ALLEVIATING CHOKING UNDER PRESSURE USING IMAGERY A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Sabine A. Krawietz G.A. Radvansky, Director Graduate Program in Psychology Notre Dame, Indiana December 2012
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ALLEVIATING CHOKING UNDER PRESSURE USING IMAGERY
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate School
of the University of Notre Dame
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Sabine A. Krawietz
G.A. Radvansky, Director
Graduate Program in Psychology
Notre Dame, Indiana
December 2012
ALLEVIATING CHOKING UNDER PRESSURE USING IMAGERY
Abstract
by
Sabine A. Krawietz
The main purpose of the current research was to investigate a novel approach to
prevent choking under pressure using a sensorimotor task. Choking is defined as
suboptimal performance in situations filled with performance pressure. Three main
experiments were conducted to systematically give rise to performance decrements and
to, subsequently, use imagery practice to prevent such choking. Experiment 1 served to
replicate the commonly-found interaction between direction of attention and the
cognitive demands of the task. Here, novice golfers were found to perform optimally
under skill-focused attention but suboptimally when concurrently doing an auditory
word monitoring task while the opposite pattern emerged for expert golfers.
Experiment 2a sought to establish an equally high level of performance pressure
as perceived by participants putting in scenarios induced with outcome and monitoring
pressure and a significantly higher level of perceived pressure than other participants
putting in the no pressure control condition. Experiment 2b, then, provided further
support for the recent finding of an interaction between type of pressure and the
Sabine A. Krawietz
cognitive demands of a task. Novice golfers, for which putting represents a working
memory - reliant task, exhibited choking under outcome but not under monitoring
pressure whereas the opposite trend was found for the expert group.
Finally, Experiment 3 set out to test whether imagery practice, in particular, first-
and third-person imagery, affected performance as a function of skill level when
performing in a single-task (i.e., no pressure) and a pressure-filled environment.
Importantly, choking, as had been found for novices under outcome and experts under
monitoring pressure, was prevented using a brief introduction and one block practice
session of imagery practice. In particular, it was found that when novices imagined
themselves make a successful putt from a third-person perspective, their performance
no longer fell prey to the negative effects of perceived outcome pressure. In the same
vein, experts who used first-person imagery performed optimally under those
conditions of monitoring pressure that had previously been found harmful of their
putting performance.
Importantly, this research showed that choking under pressure can be prevented
through imagery practice, and is best used when matching visual imagery perspective to
the cognitive demands of the performer. These results are further discussed in light of
current theory of choking under pressure, in particular, self-focus theory and the
distraction hypothesis.
ii
CONTENTS
FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... iv
TABLES .................................................................................................................................. v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................................... vi
Figure 2.1 Bar graph including error bars (standard error of the mean) for difference scores of the distance from hole measure clustered by skill level and attention condition in Experiment 1 ..................................................................................... 44
Figure 4.1 Bar graph including error bars (standard error of the mean) for difference scores clustered by skill level and attention condition for combined data for Experiment 2a and 2b. .......................................................................................... 72
Figure 5.1 Overview of study design of Experiment 3. ..................................................... 79
Figure 5.2 Bar graph including error bars (standard error of the mean) for difference scores clustered by skill level and imagery perspective for Experiment 3. .......... 96
Figure 5.3 Bar graph including error bars (standard error of the mean) for difference scores for novice (a) and expert (b) golfers clustered by type of pressure and imagery for Experiment 3. .................................................................................... 99
v
TABLES
Table 2.1 Means and Standard Errors (in Parentheses) for Block and Difference Scores of Putting Data by Skill Level and Pressure Condition for Experiment 1 ............. 43
Table 3.1 Sample Size, Means, and Standard Errors (in Parentheses) of Importance, Pressure, and State Anxiety Scores per Pressure Condition of Prior Studies ....... 54
Table 3.2 Means and Standard Errors (in Parentheses) for Block and Difference Scores on all Measures by Pressure Condition for Experiment 2a .................................. 56
Table 3.3 Means and Standard Errors (in Parantheses) for Putting Performance by Skill Level and Pressure Condition for Experiment 2a ................................................. 61
Table 4.1 Means and Standard Errors (in Parentheses) for Block and Difference Scores on all Measures by Pressure Condition for Experiment 2a and 2b ...................... 68
Table 4.2 Means and Standard Errors (in Parantheses) by Skill Level and Pressure Condition for Experiment 2a and 2b..................................................................... 71
Table 5.1 Means and Standard Errors (in Parentheses) for Block and Difference Scores on all Measures by Pressure and Imagery Condition for Novices (Only) of Experiment 3 ......................................................................................................... 83
Table 5.2 Means and Standard Errors (in Parentheses) for Block and Difference Scores on all Measures by Pressure and Imagery Condition for Experts (Only) of Experiment 3 ......................................................................................................... 87
Table 5.3 Means and Standard Errors (in Parantheses) for Block and Difference Scores by Skill Level and Imagery Condition for Experiment 2 (No Pressure Condition Only) and Experiment 3 (Imagery Block Only) ............................................................... 95
Table 5.4 Means and Standard Errors (in Parentheses) for Block and Difference Scores by Skill Level and Pressure and Imagery Condition for Experiment 3 ....................... 98
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to sincerely thank my advisor, G.A. Radvansky, for his guidance,
understanding, patience, and most importantly, for his friendship during my doctoral
studies at Notre Dame. His mentorship was vital in providing a well-rounded teaching
and research experience consistent with my interests and career aspirations. He
encouraged me to continue my studies in difficult times and I will be forever thankful for
his support in completing this important academic step. Thank you also for your humor
on this journey throughout our lab meetings and conference visits.
I would also like to thank the Department of Psychology at Notre Dame, and
especially the members of my doctoral committee, Bradley Gibson, Jerry Haeffel, and
Jessica Payne, for their valuable input, discussions, and accessibility. You have all
inspired me to become a more thorough scientist and better person overall. I am also
grateful for having learned from and worked with enthusiastic and passionate
professors such as Jessica Payne and Scott Maxwell who I wish to be like in the future.
Finally, I wish to thank my family and dear friends who have supported me, at
times from far away, throughout my academic career in the US.
1
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
The study of human performance per se has not been established in unified
form; instead, researchers, practitioners, and consultants in counseling, business, sports
psychology, and, more recently, cognitive psychology have worked largely
independently, identifying ways to develop and facilitate optimal performance while
preventing poor performance. Practitioners, consultants, and researchers have
investigated how performers can reach a mental state that allows optimal or peak
performance by helping them effectively regulate emotion (e.g., anxiety and anger
The data were first submitted to a 2 (skill level: expert vs. novice) X 2 (direction
of attention: skill-focused vs. dual-task) ANOVA on the difference score of the distance
measure. Neither the main effect for skill level nor for condition were significant, Fs < 1.
More importantly, the interaction between skill-level and condition was
significant, F(1, 72) = 7.78, MSE = 429, p = .007, suggesting that direction of attention
affected novices differently from experts. Tests of simple effects revealed that novices
putted marginally more accurately under skill-focused than under dual-task conditions,
Figure 2.1 Bar graph including error bars (standard error of the mean) for difference scores of the distance from hole measure clustered by skill level and attention condition in Experiment 1
45
F(1, 30) = 3.90,MSE = 282, p = .063. The opposite trend was found for experts. They
putted marginally more accurately under dual-task than under skill-focused attention
conditions, F(1, 42) = 3.48, MSE = 149, p = .071.
Because the aim of this experiment is to replicate previous findings and most
studies analyzed data on the mean as opposed to the difference scores, the analyses of
this experiment were repeated using the mean scores of distance from hole (for
Experiment 1 only). First, the data were submitted to a 2 (skill level: expert vs. novice) X
2 (direction of attention: skill-focused vs. dual-task) ANOVA. The main effect for skill
level was significant, F(1, 75) = 18.33, MSE = 1312, p < .001, while the main effect for
condition was not, F < 1. Experts putted more accurately overall than novices across
conditions. More importantly, the interaction between skill-level and condition was
significant, F(1, 75) = 6.00, MSE = 430, p = .029, confirming the effect found in the
difference scores. Tests of simple effects revealed that novices putted marginally more
accurately under skill-focused than under dual-task conditions, F(1, 30) = 3.58, MSE =
270, p = .074. While the simple effect was not significant for experts, F(1, 42) = 2.33,
MSE = 160, p = .14, the data reflect the same trend as previous research.
2.3 Discussion
Experiment 1 replicated the commonly-found interaction between skill level and
direction of attention (Beilock et al., 2002, 2004; Beilock & Carr, 2001, 2005; Beilock &
DeCaro, 2007; Gimmig et al., 2006; Gray, 2004; Jackson et al., 2006; Lewis & Linder,
1997; Markman et al., 2006). Analyses were performed on difference and mean scores
46
of the critical and baseline conditions, all of which revealed that novices exhibited
superior putting performance under skill-focused and experts under dual-task attention
conditions. Now that a common ground with previous research was established, the
study of the effects of type of pressure on performance in differently skilled actors
followed.
47
CHAPTER 3:
EXPERIMENT 2A: PRESSURE REPLICATION
After having replicated previous findings, I assessed how different types of
pressure affect performance. To my knowledge, only one study (DeCaro, et al., 2011)
differentiated between two types of pressure, and that study used a category learning
paradigm. In their study, DeCaro et al. found an interaction between type of pressure
(monitoring vs. outcome pressure) and type of task (WM-reliant vs. proceduralized). In
particular, they found that choking occurred for the WM-reliant task under outcome
pressure and for the proceduralized task under monitoring pressure. Performance was
maintained when doing the WM-reliant task under monitoring pressure and improved
when doing the proceduralized task under outcome pressure. The aim of the following
two experiments (2a + 2b) was to replicate and extend these findings using a
sensorimotor task, namely, golf putting.
First, I experimented with aspects of the two pressure scenarios to make them
equally unsettling and significantly more unsettling than a non-pressure control
condition (Experiment 2a). Then, I tested the effects of type of pressure on performance
in golf putting (Experiment 2b). Contrary to Experiment 1, the critical conditions were
tested between rather than within subjects (for all upcoming experiments) because it
48
turned out to be unfeasible to instruct participants on two elaborate pressure scenarios
and remain believable. The control condition was also chosen to assess how
performance changes in the second block with respect to practice effects.
3.1 Method
3.1.1 Participants
Thirty-six participants were assigned randomly to one of the three conditions
(monitoring pressure, the outcome pressure, or the control condition) with the
restriction of equal sample size across groups. There were six novices and six experts in
the control, five novices and seven experts in the outcome pressure, and seven novices
and 5 experts in the monitoring pressure condition.
3.1.2 Materials
The green, putters, and balls were identical to the those used in Experiment 1. In
addition to the importance and pressure ratings and the post-experimental
questionnaires used in Experiment 1, pleasantness, arousal, and controllability ratings,
trait and state anxiety inventories, and positive and negative affect scales were added.
Lastly, average and peak heart rate was measured using a standard heart rate monitor.
Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM; Hodes, Cook, & Lang, 1990). SAM was originally
devised as a computer program to assess affective responses to events and objects.
Later, a paper-and-pencil version was created (Bradley & Lang, 1994). The three
emotional dimensions valence, arousal, and dominance are assessed in pictorial,
49
nonverbal form with a series of five figures set on a continuum. Valence ranges from
pleasant depicted by a smiling, happy figure to unpleasant displayed by a frowning,
unhappy figure. Arousal ranges from excited depicted by a wide-eyed figure with jagged
circle in the stomach area (i.e., tension) to calm with a closed-eyed, relaxed figure.
Dominance ranges from controlled with a miniaturized manikin to in-control with a large
manikin. Responders mark an “x” over any of the five figures or between any two
figures. Thus, scores are recorded on a 9-point rating scale. Note that for arousal, lower
scores reflect feelings of distress and, thus, this item can be seen as negatively-phrased.
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970). The
STAI is a widely-used measure and consists of two separate 20-item scales, a long-term
(trait) and a short-term (state) measure of anxiety. The trait form assesses how fearful,
worrisome, uneasy one generally feels by responding to items such as I am a steady
person and I have disturbing thoughts on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (almost
never) to 4 (almost always). The state form measures an individual’s feelings at a
particular moment. Examples items are, “I feel calm” and “I am jittery” and the answer
choices range from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so). The final score on both scales is
computed by reverse-scoring negatively-phrased items and, then, summing the scores
of all items. The minimum score of 20 (very low anxiety) and a maximum score of 80
(very high anxiety) can be reached.
Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The
PANAS is a well-known measure in which participants are asked to rate the extent to
which a particular emotion is experienced. The 10 positive (e.g., interested or excited)
50
and 10 negative (e.g., distressed or upset) items are presented in mixed form and with a
5-point anchoring scale ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely).
Subscale scores for positive and negative affect are computed by summing the
responses of the respective 10 items and, thus, range from 5 to 25 points. Reliability for
PANAS has been good, ranging from .86 to .90 and .84 to .87 for the positive and
negative subscale, respectively.
Heart rate monitor. The heart rate monitor used was the Polar FT60 training
computer (i.e., wrist watch) that was linked to the matching WearLink transmitter (i.e.,
chest strap). The chest strap was tied around the chest with elastic bands just below the
sternum of the participant and held a small plastic signal transmitter at the front. The
wrist watch was worn by the participant for the duration of the experiment due to the
small reach of the signal transmission between watch and transmitter. Average and
peak heart rate for the duration of blocks (e.g., 18 putts under pressure) was recorded
by simply starting and stopping the desired time for which these parameters would be
measured. The watch is equipped to save up to 100 such recordings; thus, heart rate
was recorded after study completion of each or several participants and did not intrude
with study administration.
3.1.3 Procedure
Participants were assigned randomly to one of the three conditions (monitoring
pressure, the outcome pressure, or the control condition) with the restriction of equal
sample size across groups. The pressure scenarios are described below. Note that
51
participants in the control condition putted under the same circumstances as in the
single-task condition.
Some self-report measures were administered before the putting area was
approached, most of which were repeated after each block of the putting task. Resting
heart rate, trait anxiety, and pre-performance scores for the SAM scale and PANAS were
collected before the start of the putting procedure. Resting heart rate was measured
when the participant was sitting and was recorded while the experimenter pretended to
test the functionality of the apparatus. To discourage participants from thinking about
potential anxiety-related aspects of the study, they were told that heart rate was
measured to control for physical exertion. The other questionnaires were jointly
collected while the participant sat in a small room.
Then, the participant was brought to the putting green located in the room next
door. The experimenter gave the participant the putter and two balls and explained the
putting task. Participants putted from the same nine locations in the same random
alteration of locations on the green as in Experiment 1. They first took 9-18 practice
putts on their own and, then, completed the putting task under the single-task
condition. Again, this block consisted of 27 putts of which only the last 18 putts counted
toward the putting baseline score. For this block of 18 putts, the experimenter turned
on the heart rate monitor which automatically measured and saved average and peak
heart rate for the duration of this period. Immediately after this putting block,
participants completed a series of questionnaires, namely, the importance and pressure
rating, the three items on the SAM scale, the state form of the STAI, and the PANAS.
52
Next, depending on the assigned condition, the experimenter described the
respective scenario (i.e., monitoring or outcome pressure condition) or asked them to
simply do their best again (i.e., control condition). Then, participants completed the
experimental putting block and the same series of questionnaires again as after
baseline. After the debriefing, participants filled out the demographic and
postexperiment questionnaires and were thanked for participation.
Monitoring pressure scenario. Participants were told that this study was done in
collaboration with the Notre Dame Physical Education department to create an
instructional golf putting video to be used for freshman college courses and to be
posted on its departmental website. A confederate acted as the Physical Education
department’s golf professional who stood near and in clear sight of the participant for
the duration of the putting block while taking notes on a clipboard. Also, participants
were video-recorded by a small camera mounted on a hip-high tripod with the live video
being projected on a smartboard screen that was set right next to the putting green. As
such, participants could see themselves putt in real time on the 66-inch monitor. The
camera was set up so that participants were made aware of its presence while the
camera did not intrude with the golf putting task. Before the first putt of this series, the
experimenter conspicuously turned on the camera and selected the record button on
the smartboard screen to start the live video-recording. After the last putt, the
recording was stopped and the camera put away. Note that at the end of their
participation all participants immediately debriefed about the purpose of the scenario.
Also, to diminish any feelings of discomfort associated with the recording process,
53
participants were present and made aware of the deletion of their video during
debriefing.
Outcome pressure scenario. No confederate, camera, or tripod were present for
this condition. Participants were told that, in an attempt to motivate participants to do
their best, they would be entered in a competition with the chance of winning a gift
certificate to the ND bookstore (1st prize: $50, 2nd: prize $30, 3rd prize: $10). At this
point, a leaderboard depicting the latest update on the ranking for this competition was
shown on the smartboard which remained up for the duration of this block of putts. The
experimenter, then, explained that this study was also about teamwork and that
participants were randomly paired with each another to obtain a combined score. An
excel sheet showing the pairing procedure was then displayed on the smartboard. Team
scores were said to be computed by subtracting the average distance-from-hole score of
the pressure block (e.g., P1: 21 cm; P2: 34 cm) from the average distance-from-hole
score of the baseline block (e.g., P1: 27 cm; P2: 41 cm) for each participant (P1diff: 6 cm;
P2diff: 7 cm) and then added (Total team score: 13). Furthermore, participants were
told that their “partner” had already obtained a high score and was anxious to win a
prize. Note that in the end, all participants were entered in a lottery regardless of their
score to win the gift certificates.
54
TABLE 3.1
SAMPLE SIZE, MEANS, AND STANDARD ERRORS (IN PARENTHESES) OF IMPORTANCE,
PRESSURE, AND STATE ANXIETY SCORES PER PRESSURE CONDITION OF PRIOR STUDIES
Measure
Study Condition n Importance
Rating Pressure
Rating State Anxiety
Beilock et al. (2004) Exp 1 Low Pressure High Pressure Exp 3 Low Pressure High Pressure
40
28
4.63 (.21) 5.03 (.19)
-4.12 (.32)
3.95 (.24) 5.08 (.21)*
-4.95 (.25)*
32.08 (1.20) 42.68 (1.82)*
-
38.96 (1.70)*
Beilock & DeCaro (2007) Exp 1 Low Pressure High Pressure Exp 2 Low Pressure High Pressure
48 44
45 46
-
4.95 (.18)b
-
4.43 (.24)b
-
4.93 (.22)b
-
4.93 (.19)b
-
49.21 (1.24)b
-
50.91 (1.48)b
DeCaro et al. (2011) Exp 2 Control Outcome Pressure Monitoring Pressure Exp 3 Outcome Pressure Monitoring Pressure Exp 4 Control Outcome Pressure Monitoring Pressure
47 43 40
15 22
20 24 21
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
4.29 (.20)
4.95 (.20)*
5.15 (.15)*
5.07 (.41) 4.96 (.51)
4.68 (.27) 4.96 (.28) 5.26 (.27)
- - - - -
36.56 (2.55) 41.71 (2.36)*
41.83 (2.55)*
Note: aOnly participants with scores of 4 or higher were included in the analysis and no means
were reported. bNo comparisons to low pressure group or other pressure group were made;.
*Significantly different at p < .05 to control or low pressure group.
55
3.1.4 Replication Criteria
In this study, several arousal- and affect-related self-report measures as well as
heart rate monitoring were used as indicators for feelings of pressure. Before testing the
effects of type of pressure on putting performance, the two pressure scenarios used in
this study should yield similar and significantly higher levels of stress-induced thoughts
and feelings and physiological responses as compared to a non-pressure context.
Moreover, it is useful to compare scores and group differences to those of prior studies
that used the same measures. Importance ratings, pressure ratings, and state anxiety
scores as well as sample size per study are summarized in Table 3.1 for comparison of
scores in the current study. Note that Beilock et al. (2004) and Beilock and DeCaro
(2007) used several sources of pressure including aspects of monitoring and outcome
pressure types in their high pressure condition. Moreover, in one study (Oudejans &
Pijpers, 2010), researchers increased from the no pressure control (M = 109.8, SD =
15.75), to the mild anxiety (M = 116.7, SD = 16.00) and high anxiety (M = 124.3, SD =
19.37) condition.
56
TABLE 3.2
MEANS AND STANDARD ERRORS (IN PARENTHESES) FOR BLOCK AND DIFFERENCE
SCORES ON ALL MEASURES BY PRESSURE CONDITION FOR EXPERIMENT 2A
Note. 1 = baseline putting block; 2 = experimental putting block; DIFF = difference score of experimental and baseline block; SAM = Self-Assessment Manikin; STAI = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; PANAS = Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale; HR = heart rate; *Significantly different at p < .05 to control group; †Significantly different at p < .05 to other pressure group
58
3.2 Results
3.2.1 Self-Report and Heart Rate Measures
Means and standard errors per block and difference scores on all measures are
summarized in Table 3.2. First, one-way ANOVAs were run on all measures’ difference
scores and a number of them indicated significant differences among the three pressure
conditions (i.e., control, outcome pressure, and monitoring pressure). These were
15.58, MSE = .826, p < .001, SAM Arousal, F(2, 33) = 9.14, MSE = 1.341, p = .001, SAM
Controllability, F(2, 33) = 8.32, MSE = 1.692, p = .001, STAI state form, F(2, 33) = 7.38,
MSE = 37.290, p = .002, and PANAS negative affect, F(2, 33) = 4.24, MSE = 8.735, p
=.023. Marginally significantly different were the difference scores of average, F(2, 33) =
2.43, MSE = 16.742, p = .10, and peak heart rate, F(2, 33) = 3.03, MSE = 21.604, p = .063,
while nonsignificant differences were found for SAM Pleasantness and PANAS positive
affect, all Fs < 1.1.
Moreover, planned pairwise comparisons with Tukey’s honestly significant
difference (HSD) correction followed for all measures that showed significant or
marginally significant results in difference scores for the one-way ANOVA. Difference
scores of several measures for the outcome and monitoring pressure conditions were
significantly different from the control condition but not different from each other
including Importance ratings, t(22) = 4.83, p < .001 and t(22) = 3.30, p = .006, Pressure
ratings, t(22) = 4.94, p < .001 and t(22) = 4.72, p < .001, SAM Arousal, t(22) = 3.46, p <
59
.004 for each contrast, and STAI state form, t(22) = 2.87, p = .019 and t(22) = 3.64, p =
.003, respectively. Scores for PANAS negative affect showed the same trend compared
to control with a significant difference to the outcome pressure group, t(22) = 2.49, p =
.047, and a marginally significant difference to the monitoring pressure group, t(22) =
2.42, p = .054. Furthermore, participants under monitoring pressure rated a significantly
higher decrease in SAM Controllability scores than those in the control group, t(22) =
3.61, p = .003, and those under outcome pressure, t(22) = 3.45, p = .004, with the latter
two not differing from each other, t < .1. No other comparisons between the two
pressure scenarios yielded significant differences in the difference scores, ts < 1. Finally,
heart rate difference scores were noticeably different only for the contrast of the
monitoring pressure and the control group with a marginally significant difference for
average heart rate, t(22) = 2.34, p = .063, and a significant difference for peak heart rate,
t(22) = 2.46, p = .049.
These results indicate that both scenarios elicited a similar increase in levels of
stress-induced thoughts and feelings but significantly higher levels than in the no
pressure control condition as shown by several measures such as perceptions of
performance pressure, state anxiety, and arousal. Also, when comparing the raw mean
scores of the experimental putting block of this experiment to those of prior studies, a
common trend and similar mean scores can be found especially in ratings of pressure
and state anxiety. With respect to heart rate, raw mean values as well as difference
scores were lower in this experiment than those in Oudejans and Pijpers’ (2010) study.
Yet, a significant trend emerged in the same direction with participants in pressure
60
scenarios showing an elevated heart rate. Overall, it can be said, that the replication
criteria of checking if the manipulation of pressure yielded the desired effect were met.
3.2.2 Putting Performance
Means and standard errors per block and difference scores on mean distance
from hole are summarized in Table 3.3. For the purpose of this experiment, analyses on
putting performance were run to explore the overall trend of the data only. Given the
additional factor of skill level in this analysis, more power is needed to detect effects
confidently, to be achieved in Experiment 2b. The data were submitted to a 2 (Skill
Level: novices vs. experts) X 3 (Type of Pressure: none vs. outcome vs. monitoring)
ANOVA on the difference scores of mean putting distance. Neither the main effect for
Skill Level, F(1, 30) = 2.30, MSE = 18.15, p = .14, nor for Type of Pressure, F < 1, was
significant but the interaction was, F(2, 30) = 6.46, MSE = 18.15, p = .005, suggesting
that type of pressure affected novices differently from experts. To understand this
interaction, each skill level was examined separately.
61
TABLE 3.3
MEANS AND STANDARD ERRORS (IN PARANTHESES) FOR PUTTING PERFORMANCE BY
SKILL LEVEL AND PRESSURE CONDITION FOR EXPERIMENT 2A
Control Outcome Pressure
Monitoring Pressure
Measure M SE M SE M SE
Novices 1 2 DIFF
35.83 30.50 -5.33
(2.21) (2.85) (1.56)
22.20
23.40
1.20
(2.67) (4.06) (3.06)
21.86 17.71 -4.14
(2.06) (1.95) (1.37)
Experts 1 2 DIFF
16.67 16.00 -.50
(2.31) (2.30) (1.26)
16.29 12.43 -3.86†
(2.59) (1.65) (1.77)
20.00 22.60 2.60†
(1.82) (2.89) (1.17)
Note. 1 = baseline putting block; 2 = experimental putting block; DIFF = difference score of experimental and baseline block; *Significantly different at p < .05 to control group;
†Significantly different at p < .05 to other pressure
group
62
First, a one-way ANOVA on putting distance difference scores yielded a
marginally significant effect for the novice golfer group, F(15) = 2.88, MSE = 22.60, p =
.088. Planned comparisons using Tukey’s HSD correction then showed a marginally
significant performance decrement in outcome pressure compared to control, t(15) =
2.27, p = .092, and an effect trending towards significance compared to monitoring
pressure, t(15) = 1.92, p = .17, with the latter two not differing from each other, t < 1.
Thus, the overall trend is in line with the predictions made by the distraction hypothesis,
in that choking under pressure occurred for novices when placed under outcome but
not under monitoring pressure.
Then, the one-way ANOVA on expert golfers’ difference scores of the mean
distance measure was significant, F(15) = 4.50, MSE = 13.70, p = .029. Planned multiple
comparisons using Tukey’s HSD yielded a significant effect only for the outcome and
monitoring pressure contrast, t(15) = 2.98, p = .024. Also, this data was in line with self-
focus theories in that experts performed better under outcome than under no pressure
conditions and worse under monitoring than under no pressure conditions. Yet, more
data will be collected in the following experiment to confirm this effect.
3.3 Discussion
Overall, the two pressure scenarios adequately induced perceived feelings of
pressure. In most of the arousal- and affect-related self-report measures, a common
trend was observed in which monitoring and outcome pressure were perceived as
similarly distressing and more distressing than no pressure, replicating findings of prior
63
studies (Beilock et al., 2004; DeCaro et al., 2011). In particular, it was observed that
importance, pressure, and arousal ratings as well as the more established state anxiety
measure of the STAI state form all showed a similarly-distressing subjective experience
of the two scenarios but higher distress than in the no pressure condition. This trend
also emerged in the average and peak heart rate measure, yet, the differences were
only marginally significant. It is yet to be clearly established whether heart rate
consistently rises as level of pressure goes up. Finally, exploratory analyses on putting
performance resulted in a trend compatible with current distraction and self-focus
theory. That is, novices performed better under monitoring than under outcome
pressure conditions and the opposite was true for expert golfers. Given the relatively
small sample size, these findings did not all reach statistical significant and more data
will be considered in Experiment 2 to more clearly detect an effect.
64
CHAPTER 4:
EXPERIMENT 2B: EFFECTS OF PRESSURE ON PERFORMANCE
Now that the outcome and monitoring pressure scenarios were established, the
close examination on putting performance followed. As shown by DeCaro and her
colleagues (2011) and the exploratory analyses of Experiment 2a, novices are expected
to show performance decrements under outcome but not under monitoring pressure
while experts are hypothesized to exhibit choking under monitoring but not under
outcome pressure. Based on recent cognitive theory of choking under pressure, WM-
reliant tasks are harmed when performers are distracted or engage in ruminative
thoughts (i.e., distraction theory) while highly proceduralized tasks are impaired when
extra attention is being directed towards skill execution (i.e., self-focus theory).
Again, self-report and heart rate measures accompanied the continued
assessment of perceived pressure on performance, with more distress to be expected
by participants in the pressure compared to the control conditions.
65
4.1 Method
4.1.1 Participants
Additional ninety participants were assigned randomly to one of the three
conditions (control, outcome pressure, and the pressure monitoring condition) with the
restriction of equal sample size across conditions. There were 30 participants in each
pressure condition. Ten participants were excluded from the analysis because they did
not meet the importance rating criterion of 3 or higher on either block. Five participants
were excluded because their putts landed outside of the measurement area and three
subjects did not believe the scenario was real. Thus, a total of 72 participants were
added to Experiment 2a’s data, yielding a total sample size of 108 participants.
Again, participants were categorized into one of two skill levels using the same
criteria as in previous experiments. In sum, there were 21 novices and 20 experts in the
control condition, 13 novices and 19 experts in the outcome pressure condition, and 18
novices and 18 experts in the monitoring pressure condition. The heart rate monitor did
not adequately function for one participant in the control and, thus, the data was
excluded from the average and peak heart rate analyses.
4.1.2 Materials and Procedure
The materials and procedure was the same as in Experiment 2a.
66
4.2 Results
4.2.1 Self-Report and Heart Rate Measures
Means and standard errors per block for all measures are provided in Table 4.1.
As in Experiment 2a, the data of all difference scores were submitted to one-way
ANOVAs comparing scores between the three pressure conditions and the measures of
Note: 1 = baseline putting block; 2 = experimental putting block; DIFF = difference score of experimental and baseline block; SAM = Self-Assessment Manikin; STAI = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; PANAS = Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale; HR = heart rate; aSignificantly different at p < .05 to control group;
bSignificantly different at p < .05 to other pressure
group
70
4.2.2 Putting Performance
As for the self-report data, the putting performance data of Experiments 2a and
2b were also analyzed together and are summarized in Table 4.2 and Figure 4.1. The
data were first submitted to a 2 (Skill Level: novices vs. experts) X 3 (Type of Pressure:
none vs. outcome vs. monitoring) ANOVA on difference scores. The main effect for
Condition was marginally significant, F(2, 102) = 2.94, MSE = 41.95, p = .057, the
interaction was significant, F(2, 102) = 7.00, MSE = 41.95, p = .001, while the main effect
for Skill Level was not, F(1, 102) = 1.89, MSE = 41.95, p = .172. Tests of simple effects
using Tukey’s HSD correction revealed that the participants improved their putting
performance marginally significantly more in the no pressure than in the monitoring
pressure condition regardless of skill level, t(103) = 2.31, p = .059. No other simple
effects were significantly different from each other, ts < 1.
To understand the interaction, one-way ANOVAs were run separately for each
skill level group and reached a significant effect for the novice golfer group, F(2, 49) =
3.95, MSE = 53.19, p = .026. Planned comparisons using Tukey’s HSD found choking for
the outcome pressure compared to control group, t(49) = 2.80, p = .020. All other
contrasts were nonsignificant, ts < 1. Therefore, novice golfers’ performance was
impaired when putting under outcome but not under monitoring pressure conditions.
This finding provides further support for the predictions made by the distraction
hypothesis.
71
TABLE 4.2
MEANS AND STANDARD ERRORS (IN PARANTHESES) BY SKILL LEVEL AND PRESSURE
CONDITION FOR EXPERIMENT 2A AND 2B
Control Outcome Pressure
Monitoring Pressure
Measure M SE M SE M SE
Novices 1 2 DIFF
32.24 26.43 -6.05
(1.82) (1.51) (1.81)
24.46
25.62
1.15*
(1.18) (1.70) (.90)
26.89 22.89 -3.89
(1.19) (3.22) (3.54)
Experts 1 2 DIFF
19.10 16.98 -2.15
(2.27) (1.57) (1.82)
16.32 12.53 -3.89
(1.87) (1.08) (1.65)
17.65 20.00
2.47*†
(1.99) (2.30) (1.76)
Note. 1 = baseline putting block; 2 = experimental putting block; DIFF = difference score of experimental and baseline block; *Significantly different at p < .05 to control group; †Significantly different at p < .05 to other pressure group
72
Figure 4.1 Bar graph including error bars (standard error of the mean) for difference scores clustered by skill level and attention
condition for combined data for Experiment 2a and 2b.
73
Furthermore, the one-way ANOVA on the expert group data supported the
finding of Experiment 2a with a significant difference in gain scores between the three
conditions, F(2, 53) = 6.08, MSE = 31.56, p = .004. Planned analysis further confirmed
less improvement in mean putting distance from the baseline to the pressure block in
the monitoring pressure condition as compared to both the control, t(53) = 2.49, p =
.041, and outcome pressure condition, t(53) = 3.39, p = .004. Again, the outcome
pressure group did not differ significantly from control, t < 1. Thus, experts displayed
choking under more self- or skill-focused pressure conditions, further supporting self-
focus theories. Although their performance improved when being placed in a
competitive and peer pressure-filled situation, this effect did not reach statistical
significance.
4.3 Discussion
In sum, the general effect of perceived pressure induced by the two pressure
scenarios as assessed by several arousal- and affect-related self-report and physiological
measures was replicated from Experiment 2a. The most consistent results between the
two pressure scenarios and the control condition were found for the Importance and
Pressure ratings, SAM Arousal and Pleasantness, the STAI state form, average heart rate,
and PANAS negative affect with significant effects for all contrasts testing whether the
pressure scenarios were perceived to be significantly more distressing than the control
condition but nonsignificantly more distressing from each other. Thus, according to the
self-report and the examination of heart rate, it can be inferred that the introduction of
74
external elements that simulate conditions found in pressure-filled situations resulted in
a significant higher level of perceived performance pressure than the no pressure
control condition.
In terms of the effect of type of pressure on performance, choking was found
when expert golfers performed under monitoring pressure conditions. This finding is in
line with self-focus theories which argue that when attention is focused on the step-by-
step mechanisms of a highly proceduralized task, performance decrements occur. From
this hypothesis, it seems plausible that the environment of being video-taped, watching
the recording in real time on a large screen right next to the putting green, and being
evaluated by a golf professional may have induced an attentional focus on the self or
skill execution which impaired expert performance but left novice performance
unharmed. Moreover, expert performance was unaffected by the outcome pressure
environment, a finding also supported by current theory.
Furthermore, the unskilled golfers displayed performance decrements when
putting under outcome pressure but not under monitoring pressure conditions.
According to distraction theory, performance of WM-reliant tasks can be harmed when
attention is diverted from the individual processes of skill execution (but not when
attention is focused on these). A competitive environment, filled with monetary
incentives in which one does not want to let down a partner can induce ruminative
thought about the situation, turning what was initially a single-task into a dual-task
situation. As a consequence, performance is more vulnerable to break downs and the
likelihood for choking increases. Overall, the interaction between type of pressure and
75
skill level found in this experiment is in line with recent findings by DeCaro et al (2011)
using a category learning paradigm. Thus, this study supports and extends this
interaction using a sensorimotor task.
76
CHAPTER 5:
EXPERIMENT 3: ALLEVIATING CHOKING THROUGH IMAGERY
The purpose of Experiment 3 is two-fold. The primary aim is to find a way to
reduce choking under pressure as identified by Experiment 2 (i.e., novices under
outcome and experts under monitoring pressure) by using imagery practice. Equally
important is the investigation of whether imagery practice might hurt performance in
those instances in which it was previously left unharmed (i.e., novices under monitoring
and experts under outcome pressure). But before considering its effects on pressure,
imagery practice by itself will be tested for its effectiveness in novice and expert golfers
in a non-pressure environment. Specifically, it will be determined whether there are
differences in golfers of varying skill levels in how well they perform a putting task using
imagery practice from either a first- or third-person perspective.
5.1 Method
5.1.1 Participants
Sixteen participants were recruited per group (e.g., 16 participants using first-
person imagery under no pressure; see study design in Figure 3 for details). Importance
ratings of three participants did not reach the criterion of 3 or higher on every block of
77
putting trials and, thus, were excluded from further analyses. A total of 93 participants
were left including 49 novices and 44 experts who were recruited and categorized in the
same way as in prior experiments. There were 15 novices (8 first-person and 7 third-
person imagery) and 15 experts (7 first-person and 8 third-person imagery) for the
control, 18 novices (11 first-person and 7 third-person imagery) and 16 experts (7 first-
person and 9 third-person imagery) for the outcome pressure, and 16 novices (8 first-
person and 8 third-person imagery) and 13 experts (7 first-person and 6 third-person
imagery) for the monitoring pressure condition.
Equipment failure led to the exclusion of heart rate data of 28 participants,
leaving a sample size for the heart rate analysis of 10 novices (4 first-person and 6 third-
person imagery) and 10 experts (3 first-person and 7 third-person imagery) for the
control, 12 novices (7 first-person and 5 third-person imagery) and 13 experts (7 first-
person and 6 third-person imagery) for the outcome pressure, and 11 novices (6 first-
person and 5 third-person imagery) and 10 experts (5 first-person and 5 third-person
imagery) for the monitoring pressure condition. Data is still reported and analyses were
still run for average and peak heart rate; however, results should be interpreted with
caution.
5.1.2 Materials
The green, putters, and balls were identical to those in Experiment 1 and 2.
However, two additional questionnaires for the assessment of imagery-related
mechanism were administered.
78
Imagery Rating. Participants rated on a one-item scale how successful they
thought they were in using their assigned imagery practice. The Imagery Rating scale
was adapted from a golf putting study which manipulated instructional cues and
subsequently checked for whether the manipulation was effectively implemented by
the participant (Gucciardi & Dimmock, 2008). As the Importance and Pressure Ratings,
this scale also ranged from 1 (unsuccessful) to 7 (successful).
Revised Vividness of Movement Imagery-2 (VMIQ-2; Roberts et al., 2008). This
questionnaire assesses the ability to visually and kinesthetically imagine a variety of
movements. The 12-item VMIQ-2 which assesses imagery on three factors (i.e., internal
or first-person, external or third-person, and kinesthetic imagery) was adapted from the
original 24-item and two-factor (i.e., internal and external imagery) version (VMIQ;
Isaac, Marks, Russel, 1986). The 12 (and former 24) items measure imagery in six
different situations such as basic body movements (e.g., walking), movement with
controlling an object (e.g., kicking a ball in the air), and movements that cause
imbalance and recovery (e.g., jumping off a high wall). Participants were asked to try
their best at imaging the activities as clearly and as vividly as they could and, then, rate
the degree of clearness and vividness of their image using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging
from 1 (perfectly clear and vivid) to 5 (no image at all). Preliminary support for adequate
psychometric properties of the revised questionnaire has been obtained (Roberts et al.,
2008). Of particular interest in this study were generic differences in imagery ability
between novice and skilled golfers as potential covariates for the effectiveness of
79
imagery as a method to alleviate choking. Therefore, participants were asked to
complete the exercise without appointing a particular imagery perspective.
5.1.3 Design
This experiment includes three between-subjects factors (i.e., skill level, pressure
type, and imagery practice), leading to a total of twelve conditions (see Figure 6 for
study design). That is, for each skill level there was a first- and third-person imagery
group per pressure condition (i.e., none, outcome, and monitoring).
NOVICES
no pressure monitoring pressure outcome pressure
1st person imagery
3rd person imagery
EXPERTS
no pressure monitoring pressure outcome pressure
1st person imagery
3rd person imagery
Figure 5.1 Overview of study design of Experiment 3.
5.1.4 Procedure
Putting task. The procedure was the same as in Experiment 2 with the addition
of an imagery practice block of (18) putting blocks between the baseline and pressure
blocks. The same pressure scenarios were used as in Experiment 2. Participants were
instructed to engage in imagery practice before each putt (see imagery instructions
80
below). The experimenter repeated the imagery instructions before the tenth putt to
remind participants of the specific instructions and to assure that they were actually
doing the practice. Positive imagery (i.e., landing a putt inside the hole) was chosen to
control for confounding effects other types of imagery (e.g., negative imagery) have on
performance (Beilock et al., 2001).
First-person visual imagery group. Participants were instructed to imagine
themselves making a successful putt from a first-person perspective. Specifically, they
were told: “You see yourself taking this putt through your own eyes, just as you would
see it as if it was actually occurring. That is, you see your arms, the putter, the ball, and
the hole in the foreground and your surroundings in the background. I’d like you to
imagine taking a putt that rolls into the hole. You should see yourself swinging the club
back and through so that the ball lands inside the hole.” Participants were asked to
imagine the scene before each putt and were reminded of the imagery by reading the
instructions again before the tenth putt of an 18-putt series.
Third-person visual imagery group. Participants were instructed to imagine
themselves making a successful putt from a third-person perspective. Specifically, they
were told: “You see yourself taking this putt from a third-person perspective, just as you
would see it as it was actually occurring to your distant self. That is, you see yourself
from the back, with the ball behind the hole. I’d like you to imagine taking a putt that
rolls into the hole. You should see yourself swinging the club back and through in a
straight line so that the ball lands inside the hole.” Participants were asked to imagine
81
the scene before each putt and were reminded of the imagery by reading the
instructions again before the tenth putt of an 18-putt series.
Thus, participants started with 9-18 practice putts and 27 single-task putts
without manipulation. Again, the last 18 single-task putts served as the baseline
measure. Then, there followed 18 putts using the assigned imagery perspective and,
finally, another 18 putts using the same imagery practice under the assigned type of
pressure condition. For example, one third of the novices took 9-18 practice putts, 27
single-task putts, 18 first-person imagery putts, and 18 putts using first-person imagery
under monitoring pressure.
Self-report and heart rate measures. Again, participants were subject to
assessment before the beginning of the putting task and after each block of trials. First,
preperformance measures were taken of SAM, the STAI trait form, and the PANAS. After
the baseline block of putting blocks, Importance and Pressure ratings, the three items of
SAM, the STAI state form, and the PANAS were completed. The experimenter, who had
not mentioned imagery practice until that point, then gave a general explanation of
imagery practice and visual perspective use to the participant. Next, the participant was
given time to complete the VMIQ-2. Subsequently, the specific imagery instructions
were given to the participant and were clarified when necessary. After the imagery
putting block, participants filled out the Importance, Pressure, and Imagery ratings, the
SAM, the STAI state form, and the PANAS, which they completed after the pressure
block of putting as well. At the end of the study, participants filled out the demographic
and postexperiment questionnaire.
82
Resting heart rate as well as average and peak heart rate was recorded before
and during the putting blocks as in Experiments 1 and 2. Lastly, participants were all
thanked and debriefed.
5.2 Results
Means and standard errors per block for all measures are provided in Table 5.1
and 5.2. Again, results for self-report and heart rate measures will be presented first,
followed by the putting performance analysis with results on the imagery block and
pressure block separately. As in prior experiments, difference scores of the critical and
the baseline block of trials were analyzed.
5.2.1 Self-Report and Heart Rate Measures
Imagery block. The data were submitted to a 2 (Skill Level: novices vs. experts) X
2 (Imagery Perspective: first- vs. third-person) ANOVA on the difference scores (imagery
- baseline block) of all measures. Only the main effect for skill level of SAM
Controllability was trending towards significance, F(1, 58) = 2.30, MSE = 1.02, p = .14,
and the main effect for imagery perspective of PANAS positive affect was significant,
F(1, 58) = 10.11, MSE = 12.81, p =.002. Thus, experts perceived a slight increase of
controllability when using imagery compared to novices and both groups reported a
decrease in positive affect when using third-person compared to first-person imagery.
No other effects were significant, all Fs < 1.7.
83
TABLE 5.1
MEANS AND STANDARD ERRORS (IN PARENTHESES) FOR BLOCK AND DIFFERENCE SCORES ON ALL MEASURES BY PRESSURE AND
IMAGERY CONDITION FOR NOVICES (ONLY) OF EXPERIMENT 3
No Pressure Outcome Pressure Monitoring Pressure
1st Person 3rd Person 1st Person 3rd Person 1st Person 3rd Person
Measure M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE
Importance 1 2 3 DIFF (Imagery) DIFF (Pressure)
3.75 4.50 4.50 .75 .75
(.37) (.46) (.33) (.25) (.25)
3.71 3.71 3.43 .00 -.29
(.47) (.42) (.53) (.38) (.36)
4.09 4.27 5.18 .18
1.09
(.25) (.33) (.38) (.23) (.32)
4.29 4.43 5.57 .14
1.29
(.57) (.42) (.57) (.26) (.18)
3.63 4.00 4.38 .38 .75
(.26) (.38) (.38) (.38) (.31)
3.29 3.86 4.43 .57
1.14
(.68) (.55) (.48) (.43) (.51)
Pressure 1 2 3 DIFF (Imagery) DIFF (Pressure)
3.00 3.88 4.00 .88
1.00
(.57) (.58) (.50) (.48) (.50)
2.57 2.86 2.71 .29 .14
(.48) (.51) (.52) (.42) (.51)
3.00 3.27 4.82 .27
1.82
(.41) (.49) (.26) (.47) (.35)
2.57 3.29 4.14 .71
1.57
(.37) (.64) (.46) (.47) (.30)
3.00 3.63 4.38 .63
1.38
(.42) (.50) (.65) (.32) (.50)
3.00 3.29 4.57 .29
1.57
(.72) (.68) (.30) (.47) (.65)
Imagery 2 3
4.13 3.63
(.48) (.46)
4.57 5.29
(.37) (.47)
4.27 4.00
(.30) (.30)
4.29 4.57
(.61) (.53)
4.13 3.25
(.52) (.37)
4.14 4.57
(.46) (.61)
TABEL 5.1 (CONTINUED)
84
No Pressure Outcome Pressure Monitoring Pressure
1st Person 3rd Person 1st Person 3rd Person 1st Person 3rd Person
Measure M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE
SAM Pleasantness Preperformance 1 2 3 DIFF (Imagery) DIFF (Pressure)
3.60, p = .002), and PANAS negative affect (main effect: F(2, 50) = 9.58, p < .001; none –
outcome contrast: t(50) = 2.76, p = .022; outcome – monitoring contrast: t(50) = 2.08, p
= .106).
Furthermore, several two-way interaction yielded significance including the skill
level by imagery perspective interaction for PANAS positive affect, F(1, 62) = 6.88, p =
.011, and the skill level by type of pressure interaction for the PANAS positive affect
measure, F(2, 62) = 5.95, p = .005. The imagery perspective by type of pressure
interaction for average heart rate was trending towards significance, F(1, 62) = 2.33, p =
.11, while the same interaction was marginally significant for STAI state form, F(1, 62) =
2.43, p = .098, PANAS positive affect, F(1, 62) = 3.03, p = .057, and PANAS negative
affect, F(1, 62) = 2.86, p = .067. Finally, the three-way interaction was significant for a
93
number of measures including Importance rating, F(2, 62) = 3.99, p = .025, SAM
Pleasantness, F(2, 62) = 3.47, p = .039, SAM Arousal, F(2, 62) = 2.51, p = .091, STAI state
form, F(2, 62) = 5.98, p = .005, and PANAS positive affect, F(2, 62) = 2.29, p = .11.
5.2.2 Putting Performance
Imagery block. The putting data are summarized in Table 5.3 and Figure 5.2. To
begin, a 2 (Skill Level: novices vs. experts) X 2 (Imagery Perspective: first- vs. third-
person) ANOVA was run on the difference scores of the imagery and the baseline block
of trials. The main effects for skill level and imagery perspective were not significant, Fs
< 1, but the interaction was, F(1, 80) = 8.831, MSE = 67.62, p = .004. This result suggests
that imagery is most effective when the visual perspective is altered according to the
skill level of the performer. Thus, the skill level groups were examined separately.
A one-way ANOVA revealed that novices exhibited a greater improvement in
putting performance from the baseline to the imagery block when practicing third- as
compared to first-person imagery, F(47) = 5.88, MSE = 93.13, p = .019. This finding is in
line with prior research suggesting that third-person imagery is best suited for the
learning of the individual steps of skill movement (Mayer & Hermann, 2010). Moreover,
first-person imagery might be a more demanding task for novices than third-person
imagery, leading to a performance decrement in the putting task when using the first-
person perspective but not when using third-person perspective.
For expert golfers, the one-way ANOVA yielded a trend opposed to the novices’
data in that experts did better under first- than under third-person imagery, F(41) =
94
4.13, p = .049. This result is in line with Mayer and Hermann’s (2010) argument that
third-person imagery helps to rehearse kinesthetic movement feelings. Furthermore,
third-person imagery somewhat impedes experts’ performance for reasons not yet
clearly determined. It is possible that this imagery perspective draws attention to the
self or skill execution in a way similar to skill-focused attention, and thus, disrupts the
otherwise automatic movement processes.
95
TABLE 5.3
MEANS AND STANDARD ERRORS (IN PARANTHESES) FOR BLOCK AND DIFFERENCE
SCORES BY SKILL LEVEL AND IMAGERY CONDITION FOR EXPERIMENT 2 (NO PRESSURE
CONDITION ONLY) AND EXPERIMENT 3 (IMAGERY BLOCK ONLY)
Experiment 2 Experiment 3
No Imagery 1st Person 3rd Person
Measure M SE M SE M SE
Novices 1 2 DIFF
30.80 24.13 -5.33
20.14 17.39 -2.86
(1.82) (1.51) (1.81)
(2.27) (1.57) (1.82)
32.97 34.96
2.04†*
(1.46) (2.07) (1.56)
29.46 24.89 -4.68†
(1.34) (1.66) (1.37)
Experts 1 2 DIFF
19.74 16.07 -4.27†
(1.28) (.98)
(1.20)
17.88 17.00 -.88†
(1.23) (1.41) (1.16)
Note. 1 = baseline putting block; 2 = experimental putting block; DIFF = difference score of experimental and baseline block; *Significantly different at p < .05 to no imagery group;
†Significantly different at p < .05 to other imagery
group
96
Figure 5.2 Bar graph including error bars (standard error of the mean) for difference scores clustered by skill level and imagery
perspective for Experiment 3.
97
Pressure block. Means and standard errors of putting performance are
summarized in Table 5.4 and Figure 5.3. To begin, the data were submitted to a 2 (Skill
Level: novices vs. experts) X 2 (Imagery Perspective: first-person vs. third-person) X 3
(Type of Pressure: none vs. outcome vs. monitoring) ANOVA on the putting distance
difference scores (i.e., pressure – baseline block). Only the skill level by imagery
perspective interaction was significant, F(1, 81) = 4.38, MSE = 79.71, p = .040, all other
effects were not, all Fs < 1. Thus, as for the imagery block without pressure, novices
differed in how well they performed as a function of visual imagery perspective. Then,
each skill level group was analyzed individually.
The data of the novice golfers were submitted to a 3 (Type of Pressure: none vs.
outcome vs. monitoring) X 2 (Imagery Perspective: first-person vs. third-person) ANOVA
on the putting distance difference scores. Although novices still performed slightly
better using third- compared to first-person imagery across conditions, this difference
was no longer significant, F(1, 43) = 2.23, MSE = 117.30, p = .14, and neither was any
other effect, all Fs < 1. Thus, no differences in performance among the three pressure
conditions were found, suggesting that performance decrements, as were shown under
outcome pressure in Experiment 2, no longer occurred. Therefore and importantly,
choking was prevented through imagery.
98
TABLE 5.4
MEANS AND STANDARD ERRORS (IN PARENTHESES) FOR BLOCK AND DIFFERENCE SCORES BY SKILL LEVEL AND PRESSURE AND
IMAGERY CONDITION FOR EXPERIMENT 3
Control Outcome Pressure Monitoring Pressure
1st Person 3rd Person 1st Person 3rd Person 1st Person 3rd Person
Measure M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE M SE
Novices 1 2 3 DIFF (Imagery) DIFF (Pressure)
33.54 36.95 34.70 3.41 1.15
(2.80) (3.35) (3.47) (4.81) (4.00)
30.49 27.20 25.24 -3.64 -5.20
(1.95) (4.09) (2.84) (3.91) (4.00)
32.32 31.79 25.83 -.40
-6.49
(2.37) (4.21) (4.28) (3.74) (4.17)
27.74 20.94 20.06 -6.80 -7.67
(2.66) (2.66) (3.17) (1.77) (2.13)
33.30 37.33 31.03 4.03 -2.27
(2.80) (2.04) (2.81) (2.05) (3.45)
30.08 26.32 21.31 -3.72 -8.77
(2.46) (1.41) (2.61) (2.59) (3.56)
Experts 1 2 3 DIFF (Imagery) DIFF (Pressure)
19.90 17.71 15.29 -4.06 -4.61
(2.69) (1.58) (1.29) (2.73) (1.75)
19.41 17.49 15.92 -1.92 -3.49
(2.59) (3.49) (3.39) (2.97) (2.63)
21.71 17.58 14.22 -4.14 -7.49
(1.85) (1.08) (1.40) (2.38) (2.43)
15.06 15.64 12.91
.57 -2.15
(1.31) (1.13) (1.94) (.98)
(1.71)
17.60 12.94 12.73 -4.59 -4.87
(2.08) (1.86) (1.39) (1.43) (2.89)
20.06 18.38 18.21 -1.69 -1.86
(2.19) (2.61) (2.57) (1.66) (1.73)
Note. 1 = baseline putting block; 2 = imagery putting block; 3 = pressure putting block; DIFF (Imagery) = difference score of imagery and baseline block; DIFF (Pressure) = difference score of pressure and baseline block;
*Significantly different at p < .05 to control group;
†Significantly different at p < .05 to other pressure group
99
Figure 5.3 Bar graph including error bars (standard error of the mean) for difference scores for novice (a) and expert (b) golfers
clustered by type of pressure and imagery for Experiment 3.
(
(a)
(b)
100
Because I am interested in whether choking, as shown in the outcome pressure
condition of Experiment 2, could be prevented through imagery, post hoc comparisons
on the difference scores of this experiment’s (first- and third-person imagery combined)
imagery practice under outcome pressure and Experiment 2’s outcome pressure data
were run. In fact, significantly better performance was observed for the imagery under
pressure compared to the no imagery pressure group, t(28) = 2.30, p = .029. Thus, when
novices were briefly instructed in imagery use and practiced it for one block before
performing in the outcome pressure environment, they no longer showed a
performance decrement. To look at this effect more closely, post hoc comparisons were
also run between the individual imagery conditions and Experiment 2’s outcome
pressure data. For first-person imagery, the effect was only marginally significant, t(21)
= 1.75, p = .095, however, for third- person imagery it was significant, t(17) = 3.38, p =
.004. Thus, it can be more clearly inferred that third-person imagery can be used to
prevent choking under outcome pressure in novice golfers.
Moreover, it was important to find out if imagery hurt performance that was
initially unharmed for novices. Comparisons between the monitoring pressure condition
of this experiment’s (combined) imagery practice and Experiment 2’s (no imagery)
group showed no significant differences in difference scores of the critical and baseline
blocks, t(32) = .489, p = .63. Therefore, imagery did not compromise novice performance
under monitoring pressure.
Finally, the data of the expert golfers were submitted to a 3 (Type of Pressure:
none vs. outcome vs. monitoring) X 2 (Imagery Perspective: first-person vs. third-
101
person) ANOVA on the putting distance difference scores. Expert golfers still performed
better using first- than third-person imagery overall, however, this effect was only
marginally significant, F(1, 38) = 2.91, MSE = 37.17, p = .096, and no other effect reached
significance, all Fs < 1. As for the novice group, no differences among the three pressure
conditions were found, suggesting that those performance decrements, as occurred in
Experiment 2, were no longer present in the current experiment. Therefore, choking
was prevented for experts through imagery, too.
For the purpose of this study, the results of this experiment’s imagery under
monitoring pressure condition were compared to Experiment 2’s monitoring pressure
result to see whether imagery prevented choking. Indeed, the addition of imagery
practice (first- and third-person combined) resulted in better performance under
monitoring pressure compared to Experiment 2’s no imagery condition, t(29) = 2.78, p =
.010. When comparing each of these imagery conditions separately to Experiment 2’s
monitoring pressure data, first-person perspective resulted in a significant effect, t(23) =
2.67, p = .014, and third-person imagery in a marginally significant effect, t(22) = 1.73, p
= .098. Consequently, it can be argued that first-person imagery is best suited for the
prevention of choking under monitoring pressure in expert golfers.
As for novices, it was also important to see if imagery impaired skilled
performance under outcome pressure. No significant differences were found, t(33) =
.307, p = .76, and, therefore, imagery did not negatively affect experts under outcome
pressure.
102
5.3 Discussion
The purpose of this experiment was (a) to more generally investigate visual
perspective in imagery practice considering the performer’s skill level (or cognitive
demands) with the task, and (b) to test whether imagery prevents choking in those skill
level – pressure type situations in which it occurred in Experiment 2.
5.3.1 Imagery (Only)
With respect to visual perspective, imagery was found most effective when
novice golfers practiced under third-person and experts under first-person. To more
closely examine if imagery practice helped or harmed performance under low anxiety
conditions, comparisons of this experiment’s data were made to those of Experiment 2.
Imagery across perspective conditions impeded with novice performance on the
second block when comparing its change scores to those of Experiment 2’s no pressure
(no imagery) control conditions, t(68) = 2.11, p = .038. When analyzed separately, the
first-person imagery group of the novice golfers had such a high difference score that it
was significantly different from the control condition of Experiment 2, t(46) = 2.98, p =
.005, and marginally different from that experiment’s monitoring pressure condition,
t(46) = 1.92, p = .061. In fact, this group performed equally “badly” as the outcome
pressure group, t < .5, which was concluded to exhibit choking. It might be that first-
person imagery practice is so cognitively demanding for novice golfers that it uses up
the otherwise necessary attentional resources to perform the putting task alone.
Without such explicit attention directed towards putting but turned towards the
103
imagery practice, performance is initially impaired. In contrast, third-person imagery did
not impact putting performance as compared to either Experiment 2’s control or
monitoring pressure conditions, all ts < 1. One might speculate that third-person
imagery engages an actor’s attentional resources, however, in a non-harming and
perhaps conducive way to novices’ cognitive demands.
For the expert golfers, the opposite trend in performance with respect to visual
imagery perspective was observed. Overall, imagery did not affect performance when
comparing the imagery change scores to those of Experiment 2’s expert control
condition, t < 1. First-person imagery was found to lead to greater improvement than
third-person imagery, however, it did not excel beyond the performance of Experiment
2’s no imagery control group, t < 1.2. Although third-person imagery led to a smaller
performance improvement than first-person imagery, it was still statistically no worse
than Experiment 2’s control or outcome pressure conditions, all ts < 1.3, but different
(though only marginally significantly) from that experiment’s monitoring pressure
group, t(39) = 1.805, p = .079. This result suggests that experts were not negatively
affected by imagery practice on the whole.
These findings are in line with the hypothesis based on Mayer and Hermann’s
(2010) idea that first-person imagery is best when movement feelings are to be
practiced, as in expert putting, and that third-person imagery is most conducive to the
learning of the individual steps of learning a skill, as in novice putting. These findings do
not support the hypothesis that the type of skill (open vs. closed) governs the
effectiveness of visual imagery perspective on performance alone (Hardy, 1997; Hardy &
104
Callow, 1999; White & Hardy, 1995). Even though golf has previously been considered to
be a closed skill sport that emphasizes form (e.g., Arvinen-Barrow et al., 2007), it could
be argued that this categorization is not entirely accurate and that it may depend on
skill level. For novices, golf certainly resembles a task in which much attention must be
paid to the technical aspects of body positioning and club movement and, thus, it
appears that form is important. However, for experts it seems less clear whether their
performance primarily depends on form or on anticipating the environment to
effectively respond to changes within it. When expert golfers putt, they certainly rely on
flawless technical execution which may already be fluent and well learned. In addition,
they also respond to the changes in the environment when “reading the green” as in
finding a good line of putting and applying the right amount of force on the ball to have
the good chance of making the putt.
When comparing scores of the self-report and heart rate measures, experts
reported a slightly greater gain in controllability than novices. Considering that novices
need most, if not all, of their attentional resources to complete the putting task, it is not
surprising that adding a second assignment, namely, a specific imagery practice, might
lead to a slight loss of feeling in control of the situation and worse performance than
doing the putting task alone. Experts might be more accustomed to the putting task and
their performance is typically not hurt by additional task demands. In addition, both skill
level groups equally experienced a greater decrease in positive affect when using third-
compared to first-person imagery. It has been shown that observing oneself from an
2006; Jackson et al., 2006; Kahneman, 1973; Leavitt, 1979; Lewis & Linder, 1997;
Markman et al., 2006; Masters, 1992; Smith & Chamberlin, 1992; Wine, 1971) between
task demands and direction of attention was replicated and provided further support for
the robustness of this relationship. Novice golfers performed well under skill-focused
instructions but choked when they were forced to do a secondary task on top of putting.
Experts, on the other hand, showed no performance decrements when their attention
was divided between the putting task and the auditory task but displayed less-than-
average performance when attending to certain aspects of skill execution.
While this interaction has been shown across a variety of tasks, the effects of
type of pressure on performance are less well established. Only one study has
systematically examined how monitoring and outcome pressure interact with the
cognitive demands of a task (DeCaro et al., 2011). More support for this hypothesis can
be found when revisiting other studies that used pressure manipulations but did not set
out to closely examine type of pressure (Beilock & Carr, 2001; Gray, 2004; Markman, et
al., 2006, Reeves et al., 2007). Monitoring pressure, stemming from the feeling of being
evaluated or watched, has been found to hurt performance on proceduralized tasks but
not WM-reliant ones, while outcome pressure, as in high stakes scenarios, seems to hurt
108
WM-reliant tasks but not proceduralized ones. The current research replicated this
finding using a sensorimotor task.
In Experiment 2, monitoring pressure was induced by video-recording
participants, projecting the life feed on a 66-inch smart board screen in clear sight of the
performer right next to the putting area, and having a golf professional watch them and
take notes of their putting block. The outcome pressure scenario involved the set up of
a competition in which participants were told they had been paired up with another
participant (i.e., peer pressure) and that their combined putting score could win them a
prize (i.e., incentives). A no pressure condition served as the control group. Before
investigating the effects of pressure on performance, it was first established that the
two pressure scenarios were reported to be equally distressing but more distressing
than the control condition (Experiment 2a). Then, the putting data of 2a and 2b were
jointly analyzed and summarized under Experiment 2b.
Replicating the findings of DeCaro et al. (2011), novice golfers, for which putting
represents a WM-reliant task, exhibited choking under outcome but not under
monitoring pressure. This result is in line with predictions made by the distraction
hypothesis in that performance is impaired when thoughts of worries compromise the
otherwise needed attentional resources to do the putting task. In contrast, monitoring
pressure leads to greater skill-focus, an attentional direction proven non-harmful to
novice performance which heavily relies on explicit monitoring. Furthermore, experts
showed performance decrements under monitoring but not under outcome pressure.
This result is in line with predictions made by self-focus theory in that highly
109
proceduralized skills suffer from accessorily skill-focus but are left unharmed by
potential thoughts of worry and anxiety which have been found to arise during
competition. It should be noted that self-focus and distraction theories have been found
to make complimentary rather than contradictory predictions of choking under pressure
consisting of the match of attentional direction and the cognitive demands of a task.
Experiment 3 investigated use of imagery from first- and third person
perspective by performers of varying skill levels, first, as a pure imagery exercise and,
then, under the pressure scenarios examined in Experiment 2. First, an imagery block of
blocks was conducted to explore the effectiveness of imagery perspective on novice and
expert golfers. The findings of this study support the idea that third-person imagery is
best used when learning the individual steps of skill execution as in the early learning of
skill acquisition (e.g., novice golfers), and that first-person imagery is most suitable for
the rehearsal of kinesthetic feelings of the movement, as is important in later stages of
skill acquisition (e.g., expert golfers). This finding supports Mayer and Hermann’s (2010)
hypothesis and may help resolve the still-existing controversy over the most effective
way of using visual perspective in imagery. Given that first-person imagery is typically
accompanied by kinesthetic feelings, which are acquired through practice and are
usually not present during the early stages of skill learning, it is not surprising that
novice golfers were unable to benefit from this imagery exercise. Third-person imagery
seemed much more conducive to novices’ cognitive demands in that they might have
used the imaging of themselves from an external vantage point as a way to practice
putting together the individual steps of the whole movement of the golf putt.
110
Following the imagery block, participants were assigned to one of the three
pressure conditions and putted under no, outcome, or monitoring pressure using the
same imagery practice they had been assigned to before. The main finding was that
imagery prevented choking under pressure in both novice and expert golfers.
Previously, it had been found that novice performance was compromised when putting
under outcome pressure conditions. However, the results of Experiment 3 showed that
when novices used third-person imagery, no performance decrements occurred and
choking was prevented. Expert golfers had previously exhibited choking under
monitoring pressure which no longer occurred, especially when they used first-person
imagery.
It has been proposed (e.g., Baumeister, 1984) that pressure induces an increase
in feelings of importance to perform well followed by the performer investing more
effort in his or her performance. Yet, given the varying effects different types of
pressure can have on performance, it is conceivable to assume that what is perceived to
be important may vary as a function of the source of pressure. In this sense, being
watched and/or evaluated (as in the monitoring pressure scenario here) may raise
feelings of importance to “look good” and provoke concerns in the performer with
respect to how the observer or assessor may perceive the way in which the performer
executes the skill (e.g., correctness, smoothness, effectiveness) or even in a personal
way (e.g., attractiveness, intelligence). As a consequence, the performer then invests
more effort in better skill execution and/or even appearing more attractive or intelligent
111
as a person. Thus, it is plausible that sources of pressure identified as monitoring
pressure may indirectly induce skill- or self-focus and, thus, explicit monitoring.
Likewise, performing in a competitive environment in which solely one’s
performance outcome (e.g., score, number of goals made, points earned) defines the
value of one’s performance and, on top of that, in which another performer is
dependent upon this performance outcome (i.e., peer pressure), may give rise to a
different set of thoughts and feelings than a monitoring pressure environment, namely,
those of getting oneself to achieve a desired outcome. In this way, one focuses purely
on the goal, the effect of one’s behavior (e.g., making this putt, throwing the ball inside
the basket) and not on the behavior itself (i.e., skill execution) and the performer exerts
effort to maintain his or her performance outcome (if it is already at a high level) or
improve on it (if possible). Thus, it is conceivable to assume that sources associated with
outcome pressure indirectly induce an attentional focus away from skill execution but
towards performance outcomes (or effects).
Given what is known about the cognitive demands of skills, for instance, when
comparing performers of differing skill levels (e.g., novice vs. experts golfers), it is not
surprising to find similarities in results between skill-focused attention and monitoring
pressure and dual-task attentional and outcome pressure conditions. Specifically, while
there was no direct measure of attentional focus in Experiment 2 (in which pressure was
manipulated), the pattern of results, especially the interaction of type of pressure and
skill level, suggests a common theoretical basis with that of Experiment 1, in which
direction of attention was manipulated. In Experiments 1 and 2, novices performed
112
optimally under skill-focused attention and monitoring pressure but choked under dual-
task or outcome pressure conditions, while experts putted well under dual-task and
outcome pressure conditions but choked under skill-focused attention and monitoring
pressure.
From this line of the current and prior research, it can be deduced that the
deciding point of whether choking occurs is in the match of the cognitive demands of
the task with the presence of explicit monitoring. Explicit monitoring as described by
self-focus theories and induced by either skill-focused attention or monitoring pressure
represents the key aspect of how choking under pressure can occur. It is necessary for
tasks which rely heavily on working memory and attentional control but it is detrimental
to tasks which are highly proceduralized or automatized. It seems as though anything
that may keep a performer from focusing on skill execution, either directly or indirectly
(e.g., dual-task attention, ruminative thought), brings about a different effect in the
performance of tasks with differing cognitive demands.
Now, the question arises, what exactly caused the lack of choking when imagery
was implemented immediately before participants were faced with the pressure
scenario? For one, the self-report data obtained in this study reveals that performers
using imagery still perceived the environment to be filled with performance pressure.
This finding implies that imagery did not cause an immunization to the sensing of
pressure, instead, it is more likely that imagery helped performers to cope with the
pressure-filled situation in a constructive way.
113
But why exactly did third-person imagery help novices and first-person imagery
help experts in maintaining their performance level under pressure? Along the lines of
directing attentional focus towards or away from explicit skill monitoring, imagery
perspective can be used to provoke such skill monitoring through third-person imagery
or away from it via first-person imagery. Not only did imagery perspective seem to act in
ways that suggest that attentional focus was directed towards and away from skill
execution, but it also helped performers to maintain an optimal performance level in
face of pressure which would have otherwise led to a great likelihood of a performance
decline.
It could be argued that the additional putting block of imagery practice would
provide performers with extra practice on the putting task as compared to those in the
second experiment and that comparisons between the two experiments would
somehow favor their chances of coping with the pressure environment. However, an
additional block of single-task putting has not prevented choking in other experiments.
Moreover, participants of the second and third experiment perceived similar levels of
pressure as indicated by Pressure ratings and responses on SAM arousal and the STAI
state form. Importantly, performance under pressure was compromised when not
practicing imagery but was unaffected when practicing imagery while the perception of
pressure did not differ between the two conditions.
In the future, it would be worthwhile to further dissect monitoring as well as
outcome pressure to get at the roots of what causes choking under pressure. Because
the current pressure scenarios were made up of several elements (monitoring pressure:
114
video-recording + golf professional as observer; outcome pressure: peer pressure +
incentives), it would be worthwhile to test the effects of the individual elements on
performance. Furthermore, future studies could investigate other forms of pressure and
their effect on performance. With regards to monitoring pressure, a performer can
perceive the attention as being directed towards the self (person, ego) or the skill
(movement). For example, thoughts about what one looks like (e.g., attractiveness,
body image, choice of clothing) would be more self-related and could bring about a
different effect than more skill-related thoughts such as those about what one does
(e.g., motor movement, individual technique, perceived skill level). Moreover, the
effects of type of observer could be investigated in that some characteristics (e.g.,
un/skilled, un/attractive, familiarity with the person etc.) may cause a positive and
others a negative effect on performance.
When being under outcome pressure, the focus is not on the aesthetics or the
correctness of the technique of skill movement but solely on its result (“Did I make this
putt?”). Other factors that might cause outcome pressure such as manipulations of
current score (i.e., being down, tied, or up) would be an interesting continuation to this
research. Why do some athletes perform badly when they are leading a match/game
while others get a boost in confidence and continue to win the match/game?
Furthermore, how do some people cope with being the favorite or the underdog of a
match/game and what are the most effective cognitive strategies to preserve optimal
performance?
115
It would also be interesting to more closely examine how different pressure
scenarios affect performers’ physiological responses to the individual stressors. For
instance, one could assess performers’ perceptions and their cortisol levels in response
to stressful situations. Studies have shown discrepancies between the perceived and
physiological (cortisol) stress responses (Stroud, Salovey, & Epel, 2002). As a
consequence, cognitive and physiological responses might also differ when performing
under stress, a state that resembles pressure. In the Experiment 2, measurements of
average and peak heart rate indicated that pressure causes increases in heart rate. In
addition, women and men have been found to differ in these responses and gender has
been shown to interact with type of task (i.e., an achievement oriented task [outcome
pressure] vs. an evaluative task [monitoring pressure]). Overall, further research should
revisit and perhaps extent the study of the physiological effects of pressure on the stress
response.
With respect to third-person imagery perspective, it would further be
worthwhile to alter angles and distances of the vantage point used to view oneself.
Changes in the location of the vantage point can influence the extent to which skill-
focus, self-focus, outcome-focus can be applied. Presumably, variations in third-person
perspective are a rich continuation to the findings of the current research.
Along the same line, research on choking under pressure should also consider
the extent to which instructions are phrased in concrete of abstract manner. Practiced
skills are represented in memory in hierarchical form (Mackay, 1981, 1982). Mackay
(1982) suggests that this hierarchy is made up of the top node that represents the whole
116
behavior in an abstract (or holistic) form and multiple nodes at the bottom reflecting the
individual motor movements. For example, taking a golf putt can be broken down into
top, subordinate, and bottom nodes. At the top would be the holistic and abstract
representation of “taking a golf putt” which encompasses the whole action including
stance, grip, and movement. A putt can be broken down into two subordinate nodes the
backswing and the follow through. The details of these nodes can be described in terms
of simpler nodes such as moving the putter back by primarily using the shoulders,
halting, and moving the putter in a straight line forward, again using the shoulders. At
the bottom level of this hierarchy are individual hand, shoulder, head muscle
movements.
In a similar way, action identification theory (Vallacher & Wegner 1987, 1989)
and the theory of construal level (Liberman & Trope, 1998) suggest that actions can be
hierarchically structured into different levels of identification or construal. These levels
range from low (concrete) levels, which center around how an action is done and
represent events in terms of specific and subordinate features, to high (abstract) levels,
which depict why it is done and are described by general and superordinate terms. For
example, the action of “seeing if someone is home” would mark the highest and most
abstract level, while “pushing a doorbell” would be lower and “moving a finger” be the
lowest and most concrete level. Whether an action should be construed in concrete or
abstract terms depends on the context, the task, and the performer (Vallacher &
Wegner). Novel and difficult tasks tend to be construed by lower levels as well as tasks
117
performed under pressure, while familiar, easy, and heavily automatized tasks are
identified by higher levels.
With regard to my study, novice golfers would likely benefit from lower level (or
more concrete) skill representations, for instance, focusing on the step-by-step
processes of the stroke while expert performance would be facilitated by top level (or
more abstract) skill representations. Under pressure, the prediction is less clear. For
example, Vallacher and Wegner (1987) argue that concrete construals would help the
control of action in pressure situations, regardless of level of expertise while it has been
recently found that engaging in abstract construals aided self-control processes for
prospective tasks (e.g., Libby, Shaeffer, & Eibach, 2009) and, thus, might aid the control
of motor movements under pressure regardless of skill level.
Overall the domain of choking under pressure as it pertains to cognitive, sports,
and applied psychology is a promising field in shedding light on what happens when
performance breaks down and how it can be prevented. This research contributes to
the methods of alleviating choking under pressure with a strategy that can be applied to
fit the needs of the individual and situation. Imagery is a widely-used technique in the
area of skill acquisition and performance regulation and this study provides evidence
that it also helps preserve optimal performance in pressure-laden situations.
118
REFERENCES
Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). Understanding regulatory fit. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 15-19.
Arvinen-Barrow, M., Weigand, D. A., Thomas, S., Hemmings, B., & Walley, M. (2007). Elite and novice athletes’ imagery use in open and closed sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(1). doi: 10.1080/10413200601102912
Ashcraft, M. H., & Kirk, E. P. (2001). The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 224–237. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.224
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64(6), 359–372. doi: 10.1037/h0043445
Ayduk, O., & Kross, E. (2008). Enhancing the pace of recovery: Self-distanced analysis of negative experiences reduces blood pressure reactivity. Psychological Science, 19(3), 229-231. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02073.x
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral changes. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 610–620. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.610
Beilock, S. L., Afremow, J. A., Rabe, A. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). “Don’t Miss!” The debilitating effects of suppressive imagery on golf putting performance. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23, 200-221.
Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 701–725. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.701
Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail: Working memory and “choking under pressure” in math. Psychological Science, 16(2), 101–105. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00789.x
119
Beilock, S. L., Carr, T. H., MacMahon, C., & Starkes, J. L. (2002). When paying attention becomes counterproductive: Impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced performance of sensorimotor skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 8(1), 6–16. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.8.1.6
Beilock, S. L., & DeCaro, M. S. (2007). From poor performance to success under stress: Working memory, strategy selection, and mathematical problem solving under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33(6), 983-998. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.6.983
Beilock, S. L., & Gray, R. (2007). Why do athletes “choke” under pressure? In G. Tenenbaum and R.C. Ecklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology, 3rd Ed. (pp. 425-444). Hoboken, NH: John Wiley & Sons. doi: 10.1002/9781118270011.ch19
Beilock, S. L., Kulp, C. A., Holt, L. E., & Carr, T. H. (2004). More on the fragility of performance: Choking under pressure in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(4), 584–600. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.4.584
Bell, J. J., & Hardy, J. (2009). Effects of attentional focus on skilled performance in golf. Journal of Applied Sports Psychology, 21(2), 163-177. doi: 10.1080/10413200902795323
Bernstein, N. A. (1967). The co-ordination and regulation of movements, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49-59.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Collins, D. V., Jones, B., Fairweather, M., Doolan, S., & Priestley, N. (2001). Examining anxiety associated changes in movement patterns. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 32(3), 223–242.
Cox, R. H., Martens, M. P., & Russell, W. D. (2003). Measuring anxiety in athletics: The Revised Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25(4), 519-533.
120
Craft, L. L., Magyar, T. M., Becker, B. J., & Feltz, D. L. (2003). The relationship between the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 and sport performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 44-65.
DeCaro, M. S., Thomas, R. D., Albert, N. B., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Choking under pressure: Multiple routes to skill failure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(3), 390-406. doi: 10.1037/a0023466
Driskell, J. E., Copper, C., & Moran, A. (1994). Does mental practice enhance performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 481-492.
Dunlap, W. P., Cortina, J. M., Vaslow, J. B., & Burke, M. J. (1996). Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 170–177. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.170
Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness, Academic Press, New York.
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66(3), 183–201. doi: 10.1037/h0047707
Eberspächer, H. (2001). Mentales Training. Das Handbuch für Trainer und Sportler. München: Copress.
Eysenck, M. W. (1979). Anxiety learning and memory: A reconceptualization. Journal of Research in Personality, 13(4), 363-385. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(79)90001-1
Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Frank, M., & Gilovich, T. (1989). Effect of memory perspective on retrospective causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 399–403. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.399
Gray, R. (2004). Attending to the execution of a complex sensorimotor skill: Expertise differences, choking, and slumps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10(1), 42–54. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.10.1.42
Gimmig, D., Huguet, P., Caverni, J. P., & Cury, F. (2006). Choking under pressure and working memory capacity: When performance pressure reduces fluid intelligence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(6), 1005–1010. doi: 10.3758/BF03213916
Grimm, L. R., Markman, A. B., Maddox, W. T., & Baldwin, G. C. (2008). Differential effects of regulatory fit on category learning. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 920-927. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.10.010
121
Gucciardi, D. F., & Dimmock, J. A. (2008). Choking under pressure in sensorimotor skills: Conscious processing or depleted attentional resources? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 45-59.
Hall, C. R. (1997). Lew Hardy's third myth: A matter of perspective. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9(2), 310-13. doi: 10.1080/10413209708406490
Hall, C. R., & Martin, K. A. (1997). Measuring movement imagery abilities: A revision of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire. Journal of Mental Imagery,21(1-2), 143-154.
Hardy, L. (1997). The Coleman Roberts Griffith address: Three myths about applied consultancy work. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9(2), 277-294. doi: 10.1080/10413209708406487
Hardy, L., & Collow, N. (1999). Efficacy of external and internal visual imagery perspectives for the enhancement of performance on tasks in which form is important. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21(2), 95-112.
Hardy, L., Mullen, R., & Jones, G. (1996). Knowledge and conscious control of motor actions under stress. British Journal of Psychology, 87(4), 621–636. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1996.tb02612.x
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0
Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217-1230. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217
Higuchi, T., Imanaka, K. & Hatayama, T. (2002). Freezing degrees of freedom under stress: Kinematic evidence of constrained movement strategies. Human Movement Science, 21(5-6), 831-846. doi: 10.1016/S0167-9457(02)00174-4
Hodes, R., Cook, E. W. III, & Lang, P. J. (1990). Individual differences in autonomic response: Conditioned association of conditioned fear? Psychophysiology, 22, 545-560.
Isaac, A. R., Marks, D. F., & Russell, D. G. (1986). An instrument for assessing imagery of movement. The vividness of movement imagery questionnaire. Journal of Mental Imagery, 10(4), 23–30.
122
Jackson, R. C., Ashford, K. J., & Norsworthy, G. (2006). Attentional focus, dispositional reinvestment, and skilled motor performance under pressure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28, 49–68.
Jones, B. T., Davis, M., Crenshaw, B., Behar, T., & Davis, M. (1998). Classic instruction in golf. New York: Broadway.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kross, E., & Ayduk, O. (2008). Facilitating adaptive emotional analysis: Short-term and long-term outcomes distinguishing distanced- analysis of depressive experiences from immersed-analysis and distraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 924-938. doi: 10.1177/0146167208315938
Kross, E., Ayduk, O., & Mischel, W. (2005). When asking “why” does not hurt: Distinguishing rumination from reflective processing of negative emotions. Psychological Science, 16(9), 709-715. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01600.x
Leavitt, J. (1979). Cognitive demands of skating and stickhandling in ice hockey. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 4(1), 46–55.
Lewis, B., & Linder, D. (1997). Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(9), 937–944. doi: 10.1177/0146167297239003
Libby, L. K., Shaeffer, E. M., & Eibach, R. P. (2009). Seeing meaning in action. A bidirectional link between visual perspective and action identification level. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(4), 503-516. doi: 10.1037/a0016795
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5–18. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322(5905), 1201–1205. doi: 10.1126/science.1161958
Mackay, D. G. (1981). The problem of rehearsal or mental practice. Journal of Motor Behavior, 13(4), 274-285.
Mackay, D. G. (1982). The problem of flexibility, fluency and speed-accuracy trade-off in skilled behavior. Psychological Review, 89(5), 483-506. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.89.5.483
123
Maddox,W. T., Baldwin, G. C., & Markman, A. B. (2006). A test of the regulatory fit hypothesis in perceptual classification learning. Memory & Cognition, 34(7), 1377-1397. doi: 10.3758/BF03195904
Mahoney, M. J. & Avener, M. (1977). Psychology of the elite athlete: An exploratory study. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 1(2), 135-141. doi: 10.1007/BF01173634
Markman, A. B., Baldwin, G. C., & Maddox,W. T. (2005). The interaction of payoff structure and regulatory focus in classification. Psychological Science, 16(11), 852–855. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01625.x
Markman, A. B., Maddox, W. T., & Worthy, D. A. (2006). Choking and excelling under pressure. Psychological Science, 17, 944-948.
Masters, R. S. W. (1992). Knowledge, knerves, and know-how: The role of explicit versus implicit knowledge in the breakdown of a complex motor skill under pressure. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 343–358.
Maxwell, J. P., Masters, R. W., & Eves, F. F. (2000). From novice to know-how: A longitudinal study of implicit motor learning. Journal of Sport Sciences, 18, 111-120.
Mayer, J. M., & Hermann, H.- D. (2010). Mentales Training: Grundlagen und Anwendung in Sport, Rehabilitation, Arbeit und Wirtschaft. [Mental practice: Fundamentals and application in sports, rehabilitation, business, and economy.] Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag
McIsaac, H. K., & Eich, E. (2004). Vantage point in traumatic memory. Psychological Science, 15, 248-253.
McNevin, N. H., Shea, C. H., & Wulf, G. (2003). Increasing the distance of an external focus of attention enhances learning. Psychological Research, 67, 22-29. doi: 10.1007/s00426-002-0093-6
Mesagno, C., Marchant, D., & Morris, T. (2008). A pre-performance routine to alleviate choking in “choking-susceptible” athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 439-457.
Meyers, A. W., Cooke, C. J., Cullen, J., & Liles, C. (1979). Psychological aspects of athletic competitors: A replication across sports. Cognitive Therapy and Research 3, 361 - 366.
Morris, T., Spittle, M., & Watt, A. (2005). Imagery in sport. Champaign, Ill.: Human Kinetics.
124
Mumford, B., & Hall, C. (1985). The effects of internal and external imagery on performing figures in figure scating. Canadian Journal of Applied Sports Science, 10(4), 171-177.
Munzert, J., Dültgen, K., & Möllmann, H. (2000). Individuelle Merkmale von Bewegungsvorstellungen. Eine explorative Untersuchung im Badminton. [Individual characteristics of movement thoughts. An exploratory study in badminton.] Psychologie und Sport, 7, 15-25.
Murphy, S. M. (1994). Imagery interventions in sport. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26, 486-494.
Nigro, G., & Neisser, U. (1983). Point of view in personal memories. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 467–482.
Oudejans, R. R. D., & Pijpers, J. R. (2010). Training with mild anxiety may prevent choking under higher levels of anxiety. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 43–50.
Pijpers, J. R., Oudejans, R. R. D., Holsheimer, F., & Bakker, F. C. (2003). Anxiety-performance relationships in climbing: A process-oriented approach. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 283-304.
Plessner, H., Unkelbach, C., Memmert, D., Baltes, A., & Kolb, A. (2009). Regulatory fit as a determinant of sport performance: How to succeed in a soccer penalty-shooting. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 108-115.
Poldrack, R. A., Clark, J., Pare-Blagoev, J., Shohamy, D., Creso Moyano, J., Myers, C., & Gluck, M. A. (2001). Interactive memory systems in the human brain. Nature, 414, 546-550.
Poldrack, R. A. & Packard, M. G. (2003). Competition between memory systems: Converging evidence from animal and human studies. Neuropsychologia, 41, 245-251.
Poolton, J., Maxwell, J. P. & Masters, R. S. W. (2004). Rules for Reinvestment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, 771-774.
Reeves, J. L., Tenenbaum, G., & Lidor, R. (2007). Choking in front of the goal: The effects of self-consciousness training. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5(3), 240-254.
Roberts ,R., Callow, N., Hardy, L., Markland, D., & Bringer, J. (2008). Movement imagery ability: Development and assessment of a revised version of the vividness of
125
movement imagery questionnaire. Journal of Sports and Exercise Psychology, 30, 200–221.
Robinson, J. A., & Swanson, K. L. (1993). Field and observer modes of remembering. Memory, 1, 169–184.
Smith, M. D., & Chamberlin, C. J. (1992). Effect of adding cognitively demanding tasks on soccer skill performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 955–961.
Spence, J. T., & Spence, K. W. (1966). The motivational components of manifest anxiety: Drive and drive stimuli. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene. R. E. (1970). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press
Stroud, L. R., Salovaey, P., & Epel, E. S. (2002). Sex differences in stress response: Social rejection versus achievement stress. Biological Psychiatry, 52, 318-327.
Tenenbaum, G., Lidor, R., & Reeves, J. (2007). Choking in front of the goal: The effects of self-consciousness training. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5, 240-254.
Ungerlinder, S., & Golding, J. (1991). Mental practice among Olympic athletes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 1007-1017.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15.
Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 660–671.
Vereijken, B., van Emmerik, R. E. A., Whiting, H. T. A. & Newell, K. M. (1992). Free(z)ing degrees of freedom in skill acquisition. Journal of Motor Behavior, 24, 133-142.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (2003). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology, (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Wells, A., Clark, D. M., Ahmad, S. (1998). How do I look in the mind’s eye: Perspective taking in social phobic imagery. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 631-634.
126
Wells, A., & Papageorgiou, C. (1998). Social phobia: Effects of external attention on anxiety, negative beliefs and perspective taking. Behavior Therapy, 29, 357–370.
Wells, A., & Papageorgiou, C. (1999).The observer perspective: Biased imagery in social phobia, agoraphobia, and blood/injury phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 653-658.
White, A. & Hardy, L. (1995). Use of different imagery perspectives on the learning and performance of different motor skills. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 169-180.
Wine, J. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 92-104.
Worthy, D. A., Markman, A. B., & Maddox, W. T. (2009). What is pressure? Evidence for social pressure as a type of regulatory focus. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 344-349.
Wulf, G., Hoeß, M., & Prinz, W. (1998). Instructions for motor learning: Differential effects of internal versus external focus of attention. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 169–179.
Wulf, G., Lauterbach, B., & Toole, T. (1999). Learning advantages of an external focus of attention in golf. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70, 120–126.
Wulf, G., McConnel, N., Gaertner, M, & Schwarz, A. (2002). Feedback and attentional focus: Enhancing the learning of sport skills through external-focus feedback. Journal of Motor Behavior, 34, 171–182
Wulf, G., McNevin, N. H., & Shea, C. H. (2001). The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 1143–1154.
Wulf, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). Directing attention to movement effects enhances learning: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 648-660.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459-482.