CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE DRIBBLE, BEND YOUR KNEES, SHOOT: THE EFFECT OF A PRE-SHOT

Transcription

1 CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE DRIBBLE, BEND YOUR KNEES, SHOOT: THE EFFECT OF A PRE-SHOT ROUTINE ON BASKETBALL FREE THROW PERFORMANCE UNDER PRESSURE A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts in Psychology General Experimental Psychology by Sehvan Maral Sherikian August 2012

2 The thesis of Sehvan Maral Sherikian is approved: Nick Galli, Ph.D. Date Abraham M. Rutchick, Ph.D. Date Mark P. Otten, Ph.D., Chair Date California State University, Northridge ii

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT I would first like to thank my graduate advisor, Dr. Mark P. Otten, for his support and guidance not only throughout my thesis process but also for the past four years. I would also like to thank, Dr. Abraham M. Rutchick and Dr. Nick Galli, for serving as my thesis committee and providing constructive feedback in writing this thesis. I like to thank my family and friends (grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, teammates, colleagues and lab members) for their support and encouragement throughout my college career. Finally, I would like to thank my mom, dad and sister for the unconditional love, support and guidance. I am blessed and grateful to have amazing parents who have instilled in me valuable life lessons. They have taught me to always persevere and never give up. I appreciate everything they have done for me. Without them I would not be where I am today. iii

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page Acknowledgment Abstract ii iii v Introduction 1 Anxiety and Performance Under Pressure 1 Explicit Monitoring Theory and Distraction Theory 3 Studies on Performance Under Pressure in Sport 5 A Coping Strategy: Pre-Shot Routine 6 Pre-Shot Routine Components: Length and Consistency 10 The Current Study 12 Method 15 Participants 15 Measures 15 Procedure 16 Analyses 18 Results 19 Discussion 22 References 30 Appendix 35 iv

5 ABSTRACT DRIBBLE, BEND YOUR KNEES, SHOOT: THE EFFECT OF A PRE-SHOT ROUTINE ON BASKETBALL FREE THROW PERFORMANCE UNDER PRESSURE by Sehvan Maral Sherikian Master of Arts in Psychology General Experimental Psychology Research has suggested that having a pre-shot routine is helpful for performance in golf putting (Boutcher & Crews, 1987), and more recently, under pressure conditions for Australian football players (Mesagno & Mullane-Grant, 2010). The current study extends these findings to free throw shooting in basketball, under pressure. Participants were subjected to two sets of 15 basketball free throws; the shooters were videotaped during their second set of shots as a manipulation of pressure. Afterward, researchers reviewed the tape and rated how elaborate participants appeared to be on the pre-shot routine. Measurements of routine time and routine time standard deviation were also assessed. Results revealed a significant and positive relationship between performance and mean ratings of how elaborate a participant s routine was, β =.25, p =.02. This suggests that having an elaborate pre-shot routine does predict performance under pressure. Previous literature has suggested that consistency was important; based on current results, however, we cannot recommend that. In addition to standard practice, sport psychologists and coaches are advised to teach athletes an elaborate routine, to benefit performance under pressure. v

6 INTRODUCTION It is only worth one point, but a single free throw often influences the outcome of the game. It should be one of the easiest shots in basketball; Mark Price, Steve Nash and Ray Allen are a few current and former National Basketball Association (NBA) all-stars who own some of the best free throw percentages of all time. On the other hand, other NBA all-star caliber players have not done so well at the free throw line (e.g., Shaquille O Neal, Wilt Chamberlain, Dennis Rodman). Even though shooting free throws may be considered easy by some, shooting, particularly free throw, under pressure conditions is what sparks our interest, and depends heavily on sport psychology. Performing under pressure often comes with the territory of playing a sport. The following literature review includes a discussion of past research on performance under pressure. The review will define key concepts and terms in addition; the review will provide a brief background of theories researchers suggest that explain performance under pressure. The focus of this review is a coping strategy that may enhance free throw performance under pressure: the pre-shot routine. Anxiety and Performance Under Pressure Research in sport psychology has examined the relationship between anxiety and performance under pressure. Baumeister (1984) defined pressure as any factor or combination of factors that increases the importance of performing well on a particular occasion (p. 610). Pressure happens when the importance of a competitive situation increases. Baumeister and Showers (1986) defined pressure as the presence of situational incentives for optimal, maximal, or superior performance (p. 362). Increased pressure in situations often leads to decreased performance (Lewis & Linder, 1997). 1

7 Successful performance under pressure is the ability to focus and direct attention appropriately. Weinberg and Gould (2011) defined anxiety as a negative emotional state characterized by nervousness, worry, and apprehension and associated with activation or arousal of the body (p. 78). In essence, anxiety is a negative and unpleasant emotional feeling. When anxiety is increased due to pressure conditions, a shift of attention often occurs. Attention to irrelevant cues can be caused by an increase in arousal and anxiety (Weinberg & Gould, 2011). Early social psychologists proposed a number of theories to assess the relationship between anxiety and performance. Drive theory (Zajonc, 1965) suggested that the presence of others increases arousal (drive), and that this arousal enhances the production of a dominant response. Cue utilization theory, introduced by Easterbrook (1959), assessed the relationship between arousal and attention. As arousal increases, attention narrows (Easterbrook, 1959). The narrowing of attention might have a positive or negative influence on performance. More recently, reversal theory (Kerr, 1997) has proposed that arousal affects performance based on how an individual interprets the symptoms. When arousal is interpreted as pleasant, it assists performance; when arousal is interpreted as unpleasant (anxiety), it hurts performance. Similarly, challenge and threat responses have been investigated under social facilitation theory (Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, & Salomon, 1999). Blascovich et al. (1999) linked state of challenge to performance on a well-learned task in presence of an audience. On the other hand, an unfamiliar task under the presence of others was associated with threat. In this case, the positive or negative effect of the presence of an audience depended on the expertise of the performer on the task. 2

8 Attentional Control Theory (ACT), proposed by Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, and Calvo (2007), states that anxiety decreases the influence of one s goal-directed attention system; instead, the focus under stress becomes the step-by-step process of the task. Similar to Easterbrook (1959), this suggests that there might be a relationship between anxiety and performance; increases in anxiety may result in diminished performance, due to a shift in attention. Thus, it seems that staying focused and appropriately directing attention in sport may, ultimately, impact the outcome of the game. Wilson, Vine and Wood (2009) conducted a study to examine the effects of ACT on anxiety during basketball free throw performance. The quiet eye period, or the final fixation point before movement of the task, was proposed by Vickers (1996) and implemented by the authors to explain where attention was set during performance. Vickers (2007) proposed four characteristics of a quiet eye: gaze location, gaze onset, gaze offset and gaze duration. Wilson et al. (2009) used an eye tracker to determine the exact point of attention for a sample of free throw shooters selected from college basketball teams. Participants wore the eye tracker device while shooting free throws. The experimental group was told that their performance would be compared to those of their teammates, as a manipulation of pressure. Participants in the control group were simply told to do their best. Results found that experimental group participants shot worse and had a reduction in the quiet eye period. This finding suggests that attention during performance can easily be influenced by anxiety, which also supports the predictions of ACT. Explicit Monitoring and Distraction Theories The skill to perform under pressure situations is often what separates good 3

9 athletes from great athletes. It sometimes seems as if great athletes have an innate ability to perform better under pressure. Then again, those who fail to perform under pressure may choke. Choking is defined as a less-than-expected performance that occurs during a high-pressure situation (Weinberg & Gould, 2011; Beilock & Gray, 2007). Two theories have been proposed recently to explain choking under pressure: explicit monitoring theory, and distraction theory. Beilock and Carr (2001) proposed explicit monitoring theory to explain choking under pressure. According to the theory, a rise in anxiety due to pressure may increase attention to the skill processes of performing correctly. Athletes who focus on the explicit process of a skill are more likely to choke, not succeed, under pressure (Beilock & Carr, 2001). Baumeister (1984) proposed that pressure causes increased attention to skillfocused processes, which disrupts task performance. Focusing on the specifics of a task will result in a breakdown of automated movements, which then will affect the athlete s ability to perform (see Weinberg & Gould, 2011). This will result in choking under pressure. On the other hand, distraction theory posits that distraction occurs due to the increase of pressure (Wine, 1971). The influence of pressure on the performer will then cause a decrease in performance, due to this distraction. It is worth noting both theories, since they give two different perspectives of why pressure can influence performance, and why choking might occur. DeCaro, Thomas, Albert and Beilock (2011) used both explicit monitoring and distraction theories to explain poor performance under high-pressure situations. The authors proposed that pressure situations may lead to either distraction or explicit 4

10 monitoring. DeCaro et al. (2011) investigated working memory and attentional control, which are proposed as skills that can be influenced by high-pressure situations. The study analyzed categorization tasks and reaction times within different pressure conditions. The authors concluded that pressure can influence performance, and that both distraction explicit monitoring theories may explain choking under pressure. The current study does not directly measure these theories, but rather indirectly as possible by-products of pressure (See Discussion). Studies on Performance Under Pressure in Sport A recent study by Otten (2009) examined basketball free throw sport performance under pressure. Participants performed two sets of 15 free throws; after the first set of 15 free throws, participants in the control group were told they would be video taped and that the tape would be shown to a sport psychology class. The video-tape was used as a pressure component of the experiment. The study found that participants who felt greater control and confidence are more likely to perform better under pressure situations. A study by Jordet and Hartman (2008) examined soccer penalty shootouts under pressure. Shots whereby a miss would result in a team s loss were considered as highpressure situations. Video analyses of penalty shootouts from the World Cup, European Championship and UEFA Champions League during were examined for the purposes of the study. Shot valences were assessed from penalty shots; positive shots were shots that (if made) would result in a win, while negative shots were those (that if missed) would lead to a loss. Results found that shooters were worse in negative-shot situations, implying that those in high-pressure situations performed worse than those in low-pressure situations (Jordet & Hartman, 2008). 5

11 A Coping Strategy: Pre-Shot Routine One way to cope with pressure is to develop a pre-shot routine. A pre-shot routine may be used as a strategy in enhancing performance under pressure conditions. This literature review is an overview of studies from several sports that have implemented the usage of a pre-shot routine. Routines are common in golf, volleyball, basketball, water polo and bowling, just to name a few. For example, a basketball free throw shooter might dribble the ball a number of times, or spin it a certain way in his/her hand prior to shooting. Theoretically, it does not matter what actions the shooter takes, so long as he/she remains focused on the task. For example, current Dallas Mavericks point guard Jason Kidd has a unique pre-shot routine; before shooting, he blows a kiss to the basket. Even though the kiss is part of his routine, it is not the kiss itself but rather the routine as a whole that may predict performance. As such, a pre-shot routine may be anything that the athlete feels comfortable in executing. According to Crews and Boutcher (1986), a pre-shot routine is defined as a set pattern of cue thoughts, actions, and images consistently carried out before performance of the skill (p. 291). Cohn (1990) reviewed theoretical and practical research on pre-shot routines. Theoretical support, such as schema theory (Schmidt, 1975), and research on stages of motor learning (Fitts, 1964; Fitts & Posner, 1967) exists for the use of preperformance routines. Schema theory explains that motor movements are stored in memory, and are accessible to be retrieved and executed when necessary (e.g., under pressure; Schmidt, 1975). Cohn s (1990) review also provides research on related cognitive-behavioral strategies, overall supporting the use of pre-performance routines. Thus, establishing a pre-shot routine may theoretically help an athlete divert 6

12 attention away from the explicit monitoring of skills (e.g., explicit monitoring theory), deal with distractions (e.g., distraction theory), focus attention appropriately (ACT) and thus perform under pressure situations. There have been several studies that have examined the effects of a pre-shot routine on performance in specific sports, and are reviewed as follows. Mesagno and Mullane-Grant (2010) examined 60 experienced Australian football players, and implemented four intervention groups, and one control group. Participants in the extensive pre-performance routine group received an intervention that included both psychological and behavioral components, including arousal modification and attentional control training. Results showed that the intervention helped the footballers under pressure conditions, over and above those who did not perform a routine. Consistent with this research, Singer (2002) suggested that an especially important component of a preperformance routine is the self-regulation of levels of arousal, particularly for self-paced tasks. Also, Singer (2002) suggested a five-step strategy for self-paced skills to be implemented for an effective routine. Among a sample of college basketball players, Czech, Ploszay and Burke (2004) found that free throw percentage was higher for those athletes who followed a pre-shot routine than those who did not follow a pre-shot routine. Similarly, Hanton, Wadey and Mellalieu (2008) conducted a study of eight elite athletes from different teams and individual sports. Athletes reported that pre-performance routines allowed them to control anxiety and mentally prepare for competition. In this case, a routine served as a coping strategy for the increase in anxiety may occur due to pressures of a competition. Predebon and Docker (1992) studied experienced basketball players who were 7

13 assigned to one of three conditions: no routine, a standardized physical routine, or an imagery/physical routine. The study contained four sessions: a baseline session, and three other sessions according to the condition a participant was in. Across the duration of the study, players were allowed to practice their free throws three times per week for one hour. Results showed that the routine group performed better than the no-routine group. Specifically, the mean score for imagery/physical routine condition was higher than that of the physical routine group, once again confirming the importance of a preshot routine, in this case with an imagery component. Another study by Cohn, Rotella and Lloyd (1990) examined elite collegiate golfers, and found a positive effect of a pre-shot routine on performance. Cognitivebehavioral intervention programs were taught to three male NCAA Division I intercollegiate athletes who were part of a golf team; researchers observed behavioral and mental routines. The purpose of the treatment was to ensure that the golfers adhered to the routine. Once again, the results support the effectiveness of a pre-shot routine. Boutcher and Crews (1987) examined 12 golfers (six female and six male) during a six-week pre-shot routine training. Golfers were randomly selected to take part in one of four groups: male routine, female routine, male control and female control. The routine groups were taught specific routine patterns that were practiced throughout the course of this study. The experimental group was told to learn to focus your attention on a series of specific cues (p. 32). The control group received no instructions on putting routines; instead, they were simply asked to use their own routine. Results revealed that both female and male routine groups increased their routine times and consistency as a result of the training. Surprisingly, findings also indicated that only the female routine group 8

14 improved performance as a result. Note that for the current study, the sample is mostly female (See Method). Researchers have also examined pre-shot routines for water polo penalty shots (Marlow, Bull, Heath & Shambrook, 1998). These authors examined three experienced water polo players, and analyzed the influence of their pre-shot routine on penalty shot performance. Prior to the start of their season, the athletes were assisted in creating a personalized pre-shot routine. Not surprisingly, results support the idea that having a preshot routine improved the athlete s shot performance. Similarly, pre-shot routines have been examined in bowling. Mesagno, Marchant and Morris (2008) recruited choking-susceptible participants (p. 444) and conducted a study to assess whether a pre-performance routine might reduce such behavior for bowlers. A video camera, an audience of eight students and financial reward were used as the pressure components for the study. The routine intervention program included a demonstration of a typical bowling routine and the opportunity for the participants to practice and develop a routine. Results indicated that a pre-performance routine did in fact alleviate choking. Research by Lidor and Mayan (2005) examined the use of a pre-performance routine for volleyball serves. Two studies were conducted; Study 1 observed elite male volleyball players in order to collect data on pre-performance times, movement and behavior prior to serving. Study 2 implemented the observed motor behavior of serving the volleyball from Study 1 on sixty female volleyball beginners. Participants in the second study were assigned to one of three groups: motor preparatory routine, cognitive preparatory routine, or a control. Motor pre-performance learners were prompted to 9

15 follow the routine while feeling the ball with two hands dribbling the ball with dominant hand. On the other hand, cognitive pre-performance learners were told to stand in a ready position imagine themselves successfully performing focus attention on eternal cues (p. 354). Results showed that participants in the motor preparatory routine group were more accurate in serving the volleyball than those learners in the cognitive preparatory routine group. Pre-Shot Routine Components: Length and Consistency Other studies have examined the specific effects of the length of time of a preshot routine on basketball free throw performance (Wrisberg & Pein, 1992; Mack, 2001). Wrisberg and Pein (1992) collected data based on college students who took part in intramural basketball games at an NCAA Division I university. Results suggested that the length of the pre-shot routine had no association with free throw accuracy. However, predicting the consistency of the pre-shot interval was proposed as an ideal component of what an athlete should achieve in order to perform better. The study concluded that consistency of a routine was more important than the duration of the pre-shot routine. Similar results were found by Mack (2001), who further examined the effects of routine length on basketball free throw shooting. Participants were 17 NCAA Division I men s basketball team members who were asked to perform free throws. The experiment consisted of four conditions: normal routine and normal time, normal routine using a longer period of time, altered routine with normal time, and altered routine using a longer period of time. Participants were asked to shoot free throws exactly as they would in an actual game under normal conditions. In a secondary condition, where the time was altered, participants were required to lengthen the amount they took for the routine. For 10

16 the altered routine condition, participants were taught to use a new pre-shot routine, as demonstrated by the researchers. This routine eliminated the act of dribbling, since it was observed that all participants used dribbling for their normal pre-shot routine. Results from Mack (2001) indicated that participants in the altered routine condition shot worse than the participants in the normal routine conditions, suggesting that consistency of a routine may be a better indicator of performance than routine length. One could argue that such alteration of a routine may be confounded with explicit monitoring, since to actively change one s routine an athlete may need to give it a certain level of conscious thought. Participants in Mack (2001) practiced the altered pre-shot routine prior to execution, however, suggesting that explicit monitoring was not required so much by the time the participants were asked to perform. Jackson and Baker (2001) observed routine consistency for a professional rugby goal kicker. Physical preparation time (PPT) and concentration time (CT) were both measured as part of the kicker s routine. Behavioral measures, including the number of times the participant looked at the goal post, were also recorded during PPT, CT and prior to each kick. The key factor in this experiment was the relationship between the difficulty of the kick and the consistency of the routine. The results revealed that task difficulty impacted the time taken on the pre-performance routines, as well as the duration of the concentration period. It is important to note that the author s observation was based not only on one level of difficulty, but different levels of difficulty. This finding suggests that routine consistency may change based on the difficulty of the task at hand. A study that examined soccer penalty shootouts under pressure by Jordet and 11

17 Hartman (2008), as stated earlier, found that players took more time before shots that might result in a loss. The more time spent prior to taking the shot, it may be argued, the less automatic it is. Jordet and Hartman (2008) suggested that spending more time prior to executing a skill may lead to over-thinking and focusing on the task rather than just performing the task. Thus, for a more difficult (Jackson & Baker, 2001) or pressurefilled (Jordet & Hartman, 2008) task, length of preparation time may increase and consistency may decrease, both leading to performance problems. The Current Study The current study proposes a relationship between theories of sport performance under pressure (explicit monitoring and distraction theories) and the use of pre-shot routines. Explicit monitoring theory suggests that an increase in anxiety due to pressure will result to an increase in attention to skill processes (Beilock & Carr, 2001). Focus on a well-learned task may be detrimental, in that a shift of attention to movements and actions that were once unconscious are now conscious. Similarly, distraction theory proposed that pressure increases distraction, which then decreases performance (Wine, 1971). Based on the research above, a pre-shot routine may be implemented as a coping strategy to reduce both explicit monitoring and distraction, and thus reduce choking under pressure. Research in the past has examined the usefulness of a pre-shot routine (Cohn, 1990) and suggested that having a pre-shot routine may be helpful for sport performance (Mesagno & Mullane-Grant, 2010; Mesagno, Marchant & Morris, 2008; Wrisberg & Pein, 1992; Czech, Ploszay & Burke, 2004; Predebon & Docker, 1992; Hanton, Wadey & Mellalieu, 2008). The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of a pre-shot routine on 12

18 basketball free throw performance under pressure. The study is similar to Mesagno and Mullane-Grant (2010) in that it will involve the observation of pre-performance routines under pressure conditions. Recall that Mesagno and Mullane-Grant (2010) employed a live audience as a pressure manipulation during the course of their experiment, and found that a pre-performance routine intervention program was helpful under these conditions. However, unlike Mesagno and Mullane-Grant (2010), the current study will not implement a routine intervention program, but rather examine shooters pre-existing routines. The current project also aims to examine the specific effects of length and consistency of a pre-shot routine on performance. As stated above, Wrisberg and Pein (1992) and others (Jackson & Baker, 2001; Mack, 2001) have suggested that the length of the pre-shot routine is less important for free throw accuracy than pre-shot routine consistency. Indeed, while much of the research referenced above suggests that an elaborate pre-shot routine is helpful for success, Jordet and Hartman (2008) suggested that a lengthy routine might in fact be detrimental under pressure. Thus, our hypotheses place consistency (rather than length) as the central, key component to performance success. For the current study, measurements of routine time and routine time standard deviation will be assessed, and the following four hypotheses will be made. 1) Routine length will not influence basketball free throw performance under pressure. 2) Routine time standard deviation will be correlated with performance. That is, the smaller the standard deviation of a shooter s routine length, the greater his or her 13

19 consistency; the greater the consistency, then, the better the performance under pressure. 3) How elaborate the routine is will predict success under pressure but not as strongly as consistency under pressure. 4) Routine rating standard deviation will be correlated with performance. That is, the smaller the standard deviation of a how elaborate a routine, the greater the performance under pressure. The current project will examine pre-shot routines during basketball free throw performance in a natural setting without any prior training or any pre-shot routine intervention. Most research in the past has taken the experimental approach by using intervention programs to demonstrate pre-shot routines; the proposed study will use an observational approach. That pre-shot routines will also be observed under pressure conditions is an additional, unique feature of this study. 14

20 METHOD Participants Undergraduate psychology students from California State University, Northridge (CSUN) participated in this study for the purpose of earning class credit. There were 58 females and 30 males (N = 88) in the experimental group. The control group consisted of 48 participants. Experimental participants ranged in age from 19 to 28 (M = 19.44, SD = 1.85). The percentages of participants ethnicities were as follows: 11.4% white/caucasian, 12.5% Asian/Pacific Islander, 45.5% Latino/a, 11.4% African American, 5.7% Middle Eastern and 13.6% other. The mean number of times a participant played basketball per month was 2.30 (SD = 4.02). The mean overall years of prior basketball experience was 4.30 (SD = 4.30). Participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental group or control group. Both groups were created with a maximum of six participants per block. Measures Demographic items, such as the number of times a participant played basketball per month and overall basketball experience (expertise), were assessed. The Competitive State Anxiety Inventory 2-R (CSAI-2R; Cox, Martens & Russell, 2003) was used to measure participants cognitive and somatic anxiety. Anxiety levels were assessed when the participants arrived at the experiment (pre-test) and after the pressure manipulation. Both participants in the experimental and control group received the CSAI-2R. The scale for each assessment was 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so). The purpose of the CSAI-2R measurement was to demonstrate if there was anxiety difference between the control group and experimental group, caused by the pressure manipulation. 15

21 Positive anxiety was measured by a new 10-item questionnaire (Otten & Perez, under review). Each item from the CSAI-2R questionnaire was closely matched to a new positive-valenced counterpart, with item 7 ( My heart is racing. ) being the only exception (due to its neutral valence). Item 2, for example, was, "I am hopeful that I may do better in this competition than I thought." In addition to the CSAI-2R, this scale was also administered twice. Each item was set on a 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so) scale. Otten and Perez (under review) suggested that the positive anxiety scale should be combined into one 10-item factor. Procedure The following method and free throw paradigm was similar to that of Otten (2009). Participants were required to fill out a series of questionnaires. After completing the questionnaires, all participants were asked to shoot 15 free throws. No other instructions were given, just to shoot the free throws behind the official free throw line (15 feet away from the basket). A men s size basketball was used in this experiment. The experimenter recorded performance of the free throws using the scale by Hardy and Parfitt (1991). The scoring was recorded as follows: 5 = clean basket, 4 = rim-and-in, 3 = backboard-and-in, 2 = rim-and-out, 1 = backboard-and-out, and 0 = complete miss. There were at least three experimenters present at all times. One of the three experimenters recorded and counted out loud the number of free throws made by each of the participants. The two other experimenters rebounded the attempted free throw shots. At the end, the amount of free throws made out of 15 attempts was recorded as the participant s final score. Participants were also told how many free throws they made after the first set of 15 shots. Experimental Group. After completion of the first set of free throws, only the participants 16

22 who were randomly assigned in the experimental group were told the following cover story: We are going to video-tape your performance. Your group today has been preselected by Dr. Mark P. Otten, Ph.D. from the psychology department at California State University, Northridge (CSUN) to be video-taped. At the end of this semester, Dr. Otten will be showing the tape to his Psychology 409 (sport psychology) class as an example of how athletes perform while on camera. More specifically, he is interested in whether your performance will get better or worse now that you are being video-taped. So before you shoot, we will remind you how many shots you made for your first 15 free throws. Since the study is about performance under pressure, the purpose of the video-tape was to enhance pressure during the second set of free throws. Participants were also given a consent form to sign after being told about the cover story. The tape was not actually shown to a class and the consent was given to apply a realistic situation for the induced pressure. The experimenter made it clear that a video-tape would be present and made sure that all participants signed off on the waiver prior to continuing the experiment. Participants were then asked to shoot their second set of 15 free throws. One of the experimenters held a video-recorder while each of the participants shot their second set of free throws. Control Group. Participants in the control group received the same procedure as the experimental group, except that there was no pressure manipulation to the study introduced. Participants in the control group shot the second set of free throws without the video-tape present (no cover story). At the end of the experiment, participants were 17

23 debriefed and experimental group participants were told that the recording was not going to be shown to the class. The purpose of the control group was simply to check and confirm the anxiety manipulation. Routine time for each of the experimental group participant s 15 free throws was also recorded as measured by a stopwatch. A mean routine time and mean routine standard deviation were derived from this measurement for each participant. The mean routine time mean was 2.83 seconds (SD = 1.24, range 1.05 to 10.21). The mean routine time standard deviation was 0.69 seconds (SD = 0.37, range 0.22 to 2.11). Two researchers then reviewed the tape and rated how elaborate participants were with their actions performed prior to shooting. A 1-item pre-shot routine questionnaire was developed for this purpose; each of the 15 free throws under pressure was based on this item, which read: How elaborate were the actions the participant performed prior to shooting? The questionnaire scale ranged from 0 (not at all) to 6 (very much so). A routine could have been a variety of actions, such as bouncing the ball, spinning the ball, etc. It was up to the raters to judge objectively. The mean rating across both raters and all 15 free throws was 1.54 (SD = 1.19, range 0 to 5.5). The average standard deviation of these ratings was 0.36 (SD = 0.23, Range 0 to 1.34). Inter-rater reliability for the two researchers across the 15 free throws was assessed by Cohen s kappa; values ranged from.12 to.40. Analyses The computer program SPSS was used for analysis. Correlation and multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between a pre-shot routine and performance under pressure. 18

24 RESULTS Analysis 1: Manipulation Check A repeated-measures, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was run to concurrently compare pre- and post-test means on each of the components of competitive state anxiety (cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety) among the 88 participants in the experimental group. This analysis revealed a significant difference, such that anxiety overall was higher at post-test, F (1,87) = 8.31, MSE = 0.24, p =.01; η 2 =.09. Meanwhile, an identical repeated-measures MANOVA run to concurrently compare pretest and post-test anxiety among the 48 control group participants revealed no significant difference, F (1,47) = 0.12, MSE = 0.22, p =.74. For simplicity, items within each of these factors were summed, to create composite anxiety variables for these analyses. Analysis 2: Experimental Results Univariate analyses of variables revealed no outliers. In addition, no missing data were detected in the study. Individual regressions were used to examine the relationships between the four independent variables and performance under pressure for the experimental group. The hypothesis that routine time standard deviation would predict performance was not supported, β =.06, p =.59. The hypothesis that routine time mean would not predict performance was supported, β =.11, p =.31. Results revealed a significant and positive relationship between performance and mean ratings of how elaborate a participant s routine (β =.25, p =.02). The standard deviation of these ratings, however, did not predict significantly performance, β =.11, p =.30. Multiple regression was conducted to examine how routine time mean and standard deviation as well as routine rating mean and standard deviation simultaneously 19

25 impacted performance. The overall model explained 11.4% of the variation in performance, by the combination of the four independent variables, F (4,83) = 2.27, p =.07. When the impact of each of the four independent variables was then assessed, the mean rating for how elaborate one s routine appeared was once again the only significant predictor of performance. See Appendix A for these results. Two multiple regressions were conducted to examine if expertise and the number of times the participant plays basketball per month impacted performance individually as covariates. That is, expertise and frequency of basketball activities were added in turn, separately, as covariates to the original regression suggesting that performance was significantly predicted by how elaborate a routine was. Results suggested that it is not the routine that impacted performance per se, but rather the participant s expertise, β =.36, p <.001. That is, once expertise was added to this model, the elaborate nature of the routine was no longer a significant predictor of performance. Results found that the number of times the participant plays basketball per month influenced performance similarly, β =.34, p =.01. Thus, both covariates were found to fully mediate the relationship between performance and how elaborate a routine was. A final multiple regression was conducted to examine how the four initial routine independent variables in addition to three potential covariates (basketball expertise, the number of times the participant played basketball per month, and the first set of 15 free throws) simultaneously impacted performance. In all, the model involved seven independent variables; this model explained 72.4% of the variation in performance, F (7,80) = 29.99, p <.001. When the impact of each of the seven independent variables was then assessed, the mean rating for how elaborate one s routine, the mean routine time and 20

26 the mean routine time standard deviation were revealed to be significant predictors of performance. See Appendix B for these results. 21

27 DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a pre-shot routine on basketball free throw performance under pressure. The data indicated a relationship between how elaborate a pre-shot routine is and performance; results suggest that the more elaborate the pre-shot routine, the better one performs. Past researchers have examined the effects of a pre-shot routine (Lamirand & Rainey, 1994; Czech, Ploszay and Burke, 2004; Hanton, Wadey and Mellalieu, 2008; Predebon and Docker, 1992; Cohn, Rotella & Lloyd, 1990). In the current study, researchers rated how elaborate the actions of the participants were prior to shooting a basketball free throw. Consistent with those of the past, current findings suggest that an elaborate pre-shot routine is beneficial for performance. In addition, measurements of routine length and routine time standard deviation were assessed. Past research had suggested that routine consistency was more important than routine length for successful performance (Jackson & Baker, 2001; Jordet & Hartman, 2008; Mack, 2001; Wrisberg & Pein, 1992). Accordingly, for the current study routine length was hypothesized to not influence free throw performance under pressure, while routine time standard deviation was expected to correlate with performance. That is, a small standard deviation, or greater routine consistency, would inspire better performance under pressure. The hypothesis that routine time means would not predict performance was supported. Consistent with Jordet and Hartman (2008), results were trending in a negative direction, such that the greater the mean, the worse the performance. This suggests that the length of a pre-shot routine had a marginal negative influence on performance under 22

28 pressure. Wrisberg and Pein (1992) had suggested that there is no relationship between routine length and free throw performance; Mack (2001) not only found that no effect of routine length on performance, but participants in an altered routine condition performed worse than participants who completed the normal routine condition. Both of these studies suggested that routine consistency was more important than routine length. For the current study, however, the hypothesis that routine time standard deviation would predict performance was not supported; results found that routine consistency did not predict performance under pressure. For the current sample there did exist a positive correlation between having an elaborate routine and mean routine time. However, when regression analyses to predict performance based on these two variables were conducted separately, routine length alone did not affect performance, but how elaborate the routine was did. This suggests that how elaborate the routine is, or the unique non-time-related characteristics of a routine, are a bigger key to successful performance. Overall, findings based on the current research are at times inconsistent with past studies. Discrepant effects of the length and consistency of a pre-shot routine might be explained by the type of sport performed, as well as the form of experimental measurements. Wrisberg and Pein (1992) conducted an observational study on basketball players and found no effect of routine length on performance, results which run similar to those of the current study. The experimental procedure by Mack (2001) altered participants pre-shot routines and routine times during free throws, which we did not do, and suggested the importance of routine consistency, which we did not find. Jordet and Hartman (2008) observed soccer penalty shootouts and found that players took more time 23

29 and performed worse before shots that might result in a loss. The current study used an observational approach in observing basketball free throws; all experimental participants received the same pressure manipulation. No specific instructions or intervention techniques were given to the participants. The fact that the current study used a naturalistic approach reflects on the uniqueness of the study and perhaps also its results. Even though the current study did not make any predictions on the relationship between anxiety and performance under pressure, anxiety measures were assessed. Interesting results were found when analyses were conducted comparing anxiety and performance under pressure. Results demonstrated that positive anxiety correlated with overall pre-shot routine rating mean (r =.38, p <.001) and routine time mean (r =.30, p <.01). These findings suggest that the longer and the more elaborate a pre-shot routine was, the more positive anxiety an athlete was experiencing, and vice versa. It may be that if an athlete reacts to pressure with positive emotions (e.g. positive anxiety), a routine will be more beneficial. Alternatively, taking a long time with a routine might only be helpful if the athlete utilizes that time to get excited (rather than nervous) about the pressure performance. On the other hand, measurements of negative anxiety did not reveal any significant relationship with having a pre-shot routine. Pressure may induce an athlete to consciously attend to the performance process (Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr, 2001). This then disrupts the skill that once was automatic and hinders performance, since attention is shifted to the step-by-step process. Previous studies have suggested that performance under pressure leads to longer preparation times, and this leads to greater explicit monitoring of movements. Performers in one study took a longer time climbing under pressure than under no pressure 24

30 conditions (Pijpers, Oudejans, Holsheimer, & Bakker, 2003). Jordet and Hartman (2008) found that athletes who were faced with pressure took more time before the penalty shots, and current results marginally support this finding. The current study did not directly measure attention to explicit processes or the distraction involved with performance; pressure was successfully manipulated, however, and therefore we can assume that some form of explicit monitoring and/or distraction may have been present for participants. However, the effects of a pre-shot routine as a potential coping mechanism for this pressure seemed minimal. A potential future follow-up study might examine a disruption of the automated process that explicit monitoring theory (Beilock & Carr, 2001) might suggest is necessary for successful pressure performance. Building on the current experimental paradigm, a subset of participants could be shown a replay of their own completed performance through the camera viewfinder, and be asked to be aware of their routine during their second set of shots. These participants would then be expected to perform worse, in accordance with explicit monitoring theory. Literature in the past has revealed little regarding the effects of a pre-shot routine from a qualitative perspective; thus, another potential follow-up study might be derived from this. Qualitative data might provide specific thoughts, actions, and detailed insight from an athlete who follows a pre-shot routine. Future research might interview participants as part of this process. A participant s perception of the routine could be considered as a part of the analysis in this type of study. This thesis will add to the understanding of the importance of a pre-shot routine during basketball free throw performance under pressure; however, certain limitations to 25

31 the study exist. Research in the past has used experienced athletes; e.g., college basketball players (Wrisberg & Pein, 1992; Lamirand & Rainey, 1994; Mack, 2001), experienced golfers (Boutcher & Crews, 1987; Cohn, Rotella, & Lloyd, 1990), water polo players (Marlow, Bull, Heath & Shambrook, 1998), Australian football players (Mesagno & Mullane-Grant, 2010), and elite male volleyball players (Lidor & Mayan, 2005). Unlike past research on pre-shot routines, participants for this study were conducted on a random sample of undergraduate students. Past sport experience, specifically basketball experience, was not required to sign up for the study. Results demonstrated that expertise and the number of times the participant played basketball per month were indeed key factors in influencing performance. Crews and Boutcher (1986) defined a pre-shot routine as a set pattern of cue thoughts, actions, and images (p. 291). Practice and training are required in order to form and develop these patterns that are carried out prior to execution. Athletes are trained to use such patterns as part of their pre-shot routine. Therefore, observing pre-shot routines on athletes is quite different than observing pre-shot routines on non-athletes. The fact that basketball abilities were not a requirement for participation in the study may have contributed to the discrepancy between the current study s results and those of past research. Another limitation that may exist in this study may be the pressure manipulation. Pressure was manipulated by having a video recorder present during the second set of 15 free throws. In addition to the video recorder, a cover story was read to the experimental participants, describing where and when the recording would (presumably) be shown after the study was done. One may argue that there were multiple pressure components 26

32 present to the study, e.g., a cover story and the presence of a video recorder. This may fuel speculation as to which component was the true cause of the pressure. Still, the findings from the current study suggest that an elaborate pre-shot routine is better for performance under pressure. Researchers Mesagno and Mullane-Grant (2010) trained participants with a specific pre-shot routine intervention. Current results imply that researchers should focus on how elaborate the pre-shot routine is during such an intervention. Thus, future research might focus less on the length and consistency of the pre-shot routine, and more on how elaborate a pre-shot routine. In fact, an elaborate routine may be especially helpful during performance under pressure. However, when expertise variables were also taken into consideration in predicting performance, the effects of an elaborate routine appeared to wash away. Therefore, the current study also suggests that expertise may impact free throw performance under pressure over and above a pre-shot routine. For one to become an expert, one must deliberately practice on the specific skill. Thus, mastering a skill and becoming an expert may ultimately be more important than having an elaborate routine. Results of the full multiple regression included performance on one s first 15 free throws as an additional covariate, now implying a prediction of performance change from no-pressure to pressure conditions. Here, the length of one s routine now appeared to become significantly detrimental to performance. In addition, the lower the consistency of a routine, the better the performance change, which fully contradicts our original hypotheses. However, how elaborate one s routine returned to significance as a predictor of performance, which suggests that an elaborate routine may retain some importance for success after all. Thus, there may be support still for the unique non-time-related 27