Psych - Anxiety + Attention Flashcards
(67 cards)
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