an increase in S-A under pressure. That is, an increase in S-A either led to intensified distracting thoughts (e.g., negative self-talk) or conscious processing of performance, depending on the participant.

17 Alleviating Choking in Choking-Susceptible Athletes 455 One methodological limitation was that participants could have experienced pressure desensitization during the B 2 phase, as a result of receiving the pressure manipulation twice, contributing to the performance improvement. The CSAI-2 results indicated a lower anxiety level was experienced in the B 2 than the B 1 phase (perhaps a result of the intervention), yet, Jason and Karl increased anxiety in the B 2 phase compared with the baseline phases. In larger sample quantitative studies, counterbalancing could be used to control for confounding variables (e.g., practice or familiarization effects) however, it was virtually impossible to control for pressure desensitization because counterbalancing could have led to other potential confounding effects. That is, if the intervention with pressure was provided before the pressure phase, the intervention could contaminate pressure phase results because a historical imprint may occur, allowing participants to use the PPR to mediate performance. Another concern that is difficult to control in intervention research is the Hawthorne effect, which occurs when a participant s change in performance occurs as a function of being in a study (Drew, 1976). The Hawthorne effect may primarily be active immediately after an intervention is implemented, however, the effect declines as the participant becomes acclimatized to the new intervention. It appears that a Hawthorne effect may not be operational in this study because, performance levels were maintained (Jason & Karl) or increased (Linda), and did not dissipate, during the entire B 2 phase. Participants explanations for performance results indicate that data triangulation was an asset to the study. In this study, a number of related variables subsumed within the PPR (e.g., decrease in S-A, PPR consistency, deep breath) could have accounted for the performance improvement in the B 2 phase. Researchers, therefore, could explore which particular elements of the PPR are most beneficial for performance under pressure. Similarly, future research could focus on other methods to alleviate choking, concentrating primarily on reducing S-A under pressure. In summary, we have shown that an increase in S-A appears to be a key underlying factor contributing to choking in choking-susceptible athletes. Participants were highly susceptible to and exhibited a decrease in performance in the B 1 phase. When using the PPR, participants improved performance under pressure, although sequence effects may have occurred. Thus, although further research will be needed to factor out possible explanations, and the possibility of desensitization, results suggest that a PPR is likely to improve performance under pressure. Acknowledgments Thank you to Professor Owen White for his constructive comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. References Anshel, M.H., & Kaissidis, A.N. (1997). Coping style and situational appraisals as predictors of coping strategies following stressful events in sport as a function of gender and skill level. The British Journal of Psychology, 88, Barlow, D.H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change. New York: Pergamon Press.

18 456 Mesagno, Marchant, and Morris Bartholomew, J.B. (2003). Attaining peak performance under pressure. Ames, IA: Champonline Sports Videos and Books. Baumeister, R.F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, Baumeister, R.F., & Showers, C.J. (1986). A review of paradoxical performance effects: Choking under pressure in sports and mental tests. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, Beauchamp, P.H., Halliwell, W.R., Fournier, J.F., & Koestner, R. (1996). Effects of cognitive-behavioral psychological skills training on the motivation, preparation, and putting performance of novice golfers. The Sport Psychologist, 10, Beilock, S.L., & Carr, T.H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 130, Beilock, S.L., Kulp, C.A., Holt, L.E., & Carr, T.H. (2004). More on the fragility of performance: Choking under pressure in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 133, Boutcher, S.H. (1990). The role of performance routines in sport. In G. Jones & L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and performance in sport (pp ). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Bryan, A.J. (1987). Single-subject designs for evaluation of sport psychology interventions. The Sport Psychologist, 1, Buss, A.H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco: Freeman. Cohn, P.J., Rotella, R.J., & Lloyd, J.W. (1990). Effects of a cognitive-behavioral intervention on the preshot routine and performance in golf. The Sport Psychologist, 4, Côté, J., Salmela, J.H., Baria, A., & Russell, S.J. (1993). Organizing and interpreting unstructured qualitative data. The Sport Psychologist, 7, Crews, D.J., & Boutcher, S.H. (1986). An exploratory observational behavior analysis of professional golfers during competition. Journal of Sport Behavior, 9, Culver, D.M., Gilbert, W.G., & Trudel, P. (2003). A decade of qualitative research in sport psychology journals: The Sport Psychologist, 17, Dale, G.A. (2004). Becoming a champion athlete: Mastering pressure situations. Ames, IA: Champonline Sports Videos and Books. Drew, C.J. (1976). Introduction to designing and conducting research. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby. Dunn, J.G.H., Causgrove-Dunn, J., Wilson, P., & Syrotuik, D.G. (2000). Reexamining the factorial composition and factor structure of the Sport Anxiety Scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 22, Fenigstein, A. (1979). Self-consciousness, self-attention, and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M.F., & Buss, A.H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, Hall, E.N. (2004). Defining choking: A qualitative examination. Unpublished master s thesis, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia. Hardy, L., Mullen, R., & Martin, N. (2001). Effect of task-relevant cues and state anxiety on motor performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92, Jackson, R.C., Ashford, K.J., & Norsworthy, G. (2006). Attentional focus, dispositional reinvestment, and skilled motor performance under pressure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28, Kaissdis-Rodafinos, A., Anshel, M.H., & Porter, A. (1997). Personal and situational factors that predict coping strategies for acute stress among basketball referees. Journal of Sports Sciences, 15,

19 Alleviating Choking in Choking-Susceptible Athletes 457 Kazdin, A.E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press. Krane, V., Andersen, M.B., & Strean, W.B. (1997). Issues of qualitative research methods and presentation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, Lewis, B.P., & Linder, D.E. (1997). Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, Marlow, C., Bull, S.J., Heath, B., & Shambrook, C.J. (1998). The use of a single case design to investigate the effect of a pre-performance routine on the water polo penalty shot. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 1, Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R.S., Bump, L.A., & Smith, D.E. (1990). Development and validation of the CSAI-2. In R. Martens, R.S. Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive anxiety in sport (pp ). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Masters, R.S.W. (1992). Knowledge, nerves and know-how. The British Journal of Psychology, 83, Masters, R.S.W., Polman, R.C.J., & Hammond, N.V. (1993). Reinvestment : A dimension of personality implicated in skill breakdown under pressure. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, Moran, A.P. (1996). The psychology of concentration in sport performers: A cognitive analysis. London: Taylor & Francis. Mullen, R., Hardy, L., & Tattersall, A. (2005). The effects of anxiety on motor performance: A test of the Conscious Processing Hypothesis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 27, Nideffer, R.M. (1992). Psyched to win. Champaign, IL: Leisure Press. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Smith, R.E., Smoll, F.L., & Schutz, R.W. (1990). Measurement and correlates of sport specific cognitive and somatic trait anxiety: The Sport Anxiety Scale. Anxiety Research, 2, Stake, R.E. (1998). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Wang, J., Marchant, D.B., & Morris, T. (2004). Coping style and susceptibility to choking. Journal of Sport Behavior, 27, Wang, J., Marchant, D.B., Morris, T., & Gibbs, P. (2004). Self-consciousness and trait anxiety as predictors of choking in sport. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 7, White, O.R. (1974). The split middle : A quickie method of trend estimation. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Experimental Education Unit, Child Development and Mental Retardation Center. White, O.R. (2005). Trend lines. In G. Sugai & R. Horner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of behavior modification and cognitive behavior therapy (Vol. 3, pp ). London: Sage Publications.