Choking under pressure in sensorimotor skills: Conscious processing or depleted attentional resources?

Gucciardi, Daniel F.; Dimmock, James A.

doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.10.007

Cited by 127 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

115

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Choking under pressure was significantly reduced when participants verbalised a single global cue word (swing thought). In a recent study it was also shown that a swing thought condition reduced choking under pressure [4].…”

Section: Self-focus Explanations For Choking In Sensorimotor Skillsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The instructional set included rules and metaphors for basic position and swing phases as well as instructions for error corrections as this is an important aspect when learning the golf swing. On the whole, there were nine technical instructions and associated metaphors for basic position, split into grip position (4), pressure on the grip (1) and posture (4). For the different phases of the swing there were 21 technical rules and related metaphors, separated into backswing (12), downswing (5) contact (2) and position of golf club head (2).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4]. Distraction theories suppose that pressure creates a distracting environment that shifts attention away from skill execution to task irrelevant cues, for example, worries about the situation [e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Learning by Analogies: Implications for Performance and Attentional Processes Under Pressure

Schücker¹,

Ebbing²,

Hagemann³

2010

Human Movement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. According to the self-focus theory of choking under pressure, conscious control of automated processes leads to a disruption of movement execution and deterioration in performance. In this study we examined whether analogy learning is a method to prevent choking under pressure. Basic procedures. Novice golfers learned the full swing over a period of six weeks either in a traditional way with technical instructions or with analogy instructions. Their performances were assessed in an indoor golf simulator. Attentional processes were measured using a dual task paradigm. Different kinds of learning instructions are linked to measures of skill-focused attention under low and high pressure conditions. Main findings. Performance scores in the dual task show that pressure leads to an increase in skill-focused attention of the technical learning group, compared to a decrease in skill-focused attention of the analogy learning group. Conclusions. Attentional processes under pressure are related to the method (analogy vs. technical instructions) implemented in the learning phase.key words: motor learning, implicit learning, attentional processes Unauthenticated Download Date | 5/12/18 11:04 AM

show abstract

Section: Self-focus Explanations For Choking In Sensorimotor Skillsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Learning by Analogies: Implications for Performance and Attentional Processes Under Pressure

Schücker¹,

Ebbing²,

Hagemann³

2010

Human Movement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note 1. Although in the recent choking literature the umbrella term used is ''self-focus'' theories (Gucciardi & Dimmock, 2008;Jackson et al, 2006;Mesagno et al, 2008Mesagno et al, , 2009Wilson, 2008), it is an attentional focus on the skill that is assumed to occur under pressure and to be the starting point of choking, whether the eventual cause is just the attention to skill execution (explicit monitoring) or the conscious control of the skill (cf. Jackson et al, 2006).…”

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To date it has repeatedly been shown that adopting such a skill-focus of attention 1 impairs expert performance (e.g., Baumeister, 1984;Beilock & Carr, 2001;Gray, 2004;Gucciardi & Dimmock, 2008;Jackson et al, 2006;Liao & Masters, 2002;Mullen & Hardy, 2000;Mullen, Hardy, & Tattersall, 2005;. Therefore, Beilock and Gray (2007) concluded that there is compelling evidence that in the perceptual-motor domain choking is caused by explicit monitoring or conscious control of the execution of the skill.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%