Topics: Cognitive Appraisal, Choking
Impacted domains: All athletes and performers
Researchers: Lee J. Moore , Mark R. Wilson , Samuel J. Vine , Adam H. Coussens , and Paul Freeman
Intro
Every coach has witnessed it.
Two athletes with equal skill. Both in the same high-pressure situation. Yet, when things get tough, one keeps their nerves and the other one “chokes,” or “bottles it,” or just can’t perform.
For years, we’ve defined this as some elusive individual trait that some have… and others don’t. Some people just have the x-factor, according to popular coaching and sporting convention.
However, research in the Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology suggests that this difference between those who execute well under pressure and those who don’t is driven by how an athlete evaluates the situation.
The key concept
According to the Biopsychosocial Model, an athlete’s response to stress is due how they see two factors:
Situational demands: the athlete thinks, “How difficult is the task? What are the stakes at play here to me personally and as an athlete?”
Personal coping resources: the athlete thinks, “Do I have the skills, know-how, and support to meet this demands?”
When an athlete believe their resources meet or exceed the demands, they enter a challenge state. But when they believe the demands outweigh the resources… they can fall into threat state. While the shifts are subtle, the research shows that they can create vastly different physiological and psychological realities for the athlete.
What did researchers do?
Moore et al. (2013) conducted two studies to see how these states—challenge vs. threat—impacted performance in experienced golfers.
Study 1 (real competition): In 199 experienced golfers competing int heir club championships, researchers found that pre-performance evaluations significantly predicted scores. Golfers who evaluated the upcoming competition as a challenge—meaning they felt they could cope—shot lower than those who viewed it as a threat. (For the non-golf readers, lower scores are better in golf.)
Study 2 (experiment): 60 golfers were randomly assigned to “challenge” or “threat” groups. The “challenge” group was instructed that the putting task was an opportunity, that they were more than capable, and that they could walk away with some money. The “threat” group on the other hand were told that the putting task was difficult and that they would be video-recorded.
There you have it: the “challenge” group significantly outperformed the “threat” group, successfully sinking a higher percentage of putts and landing the ball closer with each stroke!
Mechanics: why a “challenge” appraisal is better
All of this seems too good to be true—but there are specific psychological and physiological mechanisms at play. This study identified 4 key areas where the challenge group had advantages over those who viewed it as a threat.
Improved physiology: a challenge state triggers a more efficient cardiovascular response. The heart pumps more blood (higher cardiac output) and blood vessels dilate, allowing more oxygen and energy to reach the brain and muscles. In contrast, a threat state in an athlete can cause blood vessels to constrict—the athlete has to work harder and is less efficient.
Facilitation: both groups had some “anxiety” but they interpreted it differently. The challenge group reported less cognitive (mind) and somatic (body) anxiety, and, importantly, viewed their nerves as “facilitative.” In other words, as normal reactions and as fuel for performance. The threat group? They thought their nerves were a sign they were going to fail.
Quiet eye: Using eye-tracking technology, researchers found that athletes in a challenge state had significantly longer “Quiet Eye” durations. In sport psychology, Quiet Eye is the final fixation that athletes make before the skill begins. Threatened athletes had more frantic eye movement before putting—leading to poorer execution.
Reduced “Conscious Processing:” Athletes in a threat state tend to “reinvest” in controlling their movements, meaning they try to “think” through specific technical and instructional cues. This really messes with automatic execution. The challenge group on the other hand reported less conscious processing—which allowed their training to take over.
Limitations
Always consider limitations with studies and research:
In both studies, demand/resource evaluations were measured at one time-point. In reality, an athlete can fluctuate between a challenge and a threat appraisal, and these are not permanent states that athletes are stuck in.
This study looked only at experienced golfers in competition and a putting task. Since golf requires fine motor skill execution, findings may be particularly relevant to precision-based, self-paced tasks like putting.
Coaching application: how to build better performers
Okay—the most important: how can you apply this information to better help your teams and athletes?
Frame the match/event as an opportunity: as leaders, avoid focusing solely on how difficult things are going to be etc., or the consequences of losing. Instead, encourage athletes to view events as challenges to overcome
Remind athletes of their resources: encourage them to remember how hard they’ve trained, all the work they’ve put in since they were young, how prepared they are, and the support available to them. Perception is key here. If athletes think they have the resources to meet the task, this will result in a challenge appraisal.
Consider training “Quiet Eye”: since challenge states naturally create better gaze behaviors, we can train athletes “bottom-up” to maintain a steady fixation on their target before they move. This training can impact athletes even in a threat state to perform better.
Watch your language: use instruction and support that emphasizes matches and games as challenges, opportunities to perform and excel, rather than fearful stages where athletes avoid mistakes. Coaches and leadership have a large impact on the experiences of athletes.
Consider bringing in educated and credentialed mental performance consultants and sport and performance psychologists on all these fronts.
If you’re interested, this video is gold for an introduction to Quiet Eye. Actually, you will see one of the researchers on this study, Dr. Samuel Vine, has left a comment on it:
Bottom line
How athletes react under pressure is not random; it’s the result of a specific psychological and then physiological chain reaction.
Challenge and threat states are dynamic. Meaning athletes are not necessarily stuck in one way for the entirety of the event.
By helping athletes evaluate demands as a challenge to be met and overcome with existing resources, you can ensure their bodies and minds are ready for a great performance.
What did you think of today's brief?
Useful? Join The Performance Psychology Brief to get weekly, actionable sport and performance psychology insights like this.
It took me 7.5+ hours to read, understand, and compress this paper into this 3-minute insight and visual carousel. If you found it valuable, please share it with a colleague or friend, or share it on LinkedIn and tag me (Malhar Mali)—I’d love to interact and boost. (The LinkedIn share button is at the top of this email.)
Reference
Moore, L. J., Wilson, M. R., Vine, S. J., Coussens, A. H., & Freeman, P. (2013). Champ or Chump?: Challenge and Threat States During Pressurized Competition. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 35(6), 551-562. https://doi.org/10.1123/.35.6.551
