Choking in Sports Essay

In 2007, Reeves, Tenenbaum, and Lidor conducted research in order to study what causes talented athletes to often fail to perform to the best of their abilities when placed under stressful situations. The purpose of the study was to discover whether athletes who participate in self-consciousness training adapt to pressure situations better than players who do not. To measure this, the researchers examined â€Å"choking† during kicking a soccer ball with participants of two different skill levels, low-skill and high-skill. The participants had to complete two different tasks, kicking a soccer penalty and a breakaway. They were placed under two pressure situations, both low and high, and the experimenters also had three different training conditions – single task, dual task, and self-consciousness. The high-skill players were members of a NCAA Division 1 women’s soccer team at a southeastern, United States university with at least ten years playing experience. There were 18 participants in the high-skill group ranging from 18 to 22 years of age. The low-skill players were junior varsity girl soccer players from two southeastern high schools. There were 19 participants in this group, ranging from age 14 to age 16. All of these participants were randomly assigned to one of the three training conditions. On the first day of the experiment, participants were told the purpose of the study and were asked to fill out performance information sheets as well as sign informed consents. Participants then warmed up and began performing the simple task of penalty kicks under low-pressure conditions. Before each kick, participants filled out the part of the psychological grid for that kick, and then performed the task. On the second day, the participants were split into two teams and told they would be competing for a prize. They were told that their competition would be videotaped and that a sports psychologist would evaluate their mental performance in front of the goal. The psychological grid was again filled out before each penalty kick. On the third day, the participants completed the complex task (breakaways) under low pressure conditions. On the fourth day, participants were told that the competition involving penalty kicks was unfair and that the competition needed to be replayed but with breakaways. The researchers found that choking occurred in the simple task of penalty kicks, but not in the more difficult task of breakaways. Also, the single-task and dual-task treatments experienced a decrease in performance under high-pressure situations. Meanwhile, participants who underwent self-consciousness training improved their performance under high-pressure situations. Reeves et al. used a repeated measure ANOVA with skill level and treatment as between-subjects factors and pressure condition and task complexity as within-subjects repeated measures on perceived pressure. This ANOVA was used to check for the effect of pressure on the participants, and a significant effect was found (F (1,31) = 32. 32, p < . 001). Repeated measures ANOVAs were also used to assess performance and perceived performance during the shooting tasks. There was a significant interaction of task difficulty and pressure condition on performance such that participants performed the simple task better under low-pressure (M = 12. 63, SD = 3. 35) than under high pressure (M = 11. 17, SD = 3. 24). However, they also found that the more difficult task was performed equally well under low- (M = 11. 08, SD = 2. 64) and high-pressure (M = 11. 25, SD = 2. 90) conditions. A significant interaction was also found between pressure condition and treatment as they affect performance. Participants in the dual-task treatment suffered decreases in performance when shifting from low- to high-pressure situations, whereas participants in the self-consciousness treatment group increased performance. The single-task treatment had the highest decreases in performance from low- to high-pressure situations. Significant interactions were also found between skill level and treatment condition such that low-skill players given self-consciousness and dual task training perceived their performance as higher than those in the single-task condition. However, high-skill players in the self-consciousness treatment perceived their performance as being lowest of all three treatments. Yet another analysis of the data showed a significant interaction between pressure and treatment on perceived arousal and pleasantness levels. One limitation of this particular study is that it only examined the effects of high pressure situations in female soccer players. Although this study did account for differences in skill level, players of a different sport may have had dissimilar results. Also, there may be gender differences when it comes to choking during performance. The authors discussed the possible limitations of this study in the discussion section. There it says, â€Å"Further explanation of what constitutes a simple and complex task under pressure situations and of the ability to generalize to other task types is needed to enhance our understanding of the choking phenomenon. The researchers go on to say that there was no significant difference in skill level shown. The results reported by the experimenters and the discussion section did seem to be consistent in their findings. Using the statistical analysis and results from the ANOVAs, the researchers explained what they found using previous theories on choking in high pressure situations. The results of this study supported the explicit monitoring theory to explain choking under pressure in proceduralized skills. On the other hand, distraction theories explain choking under pressure in cognitive skills. Both of these conclusions were supported by data in the results section of the paper. This study not only has implications for athletes, but for everyday life as well. Athletes should be aware of the pressure they are experiencing in different situations and be able to regulate their arousal when necessary. If an athlete is facing a difficult task under high pressure conditions, they should consider undergoing self-consciousness training to help increase their performance. Similarly, if a student is studying for an extremely difficult exam that will determine whether they pass or fail a course, they should use self-consciousness training to help them obtain the best grade possible. For simple tasks, both athletes and students should realize that being under an increased amount of pressure can result in lower performance. Therefore, when completing mundane tasks, athletes and students alike should decrease their arousal and be under as little pressure as possible to achieve optimum performance. In a study by Wang in 2004, researchers were examining â€Å"dispositional self-consciousness and trait anxiety as predictors of choking in sport. Sixty-six basketball players completed the Self-Consciousness Scale and the Sport Anxiety Scale prior to completing 20 free throws in low-pressure and high-pressure conditions. A manipulation check showed that participants experienced significantly higher levels of state anxiety in the high-pressure condition. A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses supported the hypothesis that self-conscious athletes were more susceptible to choking under pressure. The best predictors of choking were private self-consciousness and somatic trait anxiety that together accounted for 35% of the explained variance. † If one is self-conscious, they are putting themselves under even more pressure than the situation at hand already is. Therefore, these athletes are already at a disadvantage when it comes to reaching optimum performance. The best athletes in the world have no trouble stepping onto the biggest stage and performing well on a consistent basis. Also, in terms of choking, another factor that seems to be important is how high one’s approach motivation is. Choking is the concept that one performs worse than expected in a situation that carries great importance. This is Michael Jordan hitting a game winner in game six, or Mr. October Reggie Jackson going yard to give the Yankees the lead, or even a young intern at the FBI figuring out the biggest case of his life that makes his career; except it’s not. Choking is bricking that shot, grounding out to the second baseman, and having someone else figure out your case for you and thus getting your promotion. Recent questions have been raised about the major causes of choking. Some believe that â€Å"motivation to avoid failure often may predict choking under pressure† (Jordet 2008). â€Å"In achievement motivation theories, avoidance motivation typically refers to behavior directed by negatively valenced events, whereas approach motivation refers to behavior directed by positively valenced events† (Jordet 2008). People who avoid failure often get worried more and are more likely to perform poorly (choking). People who approach it, are often more confident and have less anxiety and thus, tend to have better performance (Dweck 1988). In this study, the researchers hypothesized that, â€Å"elite performers who are in negative valence situations engage in avoidance behaviors and these behaviors may contribute to low performance† (Jordet 2008). This study uses the high pressure situation of a penalty kick in a soccer match to fill the gap in knowledge on real-world choking. A penalty kick occurs when two teams are tied after two overtime periods. Especially in big games such as the World Cup final, these shots are very high pressure moments. Studies on these shots suggest that the more important the shot, the worse people performed because of elevated stress and anxiety levels. Researchers for the current study hypothesized that players in negatively valenced situations would attempt evading the situation, while players with positively valenced shots would take their time to look at the goal keeper, line up their shot, and take the necessary time to prepare. The negatively valenced shots would have their back turned to the goal keeper and would get the shot over with as quickly as possible (Jordet 2008). The results of this study showed that whether one takes an approach or avoidance motivation can have an effect on whether professional athletes choke under high pressure situations. They found that soccer players especially tended to use avoidance behavior and thus made 30% less shots than with the positively valenced shots (Jordet 2008). Despite prior research that suggested that professionals who choked tended to take longer to shoot, the present study found that the athletes who shot quickly actually performed worse. There are two possible situations. Either, through hurrying up, the athlete is able to time their shot and put it where they want, or they rush their preparation and don’t focus in enough on where they need to place the ball and can therefore choke. Jordet states that more research needs to be done on the relationship between dreading the shot, waiting to shoot, and the result or performance on the shot. Researchers in this study included a neutrally valenced condition in which they found it was most related to the negatively valenced condition. Therefore they concluded that athletes in the positively valenced group simply strive under pressure i. Michael Jordan, etc. Jordan approached failure face to face and more often than not came away successful as a result. It is all dependent on what sort of success and patterns a player has developed over his or her career (Dweck 1988). If a player shows a pattern of stepping up and hitting a key shot, you can expect that he or she will perform better on a big stage because they are self-confident. If I were to perform further research on this subject, I would first attempt to create a model that would help explain the complex reasons for choking while performing tasks during different situations. This would help other teachers, coaches, and researchers use this information to foster the highest level of performance in athletes and others. Another possible direction for these findings is to have three conditions in a study, one in which a participant completes a proceduralized task, one for a cognitive task, and one for a task that is both cognitive and proceduralized. Using this design, I would be able to examine if the two theories interact or if they are separate. Another possible direction for research is to see if low-, moderate-, or high-skilled players are more likely to choke under pressure rather than simply studying the choking habits of just elite athletes. Finally, a personality psychologist could assess if different personality dispositions make an athlete more or less likely to choke than others. With further research and increased understanding of the choking phenomenon, sports psychologists could discover a technique to help decrease the chances of choking under high-pressure situations. This could help improve athletes’ confidence, self-esteem, and performance while competing.