Florida State University Libraries

Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2005 Attention and Performance: When Does Choking under Pressure Occur and What Is the Debilitating Source? Jennifer Lyn Reeves Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ATTENTION AND PERFORMANCE: WHEN DOES CHOKING UNDER PRESSURE OCCUR AND WHAT IS THE DEBILITATING SOURCE? BY JENNIFER LYN REEVES A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2005

The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Jennifer Lyn Reeves defended on March 2, 2005. Gershon Tenenbaum Professor Directing Dissertation Roy Baumeister Outside Committee Member Aki Kamata Committee Member Cecile Reynaud Committee Member Approved: Frances Prevatt, Chairperson, Educational Psychology and Learning Systems The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. ii

For my family: Thank you for believing in me. I love each of you with all my heart. For my husband, David The love of my life, without your support, love, and dedication I would be in a mental institution. For my parents, Kathi, Randy, Glenda, and Tom Thank you for all your guidance, advice, love, and support, without you I would not be here today. For my sister, Kristen Thanks for always listening and being my best friend, I will always cherish what we have. For my favorite canines, Carley and Belle Thanks for the unconditional love and all the cuddles. iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables...v List of Figures...vi Abstract...ix 1. INTRODUCTION...1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW...3 Mental Pressure Definitions...3 Attentional Theories: Linking Anxiety and Performance...5 Current Research on Choking Under Pressure...7 A Conceptual Scheme of Choking...13 Situational Variables...15 Athlete Expectancies...18 Audience Expectancies...19 Tasks that Eventuate Choking...19 Hypotheses...22 3. METHODS...24 Participants...24 Instrumentation...24 Performance Task...25 Task Manipulation...26 Attentional Conditions...26 Pressure Manipulation...28 Procedure...29 Statistical Analysis...31 4. RESULTS...32 Examination of Normality Assumption...32 Manipulation Checks...32 Hypothesis Testing...35 Performance Time...35 Performance Accuracy...48 Speed/Accuracy Tradeoff...63 iv

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS...70 Attention and Performance...73 A Conceptual Scheme of Choking, Revisited...77 Performance Pressure...81 Limitations and Future Directions...83 APPENDICES...85 Defense Announcement...85 Human Subjects Approval...86 Informed Consent...87 Informed Consent for Participants Under 18 Years of Age...88 Child Assent Form...89 Coach Informed Consent...90 Demographic Information...91 Performance Measures...92 REFERENCES...93 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...98 v

LIST OF TABLES 1. RM MANOVA results for performance time...36 2. RM MANOVA results for performance time for participants focusing on an internal, relevant attentional condition...42 3. RM MANOVA results for performance time for participants focusing on an internal, non-relevant attentional condition...43 4. RM MANOVA results for performance time for participants focusing on an external, relevant attentional condition...45 5. RM MANOVA results for performance time for participants focusing on an external, non-relevant attentional condition...47 6. RM MANOVA results for performance accuracy...48 7. RM MANOVA results for performance accuracy collapsing attentional relevance and attentional direction...52 8. RM MANOVA results for performance accuracy for participants focusing on an internal, relevant attentional condition...56 9. RM MANOVA results for performance accuracy for participants focusing on an internal, non-relevant attentional condition...58 10. RM MANOVA results for performance accuracy for participants focusing on an external, relevant attentional condition...59 11. RM MANOVA results for performance accuracy for participants focusing on an external, non-relevant attentional condition...61 12. Performance outcomes for speed, accuracy, and speed/accuracy tradeoff...72 vi

LIST OF FIGURES 1. McGrath s four-stage model of stress...4 2. Csikszentmihalyi s model of flow...7 3. Conceptual scheme of choking under pressure...14 4. A schematic drawing of the performance task...26 5. Mean perceived pressure for all participants under three pressure conditions...33 6. Mean performance times for novice and sub-elite participants...33 7. Mean performance times for dominant and non-dominant foot...34 8. Mean performance times for skill by attentional relevance...38 9. Mean performance times for skill by task by pressure by relevance by direction...39 10. Mean performance times for attentional relevance by attentional direction...40 11. Mean performance times for internal, relevant attentional condition...41 12. Mean performance times for internal, non-relevant attentional condition...44 13. Mean performance times for external, relevant attentional condition...45 14. Mean performance times for external, non-relevant attentional condition...46 15. Mean performance times under three pressure conditions...48 16. Mean performance accuracy for skill by task by pressure by attentional direction... 51 17. Mean performance accuracy for skill by task by pressure by attentional condition.. 54 18. Mean performance accuracy under four attentional conditions...55 19. Mean performance accuracy for internal, relevant attentional condition...57 20. Mean performance accuracy for internal, non-relevant attentional condition...58 21. Mean performance accuracy for external, relevant attentional condition...60 22. Mean performance accuracy for external, non-relevant attentional condition...61 23. Mean performance accuracy under three pressure conditions...62 24. Speed/accuracy tradeoffs for participants dribbling with their dominant foot under three pressure conditions...64 25. Speed/accuracy tradeoffs for participants dribbling with their non-dominant foot under three pressure conditions...65 vii

26. Speed/accuracy tradeoffs for participants dribbling with their dominant foot under low pressure, high pressure, and an overall performance...67 27. Speed/accuracy tradeoffs for participants dribbling with their non-dominant foot under low pressure, high pressure, and an overall performance...68 28. Conceptual scheme of choking, revised...78 viii

ABSTRACT The explicit monitoring theory proposes that pressure causes a performer to pay attention to and attempt to control the automaticity of a well-learned skill (Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr, 2001; Lewis & Linder, 1997). For novice performers, focusing on the process is necessary and beneficial to performance; however, for expert performers, focusing on an automatic process results in choking under pressure, unless one is accustomed to performing under self-focused conditions (i.e., they have undergone selfconsciousness training; Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr, 2001; Reeves, Acharya, Lidor, & Tenenbaum, in review). Research on attention and performance has only looked at performance on a one-dimensional level (i.e., only looking at speed) and has failed to include all aspects of performance in one comprehensive study. Consequently, the purpose of the present study was threefold: (a) to determine when and where choking under pressure occurs, (b) to conclude whether performing in front of external evaluators or trying to meet a criterion induces greater performance pressure, resulting in performance decrements, and (c) to introduce a conceptual scheme of choking under pressure. Participants consisted of sub-elite and novice soccer players from Leon, Lincoln and Chiles High Schools. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four attentional focus conditions: internal, relevant (i.e., participants focused on their dribbling foot); internal, non-relevant (i.e., participants focused on their thoughts); external, relevant (i.e., participants focused on the soccer ball); and external, non-relevant (i.e., participants focused on crowd noise); while dribbling a soccer ball through a slalom course with their dominant and non-dominant feet, during low pressure, while trying to meet a criterion, and while performing in front of external evaluation. Results combined performance speed and accuracy to produce an overall measure of performance outcome (i.e., speed/accuracy tradeoff). The speed/accuracy tradeoffs exemplified an external attentional focus (i.e., focusing on crowd noise and the ball) to be most beneficial to subelite performance, while a relevant attentional focus (i.e., focusing on their foot and the ix

ball) was most beneficial to novice performance. Furthermore, sub-elite participants were found to perform similarly to expert soccer players (rather than novices) regardless of attentional focus condition or task difficulty. So, when and where does choking under pressure occur? It appears that participants focusing internally on non-relevant aspects of performance (i.e., one s thoughts, or the arm in soccer) choke under pressure, regardless of expertise-level or task difficulty. In addition, expert and sub-elite participants choke under pressure while focusing internally, on relevant aspects of performance (i.e., foot in soccer, arm in a throwing task); while novices choke under pressure while focusing externally on non-relevant aspects of performance (i.e., crowd noise), regardless of task difficulty. Furthermore, it appears that performing in front of external evaluators induces greater performance decrements than trying to meet a criterion; i.e., external pressure was more debilitating to performance than internal pressure. These findings support the explicit monitoring theory of choking under pressure and expand the current literature on attention and performance. Future research needs to replicate the present study to include expert performers to ensure the reliability and validity of the conceptual scheme of choking presented in Figures 28a and 28b; and use this schema to design an intervention to prevent paradoxical performance effects, allowing all performers to reach their highest potential. x

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Why do talented athletes, when faced with high pressure, game-winning situations, sometimes fail to perform at their optimal level? During the 2004 Summer Olympic games in Athens, the USA women s 4 x 100 meter relay team, who was seated first going into the finals, did not finish the race; but even if they had, they would have been disqualified for stepping out of the change over box. Lauryn Williams, apparently anxious, left her mark a split second too early, preventing Marion Jones from passing the baton off before leaving the change over box. When it comes to choking, the bottom line is that everyone does it. The question isn t whether you choke or not, but how when you choke you are going to handle it. Choking is a big part of every sport, and a part of being a champion is being able to cope with it better than everyone else. -- John McEnroe (In Weinberg & Gould, 1995, p. 333) Choking under pressure is a phenomenon that haunts all athletes, all expertise levels, in every domain. It can change an individual s hopes and dreams to devastation and bleakness, and separates the elitist from the elite. Research on paradoxical performance effects, or choking under pressure, suggests that pressure incites athletes to focus on the process of the skill, interfering with its automaticity, and resulting in an outcome that is suboptimal (Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr, 2001, Lewis & Linder, 1997; Reeves, Acharya, Lidor, & Tenenbaum, in review). In an attempt to dispel the mystery surrounding this phenomenon, a research scheme of choking under pressure will be proposed. Although it is by no means complete, it is a step towards reaching the gold medal. Ego-relevance and the presence of an audience have been shown to heighten arousal, increase performance pressure, and focus one s attention inward (Baumeister and Showers, 1986). Although ego-relevance has not been looked at explicitly in the realm of 1

sport, numerous researchers have shown ego-relevance leading to choking on numerous cognitive tasks (Deffenbacker, 1978; Dunn, 1968; Sarason, 1956); and several studies have shown performance decrements in front of evaluative audiences, under high pressure, and during explicit competition all of which are considered ego-relevant (Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr, 2001; Reeves et al., in review). In addition, research on the presence of an audience is equivocal, suggesting that audiences are both facilitating and debilitating to performance (Cottrell, 1972; Kimble & Rezabek, 1992; Sanders & Baron, 1975; Zajonc, 1965). Consequently, the purpose of the present study is to examine when and where paradoxical performance effects occur, to determine what type of pressure (i.e., internal versus external) induces the greatest performance decrements during crucial moments of competition, and to complete the conceptual scheme of choking under pressure. The results of the present study will be used to develop an intervention to prevent choking under high-pressure situations, enabling sport psychologists and coaches to help elite athletes reach their highest potential, and possibly change the nature of sport altogether. 2

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The paradoxical performance effect has achieved minimal research feats, even though it can lose the game, ruin a career, or prevent one from ever happening. The purpose of this literature review is to examine when and where paradoxical performance effects occur and to present the scheme of choking under pressure. Before doing so, one must examine the nature of the arousal-performance relationship. Mental Pressure Definitions When a performance is ego-relevant, pressure, defined as any factor or combination of factors that increases the importance of performing well on a particular occasion, has been shown to increase arousal, anxiety, and stress in an individual (Baumeister, 1984, p. 610; Baumeister & Showers, 1986). These terms, however, are not synonymous. Arousal refers to the intensity dimension of motivation at a particular instance, involving both physiological and psychological activity (Weinberg & Gould, 1995). The intensity ranges along a continuum from extremely low (i.e., comatose) to extremely high (i.e., frenzied). Anxiety is characterized by worry, nervousness, and apprehension, and is associated with heightened physiological arousal (Weinberg & Gould, 1995). Anxiety consists of two dimensions: cognitive, which involves negative thought processes (such as worry), and somatic, the perceived physiological component of anxiety. Stress, in contrast, is a heightened physiological response or reaction to incoming stimuli (i.e., signals from the internal or external environment) (Blonna, 2000). Arousal, anxiety, and stress affect one s interpretation of the perceived pressure: successful athletes are those that are able to cope with the pressure, while unsuccessful athletes choke under pressure. 3

McGrath (1970) proposed a simple, four-stage model of stress (see Figure 1). In the first stage of stress some environmental demand is placed on the individual (e.g., pressure to win a game, or make the game-winning shot). The second stage is the individual s perception of the demand (e.g., threatening versus challenging). An important element in this stage is a person s trait anxiety, or how he or she generally reacts in certain situations (i.e., one s behavioral tendencies). The third stage is the individual s physiological and psychological response to stress, or how the individual responds to his or her perception of the situation (e.g., pressure causes cognitive and somatic anxiety resulting in increased worry and physiological activation). The fourth stage is the behavior or performance of the individual under stress (e.g., the resulting performance is deteriorated the individual chokes under pressure). The stress is a cyclic process: the performance in the fourth stage, affects the individual s reaction in subsequent situational demands (e.g., a previous failure will negatively affect performance on another task). Consequently, an athlete s interpretation of a stressful event directly affects future performances. Environmental Demand Performance Perception of Demand Physiological and Psychological Response Figure 1: McGrath s (1970) four-stage model of stress. 4

Attentional Theories: Linking Arousal and Performance A number of theories postulate the processes, which account for performance dependency on emotions, suggesting that arousal is both facilitating and debilitating to performance. Increased arousal has been shown to result in self-focused attention (Wegner & Guiliano, 1980; Fenigstein & Carver, 1978). According to Nideffer (1993), an intense increase in physiological arousal (e.g., tightening of muscles, increased heart rate and breathing, sweaty palms) increases the susceptibility of an individual to choke under pressure. The increase in physiological arousal causes one s attention to become narrow and internal as focus shifts away from task-relevant cues (e.g., the ball, position of teammates and opponents) to task-irrelevant cues (e.g., worries about the outcome, fear of failure), ultimately affecting an athlete s timing, coordination, and decisionmaking. The inverted-u hypothesis, or the Yerkes-Dodson Law (Duffey, 1962; Yerkes & Dodson, 1908), proposes that arousal and performance increase linearly, but only up to a certain optimal point. As arousal increases further, past this optimal point, performance begins to decrease. Although this model has strong support, individual differences in arousal and performance are not taken into question (Weinberg & Gould, 1995). Easterbrook s (1959) cue-utilization hypothesis suggests that at low levels of arousal, an athlete s attentional focus is too broad. Numerous cues, both task-relevant (e.g., position of teammates, position of opponent) and task-irrelevant cues (e.g., crowd noise, weather) are picked up and processed. This lack of selectivity results in poorer performance the athlete is not attending solely to the task at hand. As arousal increases, the number of task irrelevant cues the athlete is attending to is reduced, resulting in an increase in performance. At a high level of arousal however, an athlete s attentional focus becomes too narrow, excluding task-irrelevant, as well as task-relevant cues. The athlete fails to process essential task relevant cues, and performance ultimately diminishes. Although the cue-utilization hypothesis has strong support (Abernethy, 1993; Landers, Wang, & Courtet, 1985) it does not explain why some athletes choke while others do not. According to Kerr s (1985, 1997) rendition of Apter s (1984) reversal theory, it is a person s interpretation of his or her arousal level that has a direct effect on performance. For instance, one person might interpret high arousal as a necessity for performance (i.e., he cannot play to his potential without a high level of arousal), while 5

another person might interpret high arousal as uncomfortable anxiety (i.e., he is unable to concentrate on the game). Alternatively, Hanin (1980, 1997) presented a model that takes into account individual differences, namely individual zones of optimal functioning (IZOF). He found that athletes have a zone (bandwidth) of optimal state anxiety in which maximal performance occurs. Outside of this zone, sub-optimal performance is more probable. In contrast to the inverted-u hypothesis, Hanin proposed that the optimal level of state anxiety does not always occur at the midpoint, but varies according to the athlete (i.e., some athletes perform better at high levels of state anxiety, while others perform better at low levels). This model is useful for coaches and sport psychologists in helping athletes reach their optimal potential, but does not account for the choking phenomenon. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) proposed a similar concept of flow based on a study of elite rock climbers, surgeons, artists, pianists, and athletes: A challenging activity that requires skills the merging of action with awareness clear goals and feedback concentration on the task at hand the paradox of control the loss of self-consciousness the transformation of time (pp. 49-66). Csikszentmihalyi s (1990) flow concepts led to a two-dimensional model illustrating the importance of individuals, regardless of skill level or activity-type, attaining the challenge of the situation so that optimal performance can be achieved (see Figure 2). Low-skill players will experience flow when faced with a low challenge; however, when faced with a high challenge, stressful anxiety occurs. In contrast, high skill players will be in the flow during a high challenge, while bored to death during a low challenge. Therefore, in order to experience a flow state, one s challenge must be compatible with the athlete s skill-level. 6

High Stress from anxiety zone Challenge Flow Low Stress from boredom zone Low Skill Level High Figure 2: Csikszentmihalyi s model of flow Although the attentional theories effectively suggest a most advantageous level of arousal for optimal performance, they fail to explain whether high-pressure situations are facilitating or debilitating to performance. Consequently, the current research on choking under pressure must be scrutinized. Current Research on Choking Under Pressure The explicit monitoring theory, or self-focus theory, proposes that pressure causes a performer to pay attention to and attempt to control the automaticity of a well-learned skill (Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr, 2001; Lewis & Linder, 1997). According to Baumeister (1984), the desire for optimal performance increases the mental pressure for a successful attempt, causing an athlete to shift attention to the process of the performance, interfering with its automaticity, and resulting in an outcome that is sub-optimal (i.e., choking). Early in learning, skill acquisition is slow, attention demanding, and extremely volitional (Fitts & Posner, 1967; Proctor & Dutta, 1995; Schmidt & Lee, 1999). Following repeated practice, however, skills become automatic as slow and serial processing is replaced by fast and parallel processing (Fitts & Posner, 1967; Langer & Imber, 1979; Schmidt & Lee, 1999). It is this rapid, parallel processing that becomes 7

interrupted under pressure as the athlete attempts to consciously control an over learned skill. Previous research has demonstrated that once a skill becomes automated, it no longer demands conscious attention (Kimble & Perlmuter, 1970; Schmidt & Lee, 1999). Unsurprisingly, attention to step-by-step details of an automatic process has been shown to disrupt well-learned or proceduralized skills (Beilock, Carr, MacMahon, & Starkes, 2002; Kimble & Perlmuter, 1970; Langer & Imber, 1979; Lewis & Linder, 1997; Masters, 1992). According to Kimble and Perlmuter (1970), the act of paying attention to such [automatic] performances or describing the steps as they occur tends to destroy the automaticity of such behavior (pp. 375-376). Imagine a concert pianist attending to each and every finger movement, or a typist attending to every keystroke performances would ultimately suffer. The same applies to a basketball player attending to the explicit steps involved in a free throw, or a soccer player depicting the proceduralized skill of kicking a ball. Baumeister (1984) tested a model stating that pressure increases anxiety and selfconsciousness, causing a performer to consciously think about executing the skill correctly. This focus on the self incites athletes to attend to the specific aspects of performance. For novice performers, this appears to be helpful, for focusing on the process is necessary and beneficial to performance. For elite performers, however, performance is automatic and therefore, out of one s awareness. In an attempt to consciously monitor an automatic process, performance paradoxically decreases. However, if a person is conditioned to performing under self-focused conditions (e.g., being video-taped or focusing on the process of the skill) then he or she should be accustomed to performing self-consciously. Baumeister suggested that if selfconsciousness is detrimental to performance, then without pressure, persons who are habitually low in self-consciousness should perform better than individuals who are habitually high in self-consciousness. However, if pressure causes self-awareness, then under pressure conditions, those individuals who are habitually high in selfconsciousness should outperform those individuals low in self-consciousness, for the high self-conscious individuals are accustomed to performing under self-focused conditions. Furthermore, Baumeister found individuals low in dispositional selfconsciousness to be more susceptible to choking in a pressure situation than individuals 8

high in dispositional self-consciousness. Therefore, it has been suggested that performers who undergo self-consciousness training will be accustomed to performing selfconsciously and choke under pressure less often (Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr, 2001; Reeves et al., in review). Numerous studies have shown individuals choking on difficult or complex tasks under pressure, while improving on simple or easy tasks under the same conditions (Beilock & Carr, 2001; Cottrell, Rittle, & Wack, 1967; Masters, 1992). Masters (1992) reasoned that performance pressure causes an athlete to attend to the proceduralized skill, resulting in a breakdown of complex tasks. In an attempt to control individual steps in a complex, multi-step skill, a disruption of the overall skill occurs (e.g., concert pianist attending to each and every finger movement). This does not seem to be the case in simple, one-step skills. Attending to the tapping of one letter on a keyboard ensures accuracy. Thus, attending to a simple task does not result in choking, but actually serves to enhance the performance of that task. Recently, Beilock, Carr, MacMahon, and Starkes (2002) examined the impact of attention in two tasks, golf putting and soccer dribbling. In both tasks, participants were divided into two treatments, a dual-task treatment designed to distract attention away from the task at hand, and a skill-focused treatment that prompted attention to the process of the skill. Results showed that experienced golfers in a dual-task situation were not affected by the distraction the secondary task served to focus one s attention away from the step-by-step processes of the proceduralized skill. In a soccer-dribbling task, experts, when using their dominant foot, also performed better under the dual-task situation; however, experts, when using their non-dominant foot, and novices, performed better under skill-focused conditions. Thus, skills that are attention demanding may benefit from explicit monitoring, while automatic skill execution is harmed by such scrutiny. Although Beilock et al. (2002) found evidence that attention to a skill-relevant component of the action was harmful for high-skill players, while low-skill players benefited from this attention, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions. The control condition was always performed first (as a practice session), making it impossible to disregard any practice effects, which might have caused the observed results. Furthermore, the external validity of the study is questionable. Participants dribbled a soccer ball as fast as possible on an indoor gymnasium floor; for skilled participants, this 9

would be more difficult, since the ball moves much quicker on an indoor gymnasium floor than an outdoor grass field. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the skilled participants, when using their non-dominant foot performed similarly to the novices because the pace was faster than they were accustomed to. This could also explain why the mean dribbling times for the skilled performers did not differ as a function of foot. Finally, the dual task situation was not realistic a soccer player would never be faced with a situation in which they had to listen to a recording of words while dribbling a soccer ball. Ford, Hodges, and Williams (in review), sought to extend the findings of Beilock et al. (2002). Skilled and less-skilled soccer players dribbled through a slalom course after receiving instructions directing their attention to an internal, skill relevant feature (foot), or an internal non-skill relevant (arm) aspect. A no attentional focus (control) group and an auditory word-monitoring (dual-task) group were also utilized. Results revealed instructions that induced an internal (both skill-relevant and non-relevant) focus of attention to be detrimental to performance for skilled performers. For low-skill performers, instructions that induced an internal, skill-relevant attentional focus did not degrade performance, while irrelevant instructions (arm) were detrimental to performance. It was therefore concluded that attentional manipulations that change the way a skill is normally performed disrupts performance. These findings support the explicit monitoring hypothesis and are consistent with other studies (Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr, 2001; Lewis & Linder, 1997). Ford et al. s (in review) study raises some concerns. Similar to Beilock et al. (2002), the external validity of the study is questionable. The experiment was conducted on an indoor, carpeted surface, rather than on an outdoor grass field (again, the ball would travel faster), and the dual task situation (word monitoring) was not realistic. Additionally, it is questionable whether the internal-relevant focus and internal-irrelevant focus groups were actually attending to the foot and arm, respectively. Only when the participants heard a tone, were they required to recall what part of the foot was touching the ball, and which side of the pylon their arm was located. Even if the participants weren t attending to their arm or foot, it would be easy to quickly explicate the required information. Finally, high-skill participants using their non-dominant foot were tested under the exact same conditions as with their dominant foot. Therefore, it is plausible 10

that there was no difference in performance between high-skill participants dominant and non-dominant feet because they were accustomed to performing under these conditions. Beilock and Carr (2001) also found evidence for choking under pressure in the complex, sensorimotor (proceduralized) skill of golf putting, but not in a simpler, declaratively based alphabet arithmetic test. Thus, choking seems to arise in tasks that have an underlying procedural knowledge base, but not in tasks that have a more implicit knowledge base. Furthermore, since explicit monitoring theories predict that performance pressure incites persons to attend to the step-by-step details of their performance, it is not surprising that at low levels of practice, performance pressure was found to facilitate learning. Novice performers, with increasing amounts of performance pressure, were prompted to closely monitor the task at hand, resulting in facilitated skill acquisition. Finally, Beilock and Carr found that self-consciousness training not only eliminated choking completely, but athletes actually improved under pressure when they underwent self-consciousness training. Although Beilock and Carr (2001) conducted a methodologically sound study, there were a few noted limitations. First, they failed to include manipulation checks for perceived pressure and self-consciousness. In addition, the extent to which videotaping actually caused players to become more self-focused and self-aware is unknown. Another limitation of Beilock and Carr s study was that the ecological validity of their findings is unclear. How often do golfers hear recorded lists of words and have to say the word cognition aloud each time they hear it? Additionally, they claim their findings were in support of the explicit monitoring theory (for the self-consciousness interventions this is true); however, individuals in the dual-task situation performed worst under highpressure situations, which supports the distraction theory as a means of explaining choking under pressure situations. This was probably due to the fact that their participants were not high-skill players, which leads us to the fourth limitation of their study. Beilock and Carr trained novices to over 280 putts, which they found in a pilot study to show an asymptote in performance. It is, however, questionable whether these findings can be generalized to high-skill players. Imagine attending a weeklong soccer camp this will increase one s skill, but it by no means qualifies him/her as a high-skill player. Finally, Beilock and Carr assumed they had used a complex task golf putting. 11

This is true in the case of novice performers; however, it is questionable whether golf putting on a putting green in a laboratory is considered a complex task for high-skill players. Reeves et al. (in review) also sought to explore the mechanisms that govern choking under pressure. In Experiment 1, expert and sub-elite male soccer players were trained under one of three conditions: single task (control group), dual task (external focus of attention), or self-consciousness (internal focus of attention) during a simple task (penalty kicks) and a complex task (1v1 situation). Results revealed that sub-elite players performed similarly on the simple task, regardless of attentional style, while internal and external attentional focuses interfered with performance on the complex task. In contrast, both internal and external attentional focuses were beneficial to expert performance, regardless of task difficulty. In experiment 2, novice and expert female soccer players were trained under the same three conditions, and performed two similar tasks, during both low- and high-pressure conditions. Results showed choking under pressure in the simple task of penalty kicks, but not the complex task of breakaways in both expert and novice performers. Furthermore, an external attentional strategy and no strategy resulted in performance decrements under pressure, while an internal attentional focus was beneficial to performance under high pressure, regardless of skill-level. Although most of the findings from Reeves et al. (in review) are in accord with the current literature on motor behavior, there were a few limitations. First and most importantly, the small sample sizes limit the power and scope of the study s findings. Additionally, since the researchers failed to measure performance during the training periods, they were unable to estimate whether participants reached a performance asymptote. Finally, the use of goalkeepers threatens the reliability of the study: perhaps participants performed better on the complex task because it was a more difficult situation for the goalkeeper rather than the player shooting the ball. Finally, Lidor, Reeves, and Tenenbaum (in review) looked at paradoxical performance effects in three tasks varying in demanding attentional resources (i.e., focus, shifting near, shifting far), under different distracting conditions (i.e., quiet, auditory, visual), and attentional strategies (i.e., internal, external, control). Results confirmed that once a skill becomes automatized (i.e., does not require constant, on-line control) focusing on the process is detrimental to performance, unless a sufficient distraction is 12

introduced. For less-skilled performers, focusing on the process of the performance is beneficial to performance, while elite performers, and possibly moderately skilled performers, should avoid focusing on the process (unless of course they are accustomed to it). Finally, it was suggested that tasks that have an explicit knowledge base are more susceptible to choking under pressure conditions than tasks that are learned implicitly. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether participants were actually focusing internally on the process, or externally on the target. Thus, new studies are required to eliminate alternative explanations, and understand paradoxical performance effects more completely. A Conceptual Scheme of Choking In an attempt to compile and draw conclusions from the current research on choking under pressure, a conceptual scheme of choking has been proposed, along with the expected and paradoxical performances (see Figure 3). Focusing attention externally on a relevant cue (e.g., the ball, or the target) is facilitating for both expert and novice performers during a simple task, as well as for experts during a complex task; however, it is unknown whether a relevant external focus is facilitating or debilitating for a novice performing a complex task (Lidor et al., in review). In contrast, an irrelevant external focus of attention (i.e., focusing on a distraction, such as the crowd noise) is facilitating for an expert performer regardless of task difficulty, while debilitating for novice performers during both simple and complex tasks (Beilock & Carr, 2001; Beilock et al., 2002; Reeves et al., in review). An internal, relevant attentional focus (e.g., the foot in soccer, the arm in golf or a throwing task) is facilitating for novice performers regardless of task difficulty, while experts experience choking under the same conditions, during both a simple and complex task (Beilock & Carr, 2001; Beilock et al., 2002; Ford et al., in review; Lidor et al., in review; Reeves et al., in review). Finally, an internal, non-relevant attentional focus (e.g., the arm in soccer) results in choking regardless of task difficulty or expertise-level (Ford et al., in review). Although the scheme is not complete, it is useful for guiding future research on paradoxical performance effects. 13

Attention Relevance Task Difficulty Skill-Level Expected Performance High Simple Complex Expert Novice Expert Novice Facilitating Facilitating Facilitating?? External Low Simple Expert Novice Facilitating Choking Complex Expert Novice Facilitating Choking High Simple Expert Novice Choking Facilitating Internal Complex Expert Novice Choking Facilitating Low Simple Expert Novice Choking Choking Complex Figure 3: Conceptual Scheme of Choking Under Pressure Expert Novice Choking Choking 14

Situational Variables Research on performance anxiety suggests five situational variables that have been shown to heighten arousal, increase performance pressure, and focus one s attention inward: (a) competition, (b) reward contingency, (c) punishment contingency, (d) ego relevance, and (e) the presence of an audience (Baumeister & Showers, 1986). Competition has two forms: implicit and explicit. During explicit competition, individuals are clearly aware that their performance is being compared to at least one other performer (e.g., soccer game). During implicit competition, however, individuals are involved in normative comparison they unofficially tend to compare their performance with that of another (i.e., the competitive situation is not explicitly stated or agreed upon comparing oneself to another teammate in practice is one such example). Both implicit (Baumeister, 1984) and explicit (Church, 1962; Seta, Paulus, & Risner, 1977) competitions can evoke choking on tasks that imitate skilled performance. Furthermore, when one s performance is slightly lower than the performance of a competitor, and when the outcome is public, motivation to succeed has been shown to increase (Seta, 1982). Achievement motivation has also been found to be consistent with the self-focus theory. Atkinson (1974) found that overmotivation (i.e., when the internal pressure to excel is amplified) tends to cause increases in effort, which leads to enhanced self-focused attention, resulting in performance decrements. Those high in achievement motivation were more susceptible to these performance decrements. When rewards or punishments are made contingent upon performance, the result is increased pressure to perform well. Baumeister (1984) found subjects who were offered a monetary reward for improved performance to perform worse than subjects who were not offered a monetary reward. The effects of punishment contingencies, however, do not mirror the effects of reward contingencies. For example, teams facing elimination (i.e., punishment) in a playoff game perform and feel differently than teams on the threshold of a championship win (i.e., reward). Schlenker, Phillips, Boniecki, and Schlenker (1995), analyzing archival baseball data, claimed that players fear of failure in front of the home crowd causes players to become self-conscious and choke under pressure, for fielding errors are committed more often by the home team in decisive games after the team falls behind. This further illustrates that achievement motivation is consistent with the explicit monitoring theory. In an attempt to ensure a successful 15

performance (i.e., to receive the monetary reward or avoid elimination), subjects shift attention to the step-by-step process of the skill, interfering with its automaticity, and consequently, suffer performance decrements. During diagnostic or evaluative conditions, pressure to perform well is increased by making performance ego-relevant. Ego-relevance has led to choking on numerous cognitive tasks (Deffenbacker, 1978; Dunn, 1968; Sarason, 1956) and is inherent in athletic competition, for doing well is almost always considered a reflection of the self (Baumeister & Showers, 1986). Ego-relevance has not been looked at explicitly in the realm of sport; however, numerous studies have shown performance decrements in front of evaluative audiences, under high pressure, and during explicit competition all of which are considered ego-relevant (Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr, 2001; Reeves et al., in review). Finally, the presence of an audience further adds to the importance of performing well and is strongly related to ego-relevance, for participants are threatened by failure outcomes in front of others. Baumeister (1984) found subjects in a no audience group to out-perform subjects in an audience-present group while playing a video game. Furthermore, Paulus, Shannon, Wilson, and Boone (1972) showed performance decrements in advanced gymnasts performing in front of an audience when told ahead of time that an audience would be present. Zajonc s (1965) social facilitation theory predicts that the presence of others helps performance on well-learned or simple tasks, but hinders performance on poorly learned or complex tasks. A modification of the Hull- Spence Drive Theory, social facilitation theory suggests that the presence of others triggers an increase in arousal, increasing one s drive, which in turn increases the likelihood that the dominant response will occur. Martens (1969) found evidence to support this hypothesis: a passive audience facilitated performance on a simple, welllearned motor task, while impairing performance on a complex motor task. One of the important tenets in Zajonc s theory is that the mere presence of others produces the drivelike effect. However, according to Sanders, Baron, and Moore (1978), the mere presence of others is not sufficient to produce this drive-like effect. Numerous other researchers have obtained similar evidence that the mere presence of others is not sufficient to produce the drive effect (Cottrell, Wack, Sekerak, & Rittle, 1968; Hency & Glass, 1968; Klinger, 1969; Martens & Landers, 1972). 16

Unfortunately, social facilitation theory fails to accurately predict the performance of all individuals in front of an audience: what about a basketball player whose dominant response is to make the free throw, but fails to make the shot in the championship game? Kimble and Rezabek (1992) found that high skill players experienced performance decrements on a simple task (pinball) in front of an audience, while low skill players improved. On a complex task (Tetrus), both low skill and high skill players experienced performance decrements in front of an audience. This research coincides with the current literature on choking under pressure, rather than social facilitation theory: pressure (in this case the presence of an audience) causes an athlete to focus attention on one s self, interfering with the automaticity of the skill, resulting in diminished performance. Thus, it seems that the presence of an audience is debilitating, rather than facilitating to performance. Although the presence of an audience has been shown to be debilitating to performance, what about the elite performers that perform best in front of an audience? Performers like Michael Jordan thrive in front of an audience large audiences help to bring them into their flow state or zone. Several modifications of Zajonc s social facilitation theory have been proposed in an attempt to explain these phenomena. Bond (1982) and Sanna (1992) suggested that it is the performer s expectancy of performance that determines an audience s impact. Bond found that after a series of successful trials, the performer was more likely to continue succeeding, even on a more difficult task. Alternatively, Sanders and Baron (1975) argued that the root of social debilitation is the distraction-conflict theory, which proposes that socially mediated drive stimulation occurs when an individual shifts attention from the task at hand to the presence of others. Consequently, the social stimuli and the performance of the task compete for attention, ultimately resulting in performance decrements. Interestingly, the distraction theory has also been suggested in an attempt to explain the choking phenomenon; research on choking, however, has not supported the distraction theory. Finally, Cottrell (1972) suggested that it is the perception of evaluation apprehension, or being aware of others observing and evaluating one s performance, that facilitates drive and negatively affects performance. Cottrell s notion of evaluation apprehension coincides with the current literature on choking under pressure. Thus, it is likely that the presence of an audience triggers evaluation apprehension, which causes self-attention, and ultimately results in 17

diminished performance. The elite athletes performing well in front of audiences are those that are not affected by the evaluation, but rather thrive from it. Athlete Expectancies An athlete s response to pressure may also be mediated by his or her efficacy expectations. According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy is one s belief about his or her ability to perform a certain task. Once an individual believes in missing the game winning shot, in all likelihood, it will happen. An athlete s self-efficacy seems dependent upon past successes and failures. Geen (1980) and Bond (1982) demonstrated that individuals did not choke in front of an audience when they had just recently experienced a successful performance; however, individuals who had recently experienced a failure showed impaired performance in front of an audience. Thus, Bond (1982) and Sanna s (1992) suggestion that social facilitation stems from a performer s expectancy of performance seems to be plausible. Performance deteriorates when an athlete or team is trying to convey a self-image to an audience. Using archival data from major league baseball championships, Baumeister and Steinhilber (1984) contended that home teams choke in front of a supportive audience during games in which the team is able to claim a desired identity (e.g., winner or champion). Thus, the home team, preoccupied with self-presentational concerns in front of the home crowd, becomes self-conscious and suffers impaired performance. Heaton and Sigall (1989), examining the same archival data on major league baseball championships, asserted that it is the fear of acquiring a negative identity in front of the home crowd that results in falling behind, not impending success. Schlenker, Phillips, Boniecki, and Schlenker (1995a) used the same archival baseball data and claimed that it is the fear of failure in front of the home crowd that causes players to become self-conscious and choke under pressure, for fielding errors are committed more often by the home team in decisive games after the team falls behind. Baumeister (1995) in response to Schlenker et al. s article, suggested that when teams are on the verge of a major championship, positive identity change, or other success, it is the fear of letting down fans at the last minute that causes performance decrements, not the fear of failing. Finally, Schlenker et al. (1995b) argued that the archival baseball data illustrates a darker form of choking (i.e., social pressure plus self-doubts), not the kinder form of choking suggested by Baumeister (i.e., fear of letting supportive fans down) that causes the 18

disproportionate number of fielding errors committed by home teams once they fall behind. Regardless of whether performance decrements occur because of the fear of impending success, acquiring a negative identity, failure, letting down fans, or social pressure plus self-doubts, it seems obvious that one s performance deteriorates when he or she is trying to convey a self-image to an audience; with the concerns over self-image (evaluation apprehension) causing self-attention, and diminished performance. Consequently, it appears that an athlete s expectancy of performance is directly related to the outcome of performance. Audience Expectancies Through their simple connections with sports teams, the personal images of fans are at stake when their teams take the field. The team s victories and defeats are reacted to as personal successes and failures (Cialdini, Borden, Thorne, Walker, Freeman, & Sloan, 1976, p. 374). Audience expectancies may also be a mediating factor of choking under pressure. Baumeister, Hamilton, and Tice (1985) demonstrated that a performer s expectancy of a successful performance improved performance, while an audience s expectancy of success impaired performance. The latter was presumably a result of an increase in pressure on the performer to satisfy the audience s high expectations. In addition, Butler and Baumeister (1998) claimed that on difficult tasks, supportive audiences hinder performance, while non-supportive audiences facilitate performance. Apparently, in front of the non-supportive audience, participants rose to the challenge, for they felt they had nothing to lose. Interestingly, despite performance decrements, participants found supportive audiences to be more helpful and less stressful than non-supportive or neutral audiences, and participants believed (wrongly) that they performed better in front of a supportive audience. Therefore, it seems that Baumeister (1984) was correct in his argument that a supportive audience impairs performance by causing the athlete to become self-conscious and focus attention on the process of the skill, which interferes with its automaticity, and results in performance decrements. Tasks that Eventuate Choking Reeves et al. (in review) introduced a number of factors that are susceptible to performance decrements under pressure and possible ways to overcome them. First and foremost, once a skill becomes automatized focusing on the process is detrimental to performance. However, there are two instances when this can be avoided: introducing a 19