Psych - Anxiety + Attention Flashcards
Define ‘Choking’ in sport - state author and date
The occurrence of inferior performance despite striving and incentives for superior performance - Baumeister, 1986
- these athletes are highly motivated to achieve and therefore it cannot be explained by lack of motivation, ability or random fluctuations in performance
Study on choking - interviewing baseball players asking them ‘what are the most pressured situations during a game’
- state author, date and results (effect on batting average)
Davis + Harvey (1992)
1st pressure situation - termed ‘2-out pressure’
- this is when a team has 1/2 people out on bases and third batter hits, trying not to run out teammates resulting in 2 people out
- found batting average was worse for all 26 teams
2nd pressure situation - ‘late innings pressure’
- when coming towards end of innings (2 batters out with one left), then this is a high pressure
- batting average was worse for 20/26 teams
Study on choking - looking into what pressures correspond to scores in any of the sets in tennis matches
Give a bit more detail on what the study looked at, the author + date and results
Cohen + Zada et al (2017)
Looked at 1016 Grand Slam matches and modelled effect of pressure on likelihood of break of serve (score in set and observed if the player won or lost serve and the impact of this on the set)
Results…
- as you get towards end of set - whether you win or lose serve has much larger effect on outcome of set than if 2/3 games up
- its not an all or none thing - whilst games at end of set are higher pressure, there’s still a gradual increase in pressure across all game scenarios
- additionally a good relationship between pressure associated with game score and probability of serve being broken (4.9% increase per 0.01 pressure increment for men and 2.8% for women)
What is the stress process?
McGrath (1970) set out 4 stages of a ‘stress process’
- Environmental demand - physical or psychological
- Individuals perception of environmental demand - amount of ‘threat’ perceived
- Stress response - arousal, state anxiety, muscle tension etc
- Behavioural consequences - performance / outcome
Stress Process study - muscle tension as a direct effect of pressure
Author and date, extra info + results
Senta, Ushiba + Takemi (2024)
Participants sat in front of a computer + pushed lever to aim to get this ball inside a certain zone - period of learning before increasing reward for each trial
Some did better under highest reward however some did worse (50/50 split) however what was muscle tension relationship?
- change in performance under pressure correlated with change in co-contraction
- group that did worse had highest co-contraction on those trials (muscle tension is driving this performance)
- also correlated almost perfectly with activation of SNS
Describe the Theory of Challenge and Threat States in Athletes (TCTSA)
Jones, Meijen, McCarthy + Sheffield (2009)
Challenge and threat are motivational states that reflect how an individual engages in a personally meaningful situation - includes cognitive, affective + physiological components
- Coping potential by individual is determined by appraisal or situational demands + personal resources to cope with it
Explain further what challenge and threat states are - responses etc (TCTSA)
Challenge states - increased Q, decreased BP (total peripheral resistance), positive valence, approach strategies
Threat states - smaller increase in Q, increased BP, negative valence, avoidance strategies
- these can be manipulated in research through different wording of instructions which creates different responses
TCTSA - students had to throw a bean bag at a target from 6m away
Provide more detail on what they did, author + date and results
Turner et al (2014)
Researchers manipulated the instructions for each group…
1. Challenge group - emphasised you should feel confident in situation (manipulated self-efficacy, approach focus + sense of control)
2. Threat group - emphasised you shouldn’t feel confident (manipulated same things)
- challenge group had an increased Q compared to threat group (which slightly decreased)
- threat group had much higher total peripheral resistance (BP) whereas challenge group decreased
- challenge group did better (94.6 pts vs 85.7)
What is the Contingency-Competence-Control Model?
Jones, Meijen, McCarthy + Sheffield (2009)
Emphasises the importance of perceived control + competence on performance, where an athletes perception of control sig. influences their ability to adapt under pressure
- essentially perceived control is a product of perceived outcome contingency + competence
CCC Model - 10 people who took part in penalty shootout + asked them to rate themselves on 3 questions
- provide more detail - author + date (no results)
Jordet et al (2006)
- Contingency Q - what % of outcome is dependent on chance + what % on skill?
- Competence Q - rate skill in taking penalties from 1-10
- Control Q - what extent do you expect to score (0-10) and what extent do you expect to cope with stress (0-10)
CCC Study on penalty shootout (Jordet 2006)
Describe the results
Perceived control is a product of perceived outcome contingency + competence
- the more contingent on skill/ability, the more facilitative the interpretation of cognitive anxiety than if believe shootout is more contingent on luck
- experience less somatic anxiety as well
- If rated higher in competence - will experience less cognitive anxiety + what is experienced will be interpreted as facilitative
Describe what Carver + Scheier (1981) said on attentional processes
If an early stage learner and using a lot of attentional resources on task itself, then they will have relatively limited capacity to do anything else
- even harder if there’s a cognitive component alongside motor task
- however, as skill develops then there is more attentional resource for headroom
Describe the Processing Efficiency Theory briefly
Eysenck (1992)
Suggests that to some extent - you can increase the amount of mental effort on a central task and this will maintain performance for a while (can hinder processing efficiency)
What’s the key prediction of the Processing Efficiency Theory
Key prediction is that there is no simple relationship between anxiety + performance as first thing that will decrease is efficiency of performance, not the performance itself
- may try harder to achieve same level of performance
- this is less effective for tasks that require more attentional processes + for performers that already use lots of attentional resources
- High trait anxious have more processing than low trait
PET - volleyball performance over a season (assessing trait anxiety, in game anxiety, mental effort, set criticality, momentum + performance analysis
Author + date and results
Smith et al (2001)
all players expended more mental effort in critical / closer sets which impaired processing efficiency (for both high and low anxious individuals)
- high anxious = higher ratings of mental effort
- high anxious players performed worse but low trait anxious performed better in closer sets
PET - student who could drive doing a rally simulation task under high and low pressure (different rewards etc)
Author + date and results
Wilson et al (2007)
under pressure…
- low trait anxious group increased mental effort a bit and high trait anxious increased a lot more
completion times…
- low anxious group had slightly slower times and high anxious increased a lot
PET + attention narrowing - central and secondary task on a racing simulator
explain what this study did + what would attention narrowing suggest would happen? (no results)
Janelle et al (1999)
central task - Indy 500 racing simulator under increasing pressure (control = thought they were just practicing whole time and pressure group underwent familiarisation, practice + competition)
secondary task - light would turn on 4 times per lap, if red = respond (by pressing lever on wheel) and if green = don’t respond
attentional narrowing would suggest that the got worse at secondary task as pressure increases (as central task is what the reward is based on)
PET + attention narrowing - central and secondary task on a racing simulator
Results
Janelle et al (1999)
- The anxiety group had 4x as many exogenous saccades to peripheral conditions (=impaired efficiency)
- response times to red lights increased in competition phase
- overall lap times decreased (=impaired performance)
What is the Attentional Control Theory?
Eysenck et al (2007)
there are 2 attentional control ‘theories’
1. goal-directed - influenced by knowledge, expectations + goals (deliberate + effortful attention)
2. stimulus driven - influenced by threat-related stimuli (automatic attention)
What is the effect of anxiety on performance (Attentional Control Theory)
Anxiety supresses the ‘top-down’ processing
- as this draws more on working memory resources + is hard to do when taken up with stress
- anxiety will increase attention to threat-stimuli and reduce influence of higher-level cognitive processes
Anxiety + visual attention in experts (before ACT was developed) - expert karate players had to respond to life-size videos of an opponent under low and high anxiety
Author + date and results
Williams + Elliott (1999)
Anxiety increased frequency of fixations to peripheral (threat-related stimuli)
- Arm/fist and feet
- more looking between chest to arm/fist and head to arm/fist (whereas before was more between head and chest)
accuracy was maintained under high anxiety conditions
Attention to threat-related stimuli (ACT) - observing if GK was the biggest threat to performers doing a penalty (as surely they would be as they’re the ones saving it)
Author + date and results
Wilson, Wood + Vine (2009)
created a pressure situation (£50, leaderboard circulated etc)
- 26% more fixations + 56% more fixation time on GK
- quicker / earlier fixation on GK
- kicks ended 14cm closer to centre of goal = decreased performance
Distraction by threat-related stimuli (ACT) - looked at 322 shoot-out kicks across 2 major championships. Observing if players are more distracted under pressure
Author + date and results
Furley, Noel + Memmert (2017)
- GK made more saves when they used distraction (27% vs 17% when they didnt)
- Fewer goals when the kicker looked towards (74%) rather than away from GK (86%)
How has ACT been extended into sport?
Extended to include ongoing appraisals that affect anxiety (Harris et al, 2021)
- new bit is to say that level of anxiety experienced is affected by ongoing assessment of cost of failure + perceived probability of failure
- probability of failure is driven by errors made in a game (if just made an error, pressure situation will feel even worse) = additive effect
ACT in sport - 650,000 points across 12 tennis Grand Slams - looking at ‘what’s the pressure of this point?’ and ‘has player just made an unforced error or not?’
Author + date and results
Harris et al (2021)
- Greater pressure = higher chance of making unforced error
- higher chance of making an error just after an unforced error (compound / additive effect)
What are the 3 self-focus theories?
- Self-consciousness
- Reinvestment Theory
- Explicit Monitoring
Explain the self-consciousness theory
Baumeister (1984)
Under pressure, a person realises consciously that it is important to execute the behaviour correctly. This emphasises feelings of anxiety + fear of evaluation leading to choking under pressure
Self-consciousness theory
What can happen during critical moments?
It can lead to overemphasis on movement mechanics, further affecting performance negatively
- stuff that is usually automatic is now being questioned = not good for motor skills
Explain the reinvestment theory (author + date)
Masters + Maxwell (2004)
Reinvestment occurs when individuals use explicit, conscious knowledge under pressure to control motor movements that are normally governed by implicit, automatic processes
- this disrupts the automaticity of performance leading to breakdown / choking
What happens under pressure with regards to reinvestment theory?
Explicit instructions are given when learning skills (as beginners) and over time as we get better at them, it becomes easier and vast instructions are cut out (implicit memory system)
- under pressure, it is seen that we revert to long list of instructions
Explain what explicit monitoring is (author)
Beilock et al (2001)
Focuses specifically on heightened attention to the execution of movements under pressure - interfers with fluidity of well-learned motor skills
- experts don’t usually require all steps + vast instructions as are more automatic and have adopted ‘shortcuts’ that allow this, so focusing on explicit instructions can be harmful
Self-focus study - good hockey players asked to complete a dribble course between cones under a variety of conditions
Explain further these conditions
Jackson, Ashford + Norsworthy (2006)
- control (no tone sounded)
- skill focused - reported whether left hand was in supine or prone position (by saying ‘up’ or ‘down’) each time tone sounded
- dual task - had to report a random letter of alphabet each time tone sounded (same variable time interval of 6 secs) as in skill-focused task
Self-focus study - good hockey players asked to complete a dribble course between cones under a variety of conditions
Author + date and results
Jackson, Ashford + Norsworthy (2006)
- larger effect of pressure in higher reinvesters (slowed them down in dribble task)
- additive effect - doing extra task made them slower but it didn’t inoculate them to pressure (still got worse + felt pressure)
- doing dual task - everybody did better! (skilled players were faster when doing dual task compared to control)
Self-focus study - basketball study on 3 point shots
Author, date, what players, results
Lidor, Lipshits, Arnon + Bar-Eli (2021)
Looked into 97 Israeli Div 1 players and asked - would you prefer a contested or uncontested 3pt shot?
- 93% of players and 100% coaches preference for uncontested
- but players showed that they were TWICE as successful on contested shots
What are the 3 key TCTSA-related interventions?
- Focus on appraisal of demands
- Focus on appraisal of resources
- Use language that emphasises self-efficacy, perceived control + approach behaviour
Reframing the task study - 46 novice climbers completing a 10m climbing task (vertical, 3m wide sport climbing route)
Explain the study
Turner et al (2014)
2 groups of individuals - a ‘challenge’ and a ‘threat’ group
Challenge…
1. ‘You can feel confident you will be able to climb effectively’ (self-efficacy)
2.’You have control over skill required to climb wall’ (Control)
3. ‘Try your best to stay on wall + get as high as you can’ (approach behaviour)
Threat…
1. ‘You obviously can’t be sure you will climb effectively’ (self-efficacy)
2. ‘How well you do on task may be related to factors outside of your control’
3. ‘Try your best not to fall off wall at any point’ (avoidance behaviour)
Reframing the task study - 46 novice climbers completing a 10m climbing task (vertical, 3m wide sport climbing route)
Results
Challenge…
- Slightly higher ratings of self-efficacy + control
- Higher Q reactivity
- Lower total peripheral resistance reactivity (BP)
Threat…
- slightly higher ratings of excitement, happiness + helpfulness of emotion
- lower Q reactivity
- Higher BP
study shows that just having these 1min video instructions led to ‘challenge’ and ‘threat’ states
How can a task be framed positively?
Focus on what to do rather than what not to do
- consistent with TCTSA and theory of ironic effects
Describe the Ironic Process Theory
Wegner (1994)
Explains why efforts to suppress certain thoughts or actions under pressure can lead to the paradoxical occurrence of those very thoughts or actions. Due to 2 processes occurring…
- Intentional Operating process - conscious effort to distract oneself + direct attention away (more effort placed on thought, less control one has)
- Monitoring process - subconscious mechanism that scans for undesired thought to ensure it’s avoided (requires attention on thought + therefore increases mental effort)
What is the key prediction surrounding Ironic Process Theory (when anxious / secondary task is introduced)
Conscious monitoring process will be impaired when anxious / ironic monitoring process becomes relatively stronger when secondary task is introduced due to limited attentional capacity
Then start thinking about thoughts + emotions associated with performance (become more dominant so start doing what we didn’t want to do)
Ironic effects study: 40 male hockey players, shooting from edge of circle whereby anxiety was manipulated
Explain study
Woodman, Barlow + Gorgulu (2015)
Aim was to hit in right 1/4 of goal (1pt), avoid missing to right (ironic error zone = -1pt) and get 0 points for hitting anywhere else in goal (not in right 1/4)
Ironic effects study: 40 male hockey players, shooting from edge of circle whereby anxiety was manipulated
Provide the results
The proportion of ironic errors increased under high anxiety
- Non-ironic errors were unaffected
Low anxiety condition - had a more conservative measure (so aimed more to non-ironic error zone)
High anxiety condition - more shots towards zone specifically told to avoid (ironic error zone)
Ironic effects + reinvestment study: 24 experienced baseball pitchers doing 30 baseball pitches in 2 conditions
Explain the study
Gray, Orn + Woodman (2017)
2 conditions…
1) pitching towards black target (told batter had low batting average = +1) - 0 points for hitting other 3 white quadrants
2) same idea but also had one red target (told batter had high batting average for avoid = -1pt)
- manipulated anxiety via competition, prize, evaluation apprehension etc
Ironic effects + reinvestment study: 24 experienced baseball pitchers doing 30 baseball pitches in 2 conditions
What are the results?
Gray, Orn + Woodman (2017)
Ironic + Target only groups - both did worse in pressure situation by 20%
Ironic display group - increased number of pitches to red zone (zone to avoid) by 300%
Target only group misses were equally distributed across other 3 areas (white quadrants)
What can athletes do to cope with pressure better?
Try to create pressure training to decrease gap between what’s experienced during high level competition and during training
- gives an athlete the opportunity to learn / practice self-regulation skills (imagery, pre-shot routines…)
Pressure / Acclimation training: 5 week interventions doing 9 sessions x10 extra free-throws post training on 17 basketball players whereby they were exposed to pressure
Results
Oudejans + Pipers (2009)
Anxiety manipulation didn’t create high levels of anxiety - may have been seen as ‘fun’
- after intervention, change in anxiety in pressure situation was the same
- However, performance was much better after intervention for anxiety manipulation group (control group were consistently 5% worse under pressure)
so in summary - there was no change in anxiety experienced (still experienced same level) but performance effects improved (so they learnt to cope with anxiety)
The language of lottery - nurturing threat + avoidance
Explain the study on penalty kicks
Can language affect perceptions of competency-contingency-control?
Is language more likely to promote a challenge or a threat state?
Jackson et al…
- end of extra time period was identified as largest source of stressors (35) compared to the wait, the walk and the penalty spot
- almost half of these stressors related to uncertainty over penalty takers and kick order
Researchers conducted a large statistical study on the effect of context on kick + shootout success
explain the results
Apesteguia + Palacios-Heurta (2010)
Looked at 269 shootouts observing 2820 kicks…
- Team kicking first won 60.2% of shootouts
- If kicked first + scored = twice as likely to win the shootout than team kicking second (67 vs 33%)
What are pre-performance routines?
They are a sequence of task-relevant thoughts + actions which an athlete engages in systematically prior to his or her performance of a specific sports skill (Moran, 1996)
What types of skills are pre-performance routines often used for?
Self paced skills - gives you time to think (how can this become consistent?)
Stationary target - nothing is changing (lots of cognitive space available but this can be filled with anything)
Self-regulation challenges
Skills highly automated - so low demands on attentional resources (more potential for distractions)
Pre-performance routines (is routine consistency important?)
Observing 12 LPGA tour professionals - measuring routine time, practice swings + glances to target for full shots and putts
explain results
Crews + Boucher, 1987
Experts had longer routine times for full shots
- routine behaviours differed for full shots + putts (practice swings)
- higher ranked players = 20.7secs vs 14.4 secs
All golfers ‘remarkably consistent’ with regard to time + behavioural actions
- behavioural actions - YES
- BUT for time, SD was +/-4secs - is that remarkable?
Pre-performance routine - expert vs beginner golfers tested on 4ft + 12ft putts measuring routine time, conc time, practice swings + glances to target
Explain Results
Boucher + Zinsser (1990)
Experts routines were more consistent than beginners
- experts - longer, more complex but 13/15 ‘non-analytical’ focus on single cues (simple cues)
- beginners - focused on multiple analytical thoughts
experts also had greater HR deceleration (longer inter-beat intervals) in few secs before putt
Pre-performance routines - 224 male and female varsity + intramural basketball players on free-throws measuring intra-individual routine time consistency
explain results
Wrisberg + Pein (1992)
- Variability across players but better players were more ‘internally’ consistent
- Players who were better essentially had more consistent routines (SDs were lower) than worse players (independent of routine times)
Is it the duration or rhythmicity that impairs performance?
8 female players (varsity level) in which duration + temporal patterning of routine behaviours was disrupted
What were their expectations?
Southard + Miracle (1993)
Expected that slowing routine down (takes twice as long) should decimate performance (if routine time is important)
And expected that speeding up routine time (takes half the time), that too should decimate performance
Is it the duration or rhythmicity that impairs performance?
8 female players (varsity level) in which duration + temporal patterning of routine behaviours was disrupted
What did they find?
Southard + Miracle (1993)
They found that varying the rhythm (changing bounce of ball) is the only one that caused that deterioration in performance
- it may have caused a secondary task = more cognitively demanding
Routine times + rhythm - 14 NBA playoff games (272 free-throws) from 15 players
They identified dominant pre-shot routine of each player and took time +/- 1SD for ‘brief’ and ‘long’ conditions
Explain results
Lonsdale + Tam (2008)
- 81.6% success when ‘brief’
- 81.8% success when ‘regular’
- 78.4% success when ‘long’
So time difference did not change success rate
Then identified each players dominant behavioural routine and compared usual followed vs not-followed
- usual sequence = 83.8%
- Not followed but behaviour added = 62.5%
- Not followed but order changed = 61.5%
- Not followed but behaviour omitted (removing) = 85.2%
Do routines vary with task-difficulty?
what did they expect + do?
Jackson + Baker (2001)
If routine consistency is functionally sig. then expect no (routine itself is linked to habitual execution) BUT if routine has an attentional function then performer is likely to be affected by harder tasks (as purpose is to guide focus + manage cognitive resources which become overloaded)
Changed kicking angle of rugby kicks
Do routines vary with task difficulty?
Explain results
Jackson + Baker (2001)
Conc time increased by 50% from easy to difficult kicks
- however player thought his times were all the same
- from easy to easy-intermediate = difference in time was not much different
Physical prep time also massively increased as task difficulty did
Explain Singer’s 5 Step Strategy + study
72 students aiming to hit bullseye on a ‘bounce ball task’ using awareness, non-awareness or 5-step strategy
- Ready - prepare for act - think positively
- Image - briefly mentally picture performing act
- Focus - focus on meaningful cues
- Execute - with a quiet mind (don’t think about act itself)
- Evaluate - if time permits, use available feedback to assess performance outcome
Results of Singers 5 step strategy (1993)
Radial error was higher for control and awareness group
much better performance for non-awareness (only focus + execute) and 5-step strategy groups
- this suggests that structured mental strategies, especially those that minimise conscious attention during execution, can improve motor learning and performance
What is Quiet Eye?
Is there differences between experts + novices?
The final fixation on the target before initiation of movement (Vickers, 1996)
- Longer QE for better players
- Longer QE for more successful performers
What happens during QE period?
- Performer processes task-relevant environmental cues
- QE is associated with amount of motor programming required for successful aiming
- QE may stimulate the ‘goal-directed’ system (ACT), restoring balance (when anxious)
QE study - Billiards study changing difficulty of shots and whether shot were successful or not
Williams, Singer + Frehlich (2002)
- Participants who had a longer quiet eye period (a steady gaze on the target before executing the shot) performed better and showed greater accuracy in their shots
- This allowed the player to better prepare both mentally and physically for the task
Same pattern is observed for unsuccessful shots (just shorter in duration + less of a gap between skilled + unskilled)
Can QE be trained? - study on 22 high skilled golfers underwent QE training whereby they were given feedback + instructions on eye gaze in relation of elites
Explain rest of study
Vine, Moore, Wilson (2011)
They did 3ft and 10ft putts under high and low pressure
told - ‘the final fixation should be on back of ball and should occur before stroke begins, lasting 2-3secs)
Can QE be trained? - study on 22 high skilled golfers underwent QE training whereby they were given feedback + instructions on eye gaze in relation of elites
results
Vine, Moore, Wilson (2011)
QE trained group improved on retention test + on pressure test
- control group decreased performance in pressure test + worse in retention test
Pressure did increase anxiety in both groups - but QE could better manage it
- QE trained group maintained performance even under pressure
- QE trained group had 2 less putts per round
Can interventions work for pre-performance routines? - study on 60 experienced AFL players completing 20x30m kicks (under high + low pressures)
what were the interventions?
Mesagno + Mullane-Grant (2010)
- Extensive PPR
- Just 3 deep breaths
- Cue word
- Timing (verbal countdown)
- Control (did nothing)
Can interventions work for pre-performance routines? - study on 60 experienced AFL players completing 20x30m (under high + low pressures)
What were the results?
Mesagno + Mullane-Grant (2010)
All interventions improved scores under pressure
Extensive PPR improved the most
