Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2018 The Cascading Effect: Mitigating the Effects of Choking under Pressure in Dancers Ashley Marie Fryer
Follow this and additional works at the DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
THE CASCADING EFFECT:
MITIGATING THE EFFECTS OF CHOKING UNDER PRESSURE IN DANCERS
By
ASHLEY MARIE FRYER
A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
2018 Ashley Marie Fryer defended this dissertation on May 3, 2018. The members of the supervisory committee were:
Gershon Tenenbaum Professor Directing Dissertation
Susan K. Blessing University Representative
Graig M. Chow Committee Member
Thomas Welsh Committee Member
The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.
ii
I would like to dedicate this thesis to Ryan Sides and my family for their love and support that is unparalleled.
iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I want to acknowledge Jody Isenhour and Doubletake Dance for their tireless efforts to help me in data collection.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ...... vi List of Figures ...... vii Abstract ...... viii
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW...... 5
3. METHOD ...... 42
4. RESULTS ...... 54
5. DISCUSSION ...... 72
APPENDICES ...... 84
A. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 84 B. POST-AUDITION RETROSPECTIVE QUESTIONNAIRE AND SCRIPT ...... 85 C. MODIFIED COMPETITIVE STATE ANXIETY INVENTORY FOR PERFORMERS ...... 91 D. STATE SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS SCALE FOR DANCERS ...... 93 E. SELF-EFFICACY SCALE FOR DANCERS ...... 94 F. INTERVENTION PROTOCOLS ...... 95 G. PROGRESSIVE MUSCLE RELAXATION SCRIPT ...... 111 H. HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTER AND CONSENT/ASSENT FORMS ...... 114
References ...... 118
Biographical Sketch ...... 138
v LIST OF TABLES
1 Participant demographic information by condition ...... 45
2 Outline for 7 week mental skills training program ...... 50
3 Operational definitions for coding procedures...... 52
4 Content analysis for dancers’ experience of initial errors (pre-and post-intervention) ...... 57
5 Content analysis for dancers’ experience of stressors (pre-and post-intervention) ...... 59
6 Content analysis for dancers’ experience of emotions/cognitions and cascade effect (pre- and post-intervention) ...... 63
7 Descriptive statistics and normality coefficients for the entire sample ...... 64
8 Descriptive statistics and independent t-tests by condition ...... 65
9 RM MANOVA for all dependent variable by condition (A) and time (B) ...... 66
10 RM ANOVA for all performance rating by condition (A) and time (B) ...... 67
11 RM ANOVA for self-efficacy by condition (A) and time (B) ...... 67
12 RM ANOVA for cognitive anxiety by condition (A) and time (B) ...... 68
13 RM ANOVA for somatic anxiety by condition (A) and time (B) ...... 69
14 RM ANOVA for self-confidence by condition (A) and time (B) ...... 69
15 RM ANOVA for self-consciousness by condition (A) and time (B) ...... 70
vi LIST OF FIGURES
1 Integrated perceptual model of choking under pressure (expansion of Lazarus and Folkman’s, 1984 model) ...... 4
2 Power analysis for part two of the study...... 42
3 Time schedule for Stage II ...... 51
4 Means for (A) overall performance rating, (B) self-efficacy, (C) cognitive anxiety, (D) somatic anxiety, (E) self-confidence, (F) self-consciousness for both interventions at the pre- and post-intervention stages...... 71
vii ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to explore the cascading mechanism of choking under
pressure in dance, validate an integrated-perceptual model of choking, and examine the
effectiveness of a 7-week combined self-talk and progressive muscle relaxation (ST-PMR)
training program in alleviating the effects of self-consciousness in choking under pressure in
dance. The proposed model aimed to determine the performance decline-choking incidence by
evaluating the appraisal processes that contribute to the domino effect of choking under pressure
prior to, during, and after a performance error occurs. The model additionally included self-
presentational concerns on anxiety and performance decline.
The study examined 23 dancers using a mixed method approach which consisted of a
randomized pretest-posttest control group experiment and semi-structured interviews. Overall, the ST-PMR training program was effective in increasing self-confidence, self-efficacy, and overall performance rating in comparison to dancers in the control condition. In addition, the ST-
PMR training decreased somatic and cognitive anxieties significantly for dancers in that
condition in comparison to dancers in the control condition. However, the results failed to show
a decrease in self-consciousness as expected. The integrated-perceptual model was also partially
substantiated; pre-intervention data suggested that the dancers’ initial appraisals of their
performance led to increased cognitive anxiety and emotional arousal which preceded initial
error occurrence. The dancers’ ability to utilize coping skills contributed to the likelihood that
they experienced subsequent errors, which is consistent with the integrated conceptual model of
choking under pressure. However, the post-intervention data failed to support the study’s
hypotheses as all dancers in the ST-PMR and control conditions did not experience the cascade
effect. Additional implications for this study and future research are discussed in detail.
viii CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Perfection in sports is elusive; even the most successful performer experiences minor
errors from time to time. Errors are natural fluctuations in performance. However, when they are
unexpected and detrimental to performance outcomes, we refer to this as choking under pressure
(Beilock & Gray, 2007; Baumeister, 1984; Fryer, Tenenbaum, & Chow, 2017; Mesagno & Hill,
2013a.b.; Jackson, 2013). Choking has been extensively studied in sport and is traditionally
conceptualized by seven main theories : distraction theory (Beilock & Carr, 2001), reinvestment
theory (Masters, 1992), explicit monitoring theory (Lewis & Linder, 1997), processing efficiency
theory (Eyseneck & Calvo, 1992), over-arousal theory (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908), self- presentational theory (Mesagno, 2009), and self-consciousness theory (Baumeister, 1984).
The well-accepted definition of choking is a failure to perform at the expected level despite the presence of potential to be successful (Beilock & Gray, 2007). This definition generally lacks specificity, and as such, a debate ensued to determine how to best define choking and how to distinguish it from under-performance (see Buszard, Farrow, & Masters, 2013; Hill,
Hanton, Matthews, & Fleming, 2009; Hill, Hanton, Fleming, & Matthews, 2010a; Jackson, 2013;
Mesagno & Hill, 2013a.,b.). Furthermore, effort was directed toward capturing the different cognitive mechanisms underlying performance declines (natural fluctuations in performance) and choking (more catastrophic in nature) (Mesagno & Hill, 2013b). Some researchers maintain that performance decline is a separate construct from choking (Jackson, 2013), whereas others argue that the underlying mechanisms accounting for choking and performance decline are similar (Buszard et al., 2013). Mesagno and Hill (2013b), however, indicated that there is a lack of evidence for either assertation.
1 A recent study provided evidence for the notion that performance decline and choking have conceptual similarities and uniqueness at the same time (Fryer, Tenenbaum, & Chow, 2017; e.g., choking and performance decline are related, but also distinct from each other).
Furthermore, Fryer et al. (2017) revealed a discernible component between performance decline and choking. Specifically, when competition time phases in a game are considered, similar errors are perceived differently as a function of time and scoring gap. This study represented one step towards differentiating performance decline from the concept of choking under pressure
(Buszard et al., 2013; Jackson, 2013; Mesagno & Hill, 2013b.) The next step in discerning the difference between the two concepts is to test the differences in magnitudes of performance declines and the cognitive constructs associated with varying levels of decline in order to fully capture the choking phenomenon. The proposed model (Figure 1) suggests a multifaceted framework for determining tiers of performance decline, and ultimately defining choking instances.
According to the proposed model, a dancer’s negative interaction with their environment
(i.e., novel environment, lighting, pre-show nerves, and/or importance of event) can lead the performer to make errors while performing. Once an error occurs, the dancer experiences an accumulation of emotions and cognitions, which are impacted by two types of factors: pressure and stress. Pressure impacts prior errors through the narrowing of attention, decreased working memory, and increasing the dancer’s susceptibility to distractions. Stress is evoked when recalling prior errors by confronting external and internal stimuli such as audience presence. The model further proposes that the initial error may result in a subsequent error. Once a secondary error occurs, the dancer’s appraisal of the error leads to a subsequent increase in emotions and cognitions. After their initial appraisal, the dancer evaluates the effectiveness of their coping
2 resources in overcoming his/her maladaptive emotions/cognitions (secondary appraisal). This perceptive process contributes to the likelihood that a performer will experience further cascading effects to their performance (i.e., choke under pressure).
The following literature review provides evidence to substantiate the proposed model of choking in dance, as well as a critical overview of the theories underlying the current definition of performance decline and discussion about perceptions of performance decline. First, I detail and critique the main theories of choking. Next, I provide a detailed explanation of the newer conceptualizations of choking that help to frame the differentiation of choking from performance decline. Finally, I describe and highlight key elements of the proposed model before recommending an intervention approach to mitigating the effects of choking under pressure.
3
Figure 1. Integrated perceptual model of choking under pressure (expansion of Lazarus and Folkman’s, 1984 model)
4 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Choking in Sports: Theories and Explanations
Theories of choking provide various rationales for choking incidences in performance and sport. Seven of the most established theories are: explicit monitoring hypothesis (Lewis &
Linder, 1997), reinvestment theory (Masters, 1992), distraction theory (Beilock & Carr, 2001;
Nideffer, 1992), processing efficiency theory (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992), over-arousal theory
(Yerkes & Dodson, 1908), self-presentational theory (Mesagno, 2009), and self-consciousness theory (Baumeister, 1984). Each one provides a unique account for the sudden and unexpected performance decline, such as the one’s presented in popular media, and is discussed in detail within this literature review.
Explicit Monitoring Hypothesis and Reinvestment Theory
According to the explicit monitoring hypothesis, performers “choke” because the pressure stemming from the operational environment and the event’s significance leads them to follow a serial processing mode, also known as “step-by-step processing” (Beilock & Carr,
2001). That is, the pressure interrupts the automatic processes developed through years of practice and makes performers focus on minor details of well-practiced skills. This shift from external focusing of attention to a more internal procedural frame of reference is the reason the theory is also referred to as a “self-focus theory” (Baumeister, 1984; Yu, 2015). As one shifts attention inward during task performance, consciousness control over single movement elements disrupts automaticity (Beilock & Carr, 2001; Masters, 1992). The explicit monitoring hypothesis has been researched extensively and is generally well supported in the sports psychology
5 literature (see Beilock, Berenthal, McCoy, & Carr, 2004; Beilock, Carr, MacMahon, & Starkes,
2002; Gray, 2004).
Studies testing the explicit monitoring hypothesis typically examine the effects of self-
focus on both experts and novices. Consistently, these studies reported that an attentional shift to
serial processing has more of a detrimental effect on expert than on novice performers (Beilock
& Gray, 2007). Novice performers utilize declarative knowledge and step-by-step processing in order to learn the task skills while experts utilize the skills automatically (Anderson, 1993;
Beilock & Gray, 2007; Fitts & Posner, 1967). For this reason, unskilled performers are less affected by explicit monitoring manipulations, and thus may not be as susceptible to choking as high-skill performers. This postulation has been supported in numerous sports including golf
(Beilock & Carr, 2001) and gymnastics (Paulus, Shannon, Wilson, & Boone, 1972).
Additional support for the explicit monitoring hypothesis has been shown in soccer, field hockey and baseball studies (Beilock et al., 2002; Gray, 2004; Jackson, Ashford, & Norsworthy,
2006). Beilock et al. (2002) observed 20 soccer players who were asked to attend to which side of the foot they used while dribbling a soccer ball. Expert participants experienced a deterioration in their ability to dribble the ball in a timed scenario as a result of having to attend the process of dribbling, while novice participants were unaffected by the explicit monitoring condition. This result was used to conclude that expert performers were more prone to choking as a result of automaticity loss. In line with these results, Jackson et al. (2006) found that, when field hockey players were asked to dribble the ball and attend to whether their left hand was on top or bottom of their field hockey stick after a tone was presented, their performance suffered.
Furthermore, Jackson et al. concluded that, when participants tried to control their hand placements and monitor them at the same time, they could expect to have an even more
6 disastrous effect on their performance than when they had only experienced explicit monitoring.
This suggests that having to attend to more than one feature of a skill is even more detrimental to performance and automaticity than just attending to one. A similar result was also found in baseball (Gray, 2004). Ten NCAA Division IA baseball players were asked to bat using a virtual batting task under the guise that the method would be used to measure batting performance.
When participants were asked to attend to their specific swing execution (making a note of whether their swing was downward or upward when a tone was presented), their performance decreased in comparison to performance in a dual task condition. Thus, the presence of the explicit monitoring condition likely shifted the expert baseball player’s attentional focus and made it difficult to execute the well-learned motor skills involved in batting (Welch, Banks,
Cook, & Draovitch, 1995).
Beilock et al. (2002) supported the explicit monitoring hypothesis by studying 21 expert golfers instructed to putt accurately from a distance while either attending to their swing (explicit monitoring condition) or while attending to audio tones (dual task condition). When the golfers attended to their swing, this resulted in shot accuracy decline - similar to the baseball study
(Gray, 2004). Thus, breaking down a well-rehearsed skill (such as a golf swing) resulted in putt accuracy decline (Masters, 1992). This finding lends support for Masters (1992) reinvestment hypothesis.
Similar to the explicit monitoring hypothesis, the reinvestment hypothesis assumes that the automaticity of a skill is disrupted when a performer is consciously controlling the procedures of a well-learned skill to match their desired performance level (Masters & Maxwell,
2008). As one learns a skill, the reliance on step-by-step instructions decreases and the execution of skills becomes more automatic (Anderson, 1982). Furthermore, a well-learned skill does not
7 require conscious attention; however, when pressure is induced the performer may often regress to an earlier skill development stage of learning known as “dechunking” (Anderson, 1982;
Beilock, Berenthal, McCoy, & Carr, 2004; Fitts, Bahrick, Noble, & Briggs, 1961; Fitts & Posner,
1967; Masters, 1992; Masters & Maxwell, 2008). Dechunking slows down performance because each step must be processed separately, and thus creates working memory load, which results in performance decline (MacMahon & Masters, 1999; Masters & Maxwell, 2008).
In the model I have postulated, the performer-environment interaction plays a major role in maintaining efficient attentional processes required for motor execution. The self-focus theory proposes that it is during this interaction that perceptions of pressure may disturb automaticity required for smooth and efficient skill execution. Although the self-focus concept inherent in the explicit monitoring theory and reinvestment hypothesis provide a possible explanation for the performance decline phenomenon, the studies supporting them have some methodological flaw
(Wilson, Chattington, Marple-Horvat, & Smith, 2007). In most of the explicit monitoring studies, participants were asked to focus on one specific aspect of their performance. While this attentional shift may have been significant enough to result in performance decline, the explicit monitoring instructions may have just been more of a distractor to performance instead of a disruptor of automaticity. Furthermore, as argued by Christensen and colleagues (2015), self- focus studies lack ecological validity because many of the tasks fail to transfer to real world applications where perceived pressure is much stronger. In real life sports experience, athletes are often attending to more than one performance-related element at a time which is likely more damaging to performance than attending to just one element. Additionally, the decline in performance in self-focus research is typically mild. For instance, in Beilock and Carr’s study
(2001), the putting distance was only 2.21cm on average from the target between conditions,
8 which suggests a limitation in the generalization of the theory’s postulations, explanations, and
predictions.
Distraction Theory
The main argument of distraction theory is that choking occurs because pressure creates a
distracting environment that overloads working memory (Beilock & Carr, 2001; Nideffer, 1992).
Distractions are considered to be prompted by maladaptive interactions with the environment
(see the model in Figure 1). Considering this argumentation, performers choke because pressure
and worry distract their attention from performance-essential cues and consequently result in
performance decline (Beilock & Carr, 2001; Lewis & Linder, 1997; Wine, 1971; see the model
in Figure 1).
Although it has been argued that many self-focus research studies are actually evidence of distraction theory, most of the research on distraction theory is derived from educational research (see Beilock & Carr, 2005; Beilock, Kulp, Holt, & Carr, 2004; Markman, Maddox,
Worthy, 2006; Wilson et al., 2007). In particular, research in this area has focused on stereotype threat, which is a form of “choking” that occurs when negative stereotypes about an individual’s race, gender, or social status are introduced and lead to a decrease in an individual’s performance
(Steele, 1997). The argument for stereotype threat is that just by being reminded or presented with the stereotype, such as “white men can’t jump” or “African Americans aren’t good at math,” an individual can become distracted and unable to perform because their working memory is not concerned with task-relevant cognitions. Researchers also found that even just writing down one’s race and making the stereotype salient impaired performance on an intellectual test for African American students (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Conversely, research has shown that focusing on positive aspects of a stereotype, such as an Asian female focusing on
9 being Asian instead of female before taking a mathematics test (Shih, Pittinsjy, & Ambady,
1999).
Tasks such as intellectual tests are reliant upon working memory, which has been found
to be strongly affected by distractors (Beilock & DeCaro, 2007; DeCaro, Thomas, Albert,
Beilock, 2011; Gimmig, Huguet, Caverni, & Cury, 2006; Markman et al., 2006). In one study,
Beilock et al. (2004) asked 40 participants to solve hard math problems under high-pressure
situations. The addition of monetary, social, and peer pressure led participants to experience
decreased working memory in difficult problems. Additionally, the increased demand for
resources resulted in decreased math performance in comparison to performance under a low-
pressure condition. These findings supported the overall assertation that anxiety serves as a
distractor that depletes overall working memory needed to perform a cognitive task (Ashcraft &
Kirk, 2001).
The distraction theory has also been used to examine explicit and rule-based learning
strategies (Markman, et al. 2006). The goal was to evaluate the resiliency of different styles of
learning to choking under pressure. The study’s initial assumption was that individuals who
perform poorly under pressure do so because of difficulties integrating previously learned rule-
based strategies (Ashby, Ell, & Waldron, 2003; Markman et al., 2006). Eighty students were
randomly assigned to low pressure and high-pressure conditions and taught a task with either rule-based or information integration learning. Results showed that under high pressure, participants in the rule-based learning condition experienced a decrease in performance,
supporting the distraction theory postulations. Furthermore, pressure can be useful to
performance on tasks that do not rely on working memory (e.g., tasks that require an individual
to integrate information without a set of rules such as intuitive learning tasks).
10 Despite these promising results for the usefulness of distraction theory, its assumptions
have only been tested in educational settings. While sports tasks involve working memory, the
intricacies of motor skills can be explained better by explicit monitoring hypothesis. Beilock and
Carr (2005), using math performance, provided a case for the reason distraction theory is still
relevant to sports. They concluded that performers are most likely to choke on tasks that they are
expected to perform successfully on without elevated pressure. This assertation aligns perfectly
with the idea that choking is an unexpected decline in performance that occurs when the
performer doesn’t perceive pressure from the environment. Under pressure, performance decline
is expected and thus is not being perceived as choking.
Processing-Efficiency Theory
Similar to distraction theory, Processing Efficiency Theory (PET) suggests that increased
feelings of worry and anxiety lead to an overload of working memory resources (Eysenck &
Calvo, 1992). However, PET further proposes that worrying leads to increased on-task efforts
and over-compensation. In essence, when pressure is absent, individuals are able to match their
efforts effectively with their resource. Conversely, when pressure is present increased anxiety
diminishes cognitive resources. Early research testing PET was situated in academic settings
because these settings integrate working memory and executive functioning tasks (Aronen,
Vuontela, Steenari, Salmi, & Carlson, 2005; Derakshan & Eysenck, 1998; Hadwin, Brogan, &
Stevenson, 2005; MacLeod & Donnellan, 1993; Markham & Darke, 1991). Owens, Stevenson,
Norgate and Harwin’s (2008) study revealed that children’s trait anxiety depleted working memory, and this, in turn, led to a poor academic performance on cognitive abilities tests.
PET is favored by some scholars in describing the anxiety-performance relationship because it provides an explanation for both the facilitative and debilitative aspects of anxiety (Eysenck &
11 Calvo, 1992; Murray & Janelle, 2007; Smith, Bellamy, Collins, & Newell, 2001). This is
evidenced by certain sports such as archery and shooting where increased arousal could be
debilitative to performance (Konttinen, Lyytinen, & Viitasalo, 1998, Oxendine, 1970; Parfitt,
Jones, & Hardy, 1990; Robazza, Bortoli, & Nougier, 2000), whereas in sports such as wrestling
increased arousal supported performance (Hardy, Jones, & Gould, 1996; Parfitt, Hardy, & Pates,
1995; Parfitt, Jones, & Hardy, 1990). According to PET, emotional processes consume the
cognitive resources necessary to attend to relevant cues, resulting in performance decrements or
performance gains (Kron, Schul, Cohen, & Hassin, 2010).
Moreover, PET looks at the effects of anxiety as individualistic (Hardy & Jackson, 1995;
Smith, Bellamy, Collins, & Newell, 2001). This aspect of the theory has been studied extensively
in the sports domain in both team and individual settings (Hardy & Hutchinson, 2007; Smith,
Bellamy, Collins, & Newell, 2001; Wilson et al., 2007). Furthermore, this approach directly
aligns with the proposed model of choking, in particular, the environment-person interaction.
Once the performer appraises the environment as non-threatening, evoked emotions can be functional for attentional resources and working memory, and result in optimal performance. The stimuli appraisal process under pressure condition is unique to the individual and is considered as the main tenet of performance facilitation or debilitation. Despite the many promising results of
PET, it is not free of limitations. For example, Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, and Calvo (2007) found that the theory cannot accurately predict whether anxiety is facilitative or debilitative to performance. Consequently, alternative theories such as the over-arousal theory have been used
to describe how anxiety affects performance.
12 Over-Arousal Theory
The over-arousal theory, or also termed over-motivation theory, states that as incentives to perform well increases, so will arousal. The over-arousal theory is derived from the inverted-U hypothesis (Broadhurst, 1957; Yerkes & Dodson, 1908), which states that increases in arousal are beneficial to performance until a moderate point after which performance deteriorates
(Ariely, Gneezy, Loewenstein, & Mazar, 2009; Easterbrook, 1959; Lee & Grafton, 2015; Mobbs et al., 2009; Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). According to the over-arousal theory, performers choke under pressure because their arousal level far exceeds their incentives to perform, and thus this lead to poor performance. The specific mechanisms by which over-arousal causes choking are unclear. However, some have argued that arousal impacts neural influences of goal-oriented movements, which consequently narrows attention (Lee & Grafton, 2015), and results in missing relevant environmental information. My concept relates to the post error emotional and cognitive responses which may manifest in increased arousal level. Many of the errors conducted during a competition are incidental and unexpected and result in both emotional and cognitive consequence, which together frame the perception of performance decline severity (see the model in Figure 1). One aspect of the over-arousal theory applied to sports is the relationship between the presence of social evaluation and increased arousal.
Self-Presentational and Self-Consciousness Theories of Choking
My conceptual model (Figure 1) originates from the interactions between the performer and the environment (e.g., opponent and audience conditions) which results in actions that we perceive and term “error.” The concept of social evaluation is essential to Mesagno’s (2009) self- presentational choking model, and some argue the phenomenon of choking under pressure
(Geukes, Mesagno, Hanrahan, & Kellmann, 2013; Hill et al, 2010a.b.; Mesagno, 2009). In a
13 qualitative study looking at athletes who were susceptible to choking, Mesagno determined that
female basketball players who were prone to choking experienced deterioration in performance
when confronted with public awareness. The emphasis on public awareness is essential to the
self-presentational choking model (Mesagno, 2009), which proposes that those who experience
increased self-awareness as a result of public opinion are more likely to be sensitive to others’
observation. Specifically, vulnerability to observation leads to concern about judgments from the
audience, and consequently to increased fear of negative social evaluation.
The influence of negative social evaluation was further studied by Mesagno, Harvey, and
Janelle (2012) in a study examining 34 expert basketball players who were low or high in fear of
negative evaluation. The participants were then asked to shoot basketballs from different areas of
the basketball court. The results indicated that athletes high in fear of negative evaluation
showed an increase in anxiety and decrease in performance in comparison to those who were low
in fear of negative evaluation. Another study supporting the self-presentational model incorporated expert field hockey players (Mesagno, Harvey, & Janelle, 2011). Mesagno and colleagues (2011) exposed 45 experienced field hockey participants to either a video camera condition to evoke self-presentation, an incentivized group where participants were trying to earn money, video camera placebo, audience condition, or a combination of pressures. The results confirmed that choking occurred more often in the self-presentational condition than in the other conditions. These results confirm the relationship between cognitive anxiety and self-awareness.
Overall, when confronted with increased self-awareness, individual’s anxiety increases resulting in performance decline (Baumeister, 1984).
Along with Mesagno’s conceptualization of self-presentation, a similar self-presentation processing is present in evaluative conditions. Self-presentation processing refers to the practice
14 of utilizing self-monitoring to shape one’s image to match the image that others have prescribed,
or an idealized image one has created (Baumeister, 1982; Schlenker, 1980). The preoccupation
with self-image can overload the athlete’s working memory and lead to poorer performance.
Thus, performers may be so focused on living up to their public image to the extent that they
deplete their cognitive resources to perform up to their typical standards. Argued by Baumeister
and Hutton (1987), the striving towards self-presentation develops into a form of motivation for individuals that can either benefit or hinder performance. Jordet (2009) for example, reported that soccer players who were identified as having “high public status” were more likely to choke than players low in this disposition. Conversely, athletes like Michael Phelps used self- presentation to become the greatest Olympian of all time. This suggests that self-presentational
disposition must be considered in the performance decline phenomenon.
Along with social evaluation, the role of the self in choking has also been studied
extensively within the self-consciousness conceptualization (Baumeister, 1984; Fenigstein,
Scheier, & Buss, 1975). Self-consciousness theory differs from self-presentational theory in
claiming that being highly self-conscious leads to attending to the internal processes of
performance and this negatively affects their performance - similarly to explicit monitoring
theory. Wang, Marchant, Morris, and Gibbs, (2004) found support for self-consciousness theory examining 66 basketball players shooting free throws under high and low-pressure conditions.
Participants who were rated high in self-consciousness were more likely to choke under high- pressure conditions than participants who rated low on this disposition. Despite the implications of these two theories, several researchers argue that many aspects of the self and choking such as arousal levels, audience pressures, and other performance attributions must be considered in
15 evaluating the catastrophic elements of choking (Fryer, Tenenbaum, & Chow, 2017; Howle,
2012; Wankel, 1972).
The Theory of Individual Psychological Crisis in Competitive Situations
Bar-Eli and Tenenbaum’s (1989a, 1989b) theory of individual psychological crisis
provides an additional perspective on how arousal levels and pressure interact and leads to
choking under pressure. The theory of individual psychological crisis in competitive situations
suggests that performance decline, and by extent choking, is a fluid state. This postulation is the
foundation for the proposed model and particularly explains the reason that error severity
perception is a vital component of the choking process. The role of the self in arousal regulation
can be directly associated with the reasons performance crisis occurs (Bar-Eli, 1984). According
to Bar-Eli and Tenenbaum (1988), detrimental perceptions of one’s self can lead to anxiety and
psychological crisis caused by under or over-arousal. Accordingly, an arousal continuum can be plotted similarly to the inverted-U hypothesis and provides instances of individual peak performance by plotting the likelihood that an athlete will experience psychological crisis (Bar-
Eli & Tenenbaum, 1989a). Further, Bar-Eli and Tenenbaum (1989b) surmised that “for every
single moment along the time axis of the competition, a specific position on the athlete’s
momentary inverse-U function can be fitted reflecting his or her individual vulnerability to the
psychological crisis at that particular moment” (p.142).
Bar-Eli and Tenenbaum (1989b) began examining time phases along the inverse-U
function in competitive basketball. They identified 6 “psychologically meaningful time phases”
within a competitive game (beginning, main, and end for each half of game-time). In a study
using Bayesian statistics, Bar-Eli and Tenenbaum (1989b) showed a relationship between states
of psychological crisis and elevated arousal level with mediocre performance. Furthermore, it
16 was determined that the end time phase was associated with a higher prevalence of psychological
crisis. Despite promising results, this theory has not been tested extensively in explaining
choking under pressure. The theory must be used in conjunction with explicit monitoring and
distraction theories to develop further the concept of choking under pressure (Bar-Eli,
Tenenbaum, & Geister, 2006).
Summary of Theories
While each of the theories reviewed herein pointed to different reasons for choking under pressure, all support the role of the environment, emotions, and cognitions in explaining this phenomenon. The three main theories of choking, distraction theory (Beilock & Carr, 2001),
explicit monitoring theory (Lewis & Linder, 1997), and over arousal theory (Yerkes & Dodson,
1908) are often interchangeably used to describe the choking phenomenon despite providing
different predictions about how pressure impacts performance (Wilson et al., 2007). The
distraction theory suggests that choking occurs when environmental stimuli, emotional triggers,
and/or disruptive thoughts overload working memory. However, the theory lacks empirical
support in real competitive situations. The explicit monitoring theory, however, has frequently
been examined in sports. It suggests that the environment causes the perception of pressure to
affect arousal level, and consequently cognition is a form of hyper-attentiveness to serial
processing. The final dominant theory, over-arousal theory, is derived from the inverted-U
hypothesis and suggests that perceived pressure increases emotional arousal and this state of
mind leads to choking under pressure. Additional theories used to describe choking are the self- presentational and self-consciousness theory of choking (Baumeister, 1984; Mesagno, 2009).
Although not as frequently used to explain choking, the self-presentational theory explains the role the environment (particularly self-perceptions of opponents and the audience) plays in the
17 performer’s evaluation of errors. As the theory further delineates, choking is a function of fear of evaluation and cognitive disruption as a result of perceived negative public evaluation. Similar to the well-researched explicit monitoring theory, self-consciousness theory suggests that perceptions of environmental pressure shift the performer’s attention inward as opposed to attending to their performance. The resulting attentional shift results in choking under pressure.
Unfortunately none of these theories take into account differences between adults and youth in relation to choking under pressure.
Choking and Performance Decline
Determining the choking phenomenon begins with first examining the degree of performance decline. In most studies that examine choking, minute deviations in optimal performance or baseline performances are determined to be choking (Gucciardi & Dimmock,
2008; Wang et al., 2004; Wilson et al., 2007). Wang et al. (2004) concluded that choking occurred if any decrease in the participant’s free throw percentage from his/her baseline performance was noted. Though participants only missed on average one shot more during the high-pressure condition than the low-pressure condition, the resulting deterioration was labeled as choking.
Recently, in a special issue of the International Journal of Sport Psychology (2013), researchers contemplated about the difference between performance decline and choking. The consensus was that the current definition of choking infers that any decline in performance is considered choking (Buszard, Farrow, & Masters, 2013; Hill et al., 2010b; Hill et al., 2009;
Jackson, 2013; Mesagno & Hill, 2013a, b). In particular, Hill et al. (2009) claimed that the definition was limited in capturing the “dramatic” performance decline that the media portrays as choking under pressure. The definition of choking has gone through many transformations since
18 Baumeister defined it in 1984. Originally choking was defined as instances of sub-optimal performance despite pressure demands and an athlete’s aspiration to perform well (Baumeister,
1984). Baumeister’s definition, however, appears to describe performance decline and errors as opposed to choking under pressure. Beilock’s definition of choking, which is currently the leading definition, refined Baumeister’s definition by including the individual’s skill level
(Beilock & Carr, 2001; Beilock & Gray, 2007). Essentially, Beilock argued that choking occurs only if one’s performance decline exceeds what can be anticipated given his/her skill level. For instance, a beginning basketball player who misses a three-point shot is not necessarily choking, particularly if the expectations for them to make it was low and their skill level did not indicate that they successfully could do so. Although Beilock’s definition makes the choking term clearer, as shown in Fryer et al.’s (2017) examination, both of these definitions fail to take into account the factor of time phase on the concept of choking (e.g., the same error can be perceived differently under different conditions of time).
The special issue of the International Journal of Sport Psychology (2013) featured key arguments made by many of the main opponents of the current conceptualization of choking under pressure and its distinction from performance decline. On one side of the arguments was the belief that performance decline is a completely separate construct from choking that is caused by different underlying mechanisms (Jackson, 2013). On the other hand, Buszard and colleagues
(2013) argued that the mechanisms underlying choking and performance decline are similar. The findings of Fryer et al. (2017) showed that performance decline and choking are two distinct, though related, terms. Performance decline refers to natural variations in performance while choking is more of a catastrophic phenomenon. Traditional definitions of choking seem to be describing performance decline rather than choking. To define choking we must first clarify its
19 relation to performance decline (Buszard et al., 2013; Hill et al., 2010b., Hill et al., 2009;
Jackson, 2013; Mesagno & Hill, 2013a; 2013b.).
The gravity of the argument presented can be seen in real world NBA superstar Steph
Curry. Curry was recently voted unanimously as 2016 Kia’s Most Valuable Player award for the
NBA. That season, Curry had an impressive free throw percentage of 90.8% (ESPN.com, 2016).
While Curry’s season free throw percentage is impressive, it suggests that during some games he makes above 90% of his free throws while in others he shoots under 90%. On those games that he fails to make 90% of his shots, is he choking? On December 6th Curry played against the
Brooklyn Nets and attempted 4 free throws during the game. He only made 1 out of those 4 shots; however, his team still won 114-98 (ESPN.com, 2016). Traditionally, performance decline is defined as any negative decrease in performance including mistakes or errors that can occur at any point in an event. However, performance declines can be charted on a fluid continuum wherein the magnitude of each individual mistake differs depending on the scoring status and occurrence time (Bar-Eli & Tenenbaum, 1989b). With that in mind, one can argue that Steph
Curry’s bad games are merely evidence of performance declines instead of choking; especially considering his team still managed to win the game. If Golden State had lost the game, however, we might have considered it as choking depending on when he made or missed each free throw.
Thus, just as the model suggests, the circumstances that make a minor performance decline become choking under pressure is dependent upon many contextual factors.
Perceptions of Performance Decline and Choking
An error conducted by a performer during a competition is not always perceived as choking. In Fryer et al.’s (2017) study, player’s perceptions of performance error were considered choking as a function of time phase and score gaps during a competition. The
20 researchers hypothesized that when the score gap in basketball competition is small, and an error is conducted at the end of the 2nd half of a basketball game, it will be perceived as a more severe performance decline and that choking would be perceived more frequently. The results of this study, however, demonstrated that participants were more likely to perceive stronger performance decline and choking at the beginning of the 2nd half than at any other time phase in the game.
Although counterintuitive to popular media examples of choking under pressure, the researchers concluded that errors that occur during the beginning of the 2nd half represent the beginning of a “domino effect.” Errors made during the 1st half of the gameplay can be overcome because of the vast amount of time remaining. Conversely, errors made in the final seconds of the game are hardly reversible and are more expected. In contrast, an error made during the beginning of the 2nd half time phase are less expected because these are made under less pressure and ultimately perceived more as choking. The researchers concluded that performance decline and choking are interrelated concepts used to describe perceptions of performance error severity. Performance declines can occur at any time in a game and are categorized in relation to their severity (minor, moderate, or major); choking, however, is reserved for the 2nd half of a game when it is considered crucial to the game’s outcomes.
The second purpose of Fryer et al.’s (2017) study was to examine athletes’ attributions of performance decline to differentiate performance decline from choking. The researchers hypothesized that when an error was perceived as a greater performance decline and/or choking, perceived causes would change as a function of time phase and score gap. The results revealed that as the competition progresses, certain attributions (time pressure, high emotional state, and lack of concentration) were rated higher when approaching the end of the 2nd half of the game.
21 However, the attribution ratings did not perfectly align with the time phase where perceived choking was most salient (beginning of the 2nd half). These findings were not in full agreement with Bar-Eli and Tenenbaum (1989b) who initially proposed that the final time phase in the game was more likely for a psychological crisis to occur due to perceived disturbances in the psychological equilibrium of the performer. These findings also indicated discrepancy between perceptions of performance decline and perceptions of attributions. The researchers proposed that it is likely that both stem from different underlying mechanisms (i.e., choking is a performance- related construct and attributions are contextual). Attributions are proposed rationales for why performance declines occur. For instance, at the end of the game, a missed layup is perceived to be caused by the pressure of the time remaining in the game or a distraction. However, in choking events, the error occurrence cannot be justified by immediate sources of pressure. For example, the athlete may have no discernable outside distractors, and there may be 15 minutes remaining on the clock, but they still miss a free throw. Choking is unexpected and arguably unexplainable, while performance decline is linked to attributions.
Examining perceptions of performance decline and choking was also examined by Hill and colleagues (2009). They interviewed four sport psychology practitioners about their personal experiences and observations to conceptualize the choking phenomenon. It was revealed that the outcome of choking under pressure is always perceived to be a catastrophic and significant deterioration in performance. A performance decline is perceived as an event that can be recovered from. These assertions align with Fryer et al.’s (2017) findings concerning the differentiation between perceptions of performance decline and choking under pressure.
Additionally, participants suggested that choking is a singularly and discrete error that likely leads to moderate damage in other aspects of performance despite popular assumptions.
22 Essentially, a golfer can choke at his putts and be moderately successful at his drive shot, or s/he
can just choke at his putts, and the rest of his performance can be unaffected. The researchers
provided an extended understanding of the phenomenon of choking under pressure. However,
they suggested that future research must examine perceptions of performers who have first-hand experience with choking under pressure.
Mesagno (2009) solicited choking prone athletes’ (i.e., those who had identified that they had recently experienced a choking occurrence) perceptions of their own performances to describe what differentiates choking from performance decline. For this aim, he conducted interviews with 14 athletes who were identified as highly susceptible to choking under pressure.
The interviews indicated that athletes perceived an increased likelihood of choking under
pressure when there was an increase in public awareness. Furthermore, the increase in self-
consciousness as a function of increased perceived public scrutiny leads the athletes to
experience more severe performance declines and choking under pressure. This study’s findings
align perfectly with the self-presentational model of choking under pressure and revealed that
choking and performance decline are experiential and perceptual.
Hill et al. (2011) also found support for this conclusion in a longitudinal intervention
study that was conducted with two golfers. The researchers studied choking prone athletes prior
to an intervention by asking the two male golfers about their perceptions related to their
performances. Both participants perceived that their performances over the previous seasons had
been filled with many choking instances and that this was the result of decreased self-confidence, focus, control, and anxiety management. After the psychological skills training intervention was completed, participants described a decrease in perceived choking as a function of improvements in the four components (self-confidence, focus, anxiety management, and perceived control). An
23 additional finding related to the role that being a “choker” has on subsequent performance. One
of the participants experienced a loss of athlete identity and decreased well-being because of his negative perception of his performance. The more he perceived his performance as choking under pressure, the more threatened his identity and well-being were.
Altogether, these studies indicate that the terms performance decline and choking are dependent largely on how errors are perceived by the performer within the environmental context (e.g., time phase, scoring gap, expectations, etc.). Fryer et al. (2017) concluded that performance decline and choking are interrelated concepts used to describe perceptions of performance error severity. Performance decline can occur at any time in a traditional sporting game and is categorized according to severity (minor, moderate, or major) while choking is reserved for the 2nd half of a game when it is less likely to occur. Hill et al. (2009) concluded that choking is a significant decline that is of high importance to the person. The increased stakes of the competition combined with the athlete’s self-expectations to perform well help us to differentiate choking from performance decline. Mesagno (2009) concluded that when participants felt increased social expectations, they also perceived an increased likelihood to choke under pressure as result of increased self-consciousness.
Proposed Model of Choking Under Pressure in the Dancing Domain
Based upon these findings and the theories of choking under pressure, the integrated- perceptual theoretical model of choking has been proposed to clarify the performance decline- choking occurrence in the dancing domain which differs from the traditional sporting domain
(see Figure 1). According to the proposed model, a performer’s appraisal of his/her environment as negative or pressure inducing (i.e., the presence of judges and competitors, the importance of the event) (Lazarus, 1991), may lead the performer to experience heightened emotions and
24 cognitions which lead the performer to make errors of varying magnitudes. The occurrence of errors evokes a secondary emotional response such as frustration, anxiety, or sadness, and subsequently a cognitive response such as increased social comparison and loss of confidence in performance skills. Heightened arousal state and pressure may negatively affect performance and subsequently the performer’s perceptions of their error severity (e.g., minor, moderate, or major error). If the performer lacks sufficient coping skills to overcome the perceived error severity, then the likelihood that they will conduct future errors (i.e. the cascade effect) increases.
Choking is a unique case of performance decline and often confused with typical performance decline. While errors can be plotted on a continuum of severity, it is difficult to determine an exhaustive list of circumstances that delineates a dramatic choking occurrence.
Fryer et al. (2017) provided evidence to support that there is a distinct difference between performance decline and choking.
Dance and Sport
Little is known about the psychology of dance in general, or how dance relates to “sport.”
However, given the inevitable shift towards performance psychology in the field of sport psychology, it is of interest to explore the dance domain in greater depth. Like sport, dance is complex and is dependent upon several internal and external factors such as confidence, advanced skill level, the presence of peers, and training (Koutedakis & Jamurtas, 2004; Taylor &
Estanol, 2015). Additionally, to become highly skilled in dance, one must practice extensively, learn to perform under a high level of stress, maintain standards of physical appearance, and perform potentially dangerous skills. Although a case can be made that dance and sport share many similarities, the two domains are not identical for three main reasons. First, dance performance is not always a continued performance, similarly to baseball or golf, it has
25 periodicity. Sometimes a dancer is on stage for two minutes and does not return until the end of the show for the finale. Other times a dancer takes part in multiple small appearances on stage throughout an entire show. This differs from sports such as soccer where an athlete may be playing on the field for forty-five or ninety minutes consecutively. Secondly, the goals of dance and sport differ. Most people who attend ballet and other dance performances do so to enjoy the show, and unlike popular sports such as football, they tend not to be privy to the specific technique of dance. Instructors teach dancers that the goal of performance is to make it look effortless. The art of dance, particularly ballet, is often described as perfection on stage. Sport also has an entertainment component, but the ultimate goal is to demonstrate who is the better competitor.
Although there is a competitive aspect to dance just as in traditional sport, a deeper exploration shows that the types of competition are dissimilar. In the majority of sports, competition is determined by a concrete outcome. Two teams or individuals play against each other, and a winner is determined based upon an objective score. Competition is also inherent to dance, however, much subjectivity exists in determining which dancer is better than the other similar to gymnastics, figure skating, and diving (Robson, 2004). Some examples of competition in dance include competing against peers in class to attract instructor attention and auditioning for roles and/or employment. In sport, the overall goal is to win the game; in dance, the goal is to entertain. Unlike sports, the most skilled dancer does not always “win” the competition or is the most entertaining. In dance, other factors such as body type, a choreographer’s vision for the role, and favoritism play a larger role in the subjective decision of who is successful (Robson,
2004). Dance is reliant upon subjective perceptions from outside observers such as teachers, audience members, newspaper critics, choreographers, and other dancers. According to the self-
26 presentation theory of choking, increased self-awareness from these critiques can lead to anxiety response and performance decline (Mesagno, 2009). Dancers are expected to perform at elevated levels of artistry despite the stress from external sources; however, like athletes, they often fail to do so (Monsma & Overby, 2004; Taylor & Estanol, 2015).
Given that dance is subjectively evaluated, dancers are often more likely to evaluate errors and critiques from others as personal attacks (Hamilton, 1997; Hanrahan, 2005; Monsma
& Overby, 2004; Robson, 2004). In a qualitative study examining the sources of stress in professional Korean ballet dancers, it was determined that the fear of getting injured and facing choreographers/director’s criticism were major stressors. These stressors contributed to negative emotions, attentional narrowing, and increased susceptibility to distraction (Noh et al., 2002,
2005; Noh & Morris, 2007). This notion was supported by Conroy et al. (2001) concluding that after perceived failure, performing artists were more likely to report having unpleasant feelings
(i.e., “I am no good”) in comparison to athletes. This concept also aligns with the concept of ego threat which suggests that errors in dance can be perceived as direct threats to the dancer’s self- image, feelings of control, and to their public images (Fisher & Zwart, 1982; Leary, Terry, Batts
Allen, & Tate, 2009; Robson, 2004).
Environment-Person Interaction. The model illustrated in Figure 1 begins by
considering the environment-person interaction. The environment is viewed as a source of
distractions or one that can lead to increase self-consciousness and diminished focus (Fenigstein,
Scheier, & Buss, 1975). For a person to perceive an environment as a source of pressure, the situation must first be viewed as a meaningful and malleable entity (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985).
The type of environment that precedes the conductance of error is person-specific. For instance, in dance, the environment can refer to an audition, dance classes, or the performance stage.
27 Walker and Nordin-Bates (2010) examined performance anxiety in elite dancers and found that
anxiety was present not only in performance situations but also in rehearsals and classes.
Audition anxiety was one of the most prevalent sources of anxiety (Monsma & Overby, 2004). It
has also been suggested that auditions elicit a fear response that leads to a cascading effect in
performance (Soto-Morettini, 2012). Helin (1989) further reported that dancers perceived higher
performance anxiety before the show than before a rehearsal. Environmental distractions also
refer to injuries, costume dysfunctions, and backstage commotion (Taylor & Estanol, 2015).
Depending on the performer’s specific perceptions, different environmental components can
evoke performance errors.
During the initial appraisal process (e.g., demand appraisal), a performer evaluates the
environment for the relevant stressors (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). The performer then appraises
his/her ability to cope with the environmental demands (secondary appraisal), and if they feel
they do not possess the adequate resources to cope, they may experience performance decline
due to evoked unpleasant emotions and self-efficacy deterioration. The explicit monitoring
theory suggests that it is during the appraisal process that the perception of lack of resources
leads to hyper-attentiveness to well-learned skills and disruption of automaticity. The appraisal
process can also lead to hypersensitivity to distractors such as the audience and pre-occupations with thoughts of social evaluation which are both irrelevant to the task at hand and can lead to error conductance (Mesagno, 2009).
Errors. What is classified as a performance error? The answer to this question depends almost exclusively on the type of sport one is engaged in. Some errors are obvious such as an interception thrown by a quarterback or a fall in ice skating. However, errors such as uneven leg separation in gymnastics jumps or insufficient spotting in dance are subtle errors that require a
28 trained expert to spot them. Within each sport, errors can be plotted along a continuum ranging from minor to major errors. Errors perceived as choking relate to time phase in the game or competition, however, this may not transfer to dance (Bar-Eli & Tenenbaum, 1989a).
Conversely, Fryer and colleagues (2017) found that the type of error could potentially be a cause of the magnitude of performance decline. Although it is traditionally assumed that the magnitude of errors increases as competition time progresses, it is likely that the type of error is just as impactful.
Essentially, self-presentational concerns may be the cause of successive errors and further performance declines. Athletes who feared negative social evaluation brought on by environmental stimuli had been found to make more frequent performance errors (Mesagno,
2009; Mesagno et al., 2011). Errors made in dance are interpreted as more severe as they increase in visibility to the untrained audience; and second, choking is only perceived when elite dancers experience freezing on stage (Rivera, Alexander, Nehrenz, & Fields, 2012). Dance is a domain where performance is the main focus, unlike sports where the outcome is of utmost importance (Hanrahan, 2005). As errors increase in severity in dance, so does the likelihood that an error committed will negatively affect the overall performance quality. Dancers already internalize their errors and interpret them as negative reflections of their abilities, but they often are reassured by the fact that “no one else noticed.” Once people start noticing, the level of humiliation increases (Carr & Wyon, 2003; Conroy et al., 2001, Quested, Cummings, & Dudam,
2012). While the same notion can be applied to major errors, the key difference between major errors such as freezing on stage and moderate errors such as forgetting steps is the dancer’s ability to recover from it in the moment.
29 Emotions. The conductance of an error, when perceived to be detrimental to performance provokes an emotional response. Lazarus (2000) defined emotion as “ a phenomenon that is an organized psychophysiological reaction to ongoing relationships with the environment” (p. 230).
While the sporting environment provides a source for emotional response, an athlete’s emotions can also affect the outcome of competition (Butler, 1996; Jones, 2003). Emotional processes consume the cognitive resources that are necessary for attending to relevant cues, and this process can either lead to performance decrements or performance gains (Kron, Schul, Cohen, &
Hassin, 2010). Errors can directly affect anxiety and stress and manifest in terms of increased pressure, heightened arousal, and detrimental cognitions (Hamilton, 1997; Hanrahan, 2005;
Taylor & Estanol, 2015). In this respect, emotions can be both facilitative and detrimental depending on the person and the situation (Eyseneck & Calvo, 1992). All athletes encounter performance errors because it is considered a natural progression in the learning process.
However, for some athletes, performance errors can be catastrophic to the outcome.
High-pressure competitions evoke emotions such as anxiety, frustration, happiness, joy, disappointment, and many others (Hanin, 1997, 2000, 2007). The effect of emotions on performance is a subject of extensive research (Burton, 1988; Gould, Petlichkoff, Simons, &
Vevera, 1987; Hanin & Syrja, 1995a, Hanin & Syrja, 1995b; Jones, 2003; Jones, Mace, &
Williams, 2000). Generally, the findings revealed that emotions in competition are task specific, and can be either helpful or harmful to performance, and personally relevant to the individual athlete (Hanin, 2000, 2004, 2007; Lazarus, 1998; Robazza, 2006,).
Hanin (2007) described an international tennis player’s best and worst days of competition. The player was asked to complete idiosyncratic questionnaires to determine the specific emotions he perceived as affecting his best and worst performance. During the athlete’s
30 worst performance he experienced both high levels of nervousness as well as moderate levels of determination and confidence at the same time. Additionally, emotional intensity varied depending on the time in the game (before, during, and after the game). Finally, this case study provided support for the notion that unpleasant emotions such as anger, anxiety, and tension can be beneficial in certain competitive situations (Hanin, 1978, 1995, 2007; Jones, 1995; Raglin,
1992; Raglin & Hanin, 2000). For example, positive emotions, such as confidence can lead to a lack of concentration and insufficient resources for performances, and in contrast, anxiety may result in concentrating on the task at hand, leading to successful performance (Eysenck & Calvo,
1992; Hanin, 2000). In conclusion, the overall relationship between emotion and performance is bi-directional, dynamic, and unique to each individual athlete (Hanin, 2007). Matthews and
Macleod (1994) found additional support for these conclusions in a study examining soccer players. The research showed that soccer players who were highly anxious were more likely to perceive and attend to threatening stimuli, such as a defender rather than on the ball’s location on the field. In this particular case, the presence of a negative emotion (anxiety) is overloading the athlete’s cognitive resources and limiting attentional capacity along with working memory
(Beilock & Carr, 2001).
In summary, emotions cannot be considered as a unimodal, and instead must be viewed integratively in relation to performance (e.g., functionality; Ruiz & Hanin, 2004). The relationship between emotions and performance is cyclical. In moments of high pressure, high arousal and emotions narrow attentional width (Easterbrook, 1959). In some cases, attentional narrowing can lead to performance enhancement because attentional narrowing blocks out distractions, but it can also lead the athlete to miss out on task relevant cues in the environment
(Hanin, 2004, 2007; Walker & Nordin-Bates, 2010). Lazarus’s (1991) Cognitive-Motivational-
31 Relational Theory (CMRT) provides a conceptional framework for the linkage between
emotions’ elicitation and their behavioral consequences. Essentially, when an individual
appraises his/her environment as either challenging or threatening, it evokes emotions which
consequently affect performance either debilitatingly or facilitatively. The use of coping skills
and social support mediate the appraisal-emotions-behaviors linkage. The use of emotional-
referenced and problem-solving referenced coping strategies along with the use of other self-
regulated processes determine performance quality, as well as the perception of performance
decline.
Cognitions. A negative relationship between perceived anxiety, specifically cognitive
anxiety, and performance has been noted in various sports including soccer and golf (Englert &
Bertrams, 2012; Jordet, 2009; Kleine, 1990; Vine, Moore, & Wilson, 2011; Woodman & Hardy,
2003). Cognitive anxiety is associated with a person’s thoughts about one’s specific performance
and has been shown to have a substantial effect on performance (Martens, Burton, Vealey,
Bump, & Smith, 1990). Stressors associated with cognitive anxiety can lead to extreme levels of
arousal, and subsequent psychological performance crisis (Bar-Eli & Tenenbaum, 1989a.b). It has been suggested in dance research, however, that the interpretation of cognitive anxiety symptoms as detrimental or facilitative to performance are further influenced by the skill level of the performer, and his/her perceptions of control and self-confidence (Fletcher & Hanton, 2003;
Hanton, Mellalieu, Hall, 2004; Thomas, Maynard, & Hanton, 2004, 2007; Walker & Nordin-
Bates, 2010). Walker and Nordin-Bates (2010) studied 15 elite ballet dancers and concluded qualitatively that principal dancers (more elite dancers within the hierarchal company structure) experienced greater anxiety in comparison to corps de ballet dancers (lowest on the hierarchy).
Additionally, the dancers felt that feelings of perceived lack of control (i.e. feeling unprepared or
32 physically challenged) were the underlying mechanism for their cognitive anxiety symptoms.
Overall these results suggested that cognitive anxiety is more detrimental to performance than somatic anxiety and can be potentially perceived as the most psychological debilitating factor to dance performance.
The impact of negative emotions, such as anger and frustration, can lead to lower self- efficacy, and a subsequent “downward spiral” of performance in dance (Taylor & Estanol, 2015).
Self-efficacy refers to one’s belief that they are capable of being successful in their performance
(Bandura, 1997). One of the most influential sources of self-efficacy is through previous experiences, particularly mastery experiences. As supported by this concept, performers carry their past experiences, either successful or unsuccessful, into their future performances and this directly impacts their perceptions of self-efficacy. Essentially, negative thoughts lead to performance decline, which in turn leads to self-fulfilling prophecies and further negative thoughts about one’s abilities. Mastery experience has also been shown to be linked to dancers’ ego orientation. Carr and Wyon (2003) surveyed 181 dance students in the United Kingdom and found that students practicing under performance-focused climates were high in ego orientation
(win/loss outlook) and showed neurotic perfectionism. Fundamentally, in dance schools where the focus is on demonstrating one’s competence in relation to another, students found it difficult to cope with their performance mistakes. Those students were more likely to view their mistakes as a negative reflection of their dance abilities and less likely to have confidence in their abilities to perform in the future. Similarly, Conroy et al. (2001) found that performing artists were more likely to report having unpleasant feelings (i.e., “I am no good”) after perceived failure than traditional athletes.
33 The cycle of negative cognitions leads to a lack of focus on task-relevant information,
resulting in increased self-consciousness (Lewis & Linder, 1997). Cognitions such as fear of
injury and audience/judge evaluation were found to be very dominant in affecting dance
performance, particularly on the opening night of shows and auditions (Helin, 1989; Nagel,
1992; Taylor & Estanol, 2015). Helin (1989) found that professional dancers perceived higher
levels of mental tension and less successful performance outcomes when an audience was
present than during the final general rehearsal. It was concluded that this was the result of
increased insecurity brought on by the presence of family and friends in attendance. This notion
aligns with the self-presentational theory of choking (Mesagno et al., 2012) suggesting that fear
of negative evaluation can manifest in feelings of cognitive anxiety. Cognitive anxiety then leads
to poor performance as a function of increased self-consciousness and distraction from automaticity.
In conclusion, performance anxiety and cognitive disruptions are arguably a routine part of the performing arts (Hays, 2002). While it may be unavoidable based upon the self- presentational aspects of dance, dancers vary based on how much and how debilitating cognitive anxiety can be to their performance. Increased cognitions are directly impactful in concentration, memory, physiological tension, and in performance outcome (Clark, 1989; Hays, 2002;
Lockwood, 1989).
Coping in Sport. Coping is defined as, “constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p.141). As proposed in the model, after an error occurs the performer evaluates their ability to cope based upon perceived threat (Lazarus, 1999). The initial appraisal invokes emotions, which then induces coping caused
34 by the attempts to regulate their relationship with the environmental demands (Folkman &
Lazarus, 1988). When evaluating performance failure, the inability to cope with pressure is a significant factor (Lazarus, 2000). Ineffective forms of coping can lead to withdrawal from sport and decreased performance (Johnston & McCabe, 1993; Klint & Weiss, 1986; Lazarus, 2000;
Smith, 1986). Research findings revealed that one of the crucial triggers of choking under pressure is an inability to cope with stress (Tanner & Sands, 1997; Wang et al., 2004).
The coping-performance relationship is recursive and dynamic, and thus suggests that coping is unstable and varies depending upon the performer’s appraisal of the situation and previous success of their coping strategies (Anshel, 1996; Anshel & Kaissidis, 1997; Anshel et al., 2001; Gould et al., 1993; Holt & Hogg, 2002; Nicholls & Polman, 2007; Poczwardowski &
Conroy, 2002). Coping is a complex process involved in stress and adaptation preceded by self- esteem, athletic identity, and sport constraints (Aldwin, 2007; Crocker, Tamminen, & Gaudreau,
2015; Lazarus, 1999; Nicholls, 2010). Performers utilize a multitude of coping skills, however, the most widely utilized coping strategies are problem and emotion focused (Crocker, Kowalski
& Graham, 1998). Problem focused coping strategies are used to alter the stressful situation, while emotion focused coping is used to deal with the emotional distress associated with the event (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Avoidance coping, which is not frequently used because it is perceived to increase cognitive anxiety, involves behavioral and psychological attempts to disengage from a stressor (Anshel, 2001; Anshel & Kaissidis, 1997; Crocker, 1992; Giacobbi et al., 2004; Hammermeister & Burton, 2001; Krohne, 1993; Ntourmanis & Biddle, 2000).
Avoidance coping is most often utilized for acute stressors that are outside of their control during performance (i.e., costume malfunctions or music malfunctions), and can be beneficial in abbreviated situations such as a condensed dance performance because it can provide a buffer
35 against distracting stimuli when immediate decision making must take place (Krohne & Hindel,
1988). In addition, avoidance coping is beneficial for performance settings that comprise of open
and continuous tasks such as dance (Anshel, 1996; Orlick, 1990), and for youth/adolescents
performers (Anshel, 1996; Gaudreau & Blondin, 2002; Kowalski & Crocker, 2001).
Purpose of Study
This dissertation has two main purposes; first, to explore the effectiveness of the model at explaining the phenomenon of cascading and choking under pressure in dance and secondly, to test the effectiveness of a mental skills training program in mitigating the effects of self-
consciousness in choking under pressure and the development of coping skills. The presence of
pressure increases anxiety and self-consciousness in the performer (Baumeister, 1984). When a
performer is under pressure, the pressure of executing his/her skills increases. The dancer’s
conscious attempts to ensure successful execution of skills leads to explicit monitoring of their
performance process by paying attention to coordination and precision. These attempts ironically
may lead to performance decline as a result of attempts to control it (Baumeister, 1984;
Fenigstein et al., 1975; Hefferline et al., 1959; Murayama & Sekiya, 2015; Wang et al., 2004).
Several attempts have been made to diminish the effects of self-consciousness through self-consciousness training (Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr, 2001; Beilock et al., 2002; Ford,
Hodges, & Williams, 2004; Reeves, Tenenbaum, & Lidor, 2007). The rationale behind self- consciousness training is that by having performers become desensitized to explicit skill monitoring, they will experience fewer performance decrements. Although results have generally been positive for the role of self-consciousness training in improving performance, research findings indicated that the method a skill was originally learned, either implicitly or explicitly could be impactful to the effectiveness of this type of training (Law, Masters, Bray,
36 Eves, & Bardswell, 2003; Reeves et al., 2007). It can be argued that it is more likely that the
individual’s interpretation of their self-consciousness and its consequences have more of a direct
effect on performance than whether or not they have been trained to utilize explicit monitoring
(Kerr, 1997). Consequently, it is beneficial to provide interventions that attempt to alter
perceptions of the consequences of self-consciousness in order to mitigate its debilitative effects.
It has been proposed that one of the constructs that could influence self-consciousness is self-talk (DeSouza, DaSilveira, & Gomes, 2008; Morin, 1993; Schneider, 2002). Self-talk is one of the most common psychological skills in mental skills programs and is defined as multidimensional verbalizations addressed to the self which has interpretive elements and served both an instructional and motivational function for the performer (Hardy, 2006). Self-talk has been shown to enhance motor performance via four mechanisms: cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral (Hardy, Oliver, & Tod, 2009). Cognitive mechanisms specifically refer to informational processing and attentional control which can be impacted by the presence of detrimental or facilitative self-talk (Bell & Hardy, 2009; Hatzigeorgiadis, Theodrakis, &
Zourbanos, 2004). Motivational mechanisms refer to the aspects of performance related to persistence and self-efficacy (Chiu & Alexander, 2000). The performance mechanisms refer to movement patterns and technical instructions which can be manipulated through self-talk (Tod,
Hardy, & Oliver, 2011). Self-talk has also been shown to impact performance affectively through the regulation of emotions such as anxiety (Maynard, Warwick-Evans, & Smith, 1995).
Although some research findings suggest that negative self-talk impairs performance and positive self-talk improves performance, that cannot be generalized to all performers (e.g.
Cumming, Nordin, Horton, & Reynolds, 2006; Hardy, Hall, & Hardy, 2007; Hatzigeorgiadis,
Zourbanos, Galanis, & Theodorakis, 2011; Iwatsuki, Van Raalte, Brewer, Petipas, & Takahasi,
37 2016; Van Raalte, Cornelius, Brewer, & Hatton, 2000). The valence of self-talk that is beneficial
to performance is dependent upon the individual using it. This suggests that self-talk has a
cyclical relationship to performance, which is best conceptualized by the sport-specific model of self-talk (Van Raalte, Cornelius, Copeskey, & Brewer, 2014). According to the model, there is a complex and reciprocal relationship between personal factors (i.e. personality), contextual factors (i.e. the level of competition and performance), and self-talk (Van Raalte, Vincent, &
Brewer, 2016). Furthermore, self-talk can be separated into two systems; system 1 self-talk is
unconscious, automatic, and intuitive, while system 2 self-talk requires working memory and is similar to prescribed cue words or instructional self-talk. Additionally, system 2 self-talk depletes cognitive resources because it requires an increased level of self-control.
In most self-talk interventions, participants are taught facilitative self-talk in order to increase performance; unfortunately, this can often cause self-talk dissonance (Van Raalte et al.,
2016; Wood, Perunovic, & Lee, 2009). According to the self-talk dissonance hypothesis, system
1 self-talk relates to feelings of self-worth and esteem in performers so when they are asked to use system 2 self-talk that conflicts with their beliefs this leads to a depletion of cognitive resources and an overall detrimental effect on performance. Consequently, if performers attempt to consciously utilize self-talk that is contrary to their state of being, this can actually lead to poor performance (Brooks, 2014). Overall, this suggests that in order to be most effective, self- talk interventions must focus on decreasing cognitive dissonance that results from increased self- consciousness. For example, rather than asking a performer to utilize positive self-affirmations, it is preferable to ask them to increase their utilization of positive statements that they already subscribe to about themselves.
38 Another perceived cause of self-consciousness is abnormal physical sensations
(Murayama & Sekiya, 2015). When one perceives an event as a threat, his/her body responds
through abnormal physical sensations, such as increased heart rate and irregular breathing
increase conscious processing, which consequently alters motor control and diminishes
performance (e.g., Beuter & Duda, 1985; Damasio, 2004; Landers, Wang, & Courtet, 1985;
Murayama & Sekiya, 2015; Yamadori, 2008). Relaxation techniques such as Progressive Muscle
Relaxation (PMR) can enhance performance through increasing self-confidence and reducing anxiety and muscle tension (Jacobson, 1938; Parnabas, Mahamood, Parnabas, & Meera
Abdullah, 2014; Pragman, 1998; Vincent & Yahaya, 2012; Weinberg & Gould, 2011).
Progressive Muscle Relaxation (PMR) refers to the practice of progressively relaxing and tensing muscle groups (Ampofo-Boateng, 2009). It has been utilized across many domains including medicine (e.g. Feldman, Greeson, & Senville, 2010), injury prevention (Naylor, 2009), and sleep treatment (de Neit, Tiemens, Kloos, & Hutschemaekers, 2009; McCallie, Blum, & Hood, 2006;
McCloughan, Hanrahan, Anderson, & Halson, 2016; Morin et al., 1999). In relation to sport performance, the more performers utilize PMR within and outside of performance, the higher their level of sport performance (Murayama & Sekiya, 2015). Furthermore, relaxation strategies may enable performers to return back to baseline levels of activation rather than to experience a cascading effect following initial errors (Humpreys & Revelle, 1984: Landers & Boutcher, 1998;
Taylor, 1995; Thelwell, Greenless, & Weston, 2006). However, to my knowledge no research has been conducted to examine the usefulness of PMR within choreographed movement without disrupting motor movements or aesthetics. PMR is most likely beneficial if used prior to the performance in this instance. Finally, PMR not only reduces physiological responses but also
39 can result in a reduction of negative thoughts (Anshel, 2003; Bull, Albinson, & Shambrook,
1996; Keable, 1989; Nelson-Jones, 2003).
It has been suggested that when implementing a mental skills intervention, it is more effective to implement multiple skills as opposed to a singular psychological skill such as self- talk however there are downsides to this (Thelwell & Greenlees, 2001). A study was conducted to examine the effectiveness of these two mental techniques in alleviating test anxiety in high school and college students with learning disabilities has reported positive results (Wachelka &
Katz, 1999). However, to our knowledge, a program combining both has not been utilized to test choking alleviation with choking prone dancers. Additionally, despite the lack of research examining choking under pressure with youth athletes, there has been research that suggests that psychological skills training programs are particularly useful for youth athletes because they are more flexible and haven’t fully internalized detrimental responses to performance pressure
(Vealey, 1988). In this dissertation, I first explored the process and interview. We then tested the effectiveness of a mental skills training program that combines self-talk and progressive muscle relaxation in mitigating the effects of self-consciousness in choking under pressure. The following research questions were used to guide this dissertation:
(a) How is the cascading effect related to choking under pressure in dance?
(b) How does increased self-consciousness impact choking under pressure?
(c) How effective is a mental skills intervention that includes self-talk and PMR in
alleviating the consequences of self-consciousness and choking under pressure?
I predicted that self-consciousness plays a significant role in choking under pressure, and that through a 7-week self-talk and PMR intervention a decrease in the occurrence of cascading and choking under pressure would be evident.
40 This dissertation had two main aims; foremost to explore the effectiveness of the model
at explaining the phenomenon of error perception in dance and to test the effectiveness of a
mental skills training program in mitigating the effects of self-consciousness in choking under
pressure. In stage 1 of this study, I examined the effectiveness of the proposed model
qualitatively by surveying dancers about their perceptions of their errors and perceived causes. In the quantitative stage of the study I tested test the effectiveness of a combined self-talk and PMR
mental skills training program in modifying self-consciousness and perceived emotional,
cognitive, and stress related causes of choking under pressure. I hypothesized that:
(A) Participants who completed the 7-week combined self-talk and PMR training
program would experience a decrease in anxiety and self-consciousness in
comparison to the control condition.
(B) Participants who completed the 7-week combined self-talk and PMR training
program would increase in self-confidence, efficacy, and overall performance rating
in comparison to the control condition.
The secondary aim of this stage was to substantiate the model through testing the program’s efficacy at impacting error perception and decreasing the likelihood of the cascading effect in a second audition. I hypothesized that:
(C)Participants who completed the 7-week combined self-talk and PMR training program
would reduce the severity of error perception and decrease the likelihood of the cascading
effect from time 1 to time 2 compared to the control condition.
41 CHAPTER 3
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 23 youth and adolescent competitive solo female dancers (Mage= 11.63,
SD= 2.66; Mexperience= 7.52, SD= 3.26) from a local dance studio in Texas. An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power 3.1.9.2 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) aligned to the study’s design using effect size f = .60, power = .80, and α = .05, which resulted in N = 30
(see Figure 2). A total of 30 dancers were originally recruited for participation; however, 7 dancers dropped out of the study prior to completing the post-audition questionnaire and being randomly assigned to the groups because of unexpected time commitments.
Figure 2. Power analysis for part two of the study
The participants were members of the elite competitive dance team for the studio and competed prior to, during, and after this study took place. The dancers were recruited in person at their studio through their main dance instructor. In order to take part in this study, participants
42 were required to be members of the elite competition team and physically able to dance (no
debilitating injuries). I chose these particular criteria because dancers on the elite competition
team were selected after an extensive audition process which indicated at least 4 years
experience dancing and a sufficient level of expertise, the potential for growth, and because the
participants will likely be familiar with the competition process.
Design
The study’s design used a mixed method approach which consisted of a randomized
pretest-posttest control group experiment and semi-structured interviews. The interviews were conducted with all participants both pre- and post-intervention. Thirteen of the participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention condition (N = 13, Mage=11.08, SD= 2.02;
Mexperience= 7.31, SD=2.53), or to a waiting list control condition (N = 10, Mage=12.35, SD= 3.28;
Mexperience= 8.10, SD=4.12). Participants in the waiting list control condition were offered the
opportunity to complete the intervention after the study was completed, but during the study they
only completed the surveys and post-performance questionnaires.
The semi-structured interviews were conducted using a directed content analysis
framework. Given that the integrated perceptual model of choking under pressure was used as
the theoretical framework for this inquiry, to conceptualize choking under pressure, a deductive
approach such as the directed content analysis specifically was ideal for either substantiating the
model or developing an alternative explanation to the cascading effect (Hickey & Kipping, 1996;
Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).
Instrumentation
The Integrated Perceptual Model of Choking under pressure proposes that error
perception and the cascading effect are influenced by emotions (i.e., frustration, anxiety, and
43 sadness), cognitions (i.e., social comparison and confidence), stressors (i.e., audience pressure, previous error history, and self-consciousness), and a lack of coping resources. The following quantitative instruments serve a dual purpose of providing both a manipulation check of the efficacy of the proposed intervention and addressing the key concepts within the proposed model. Error perception was assessed qualitatively pre-and post-intervention by using the post- performance questionnaire and interview, and the secondary appraisal process was assessed by utilizing the Self-Efficacy Scale for Dancers. The remaining variables, anxiety, confidence, stress, self-consciousness, and cognitions were assessed by utilizing the Modified Revised
Competitive State Anxiety Inventory for Performers (Cox, Martens, & Russell, 2003; Yoshie,
Shigemasu, Kudo, & Ohtsuki, 2009), and the State Self- Consciousness Scale for Dancers
(Castillo, 2018).
Demographic Survey (DS; Appendix A). The DS consisted of 9 questions aimed at ascertaining basic demographic information. The questions solicited age, biological sex, identified racial/ethnic group, years of dance experience, current dance status, primary dance style, and a brief description of their past/ current dance experience from each participant (see
Table 1).
Post-Performance Retrospective Questionnaire and Interview (Appendix B).
Following the first competition, the participants answered 24 questions:
1. “How would you rate your overall performance during this audition?” The response was given on a 9 rating Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (poor) to 9 (excellent).
2. “Briefly explain your reasoning for your performance rating.” The response was a free response.
44 Table 1 Participant demographic information by condition
Intervention Control Demographic Variables N % N % Biological Sex Male 0 0 0 0 Female 13 100 10 100 Ethnic Group White 6 46 6 60 Black 1 8 0 0
Hispanic 4 31 4 40
Native American/ 0 0 0 0 American Indian Asian or Pacific 0 0 0 0 Islander Mixed 3 23 0 0 Current Dance Status
Yes 13 100 10 100
No 0 0 0 0
3. “Was there any point during the audition where you felt that you didn’t perform the
way you wanted to? (yes or no).” If yes, what specifically happened that made you feel that you
were performing below your expectations and why?”
The next section of questions requires the participant to think about their errors or moments that they felt that they failed to perform to standards. They will only complete this
section if they endorsed that they felt that they didn’t perform the way they wanted to.
4. “Describe your feelings leading up to the mistake.” - free response
5. “Describe your thoughts leading up to the mistake.” - free response 45 6. “Describe your behaviors leading up to the mistake.” – free response
7. “Describe your feelings after the mistake.” - free response
8. “Describe your thoughts after the mistake.” - free response
9. “Describe your behaviors after the mistake.” – free response
10. “To what extent did you feel that your feelings were detrimental to your performance?” Responses range from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much).
11. “To what extent did you feel that your thoughts were detrimental to your
performance?” Responses range from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much).
12. “To what extent did you feel that your behaviors were detrimental to your
performance?” Responses range from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much).
13. “How long did you continue to think about the mistake after it happened?” - free
response.
14. “Describe the strategies you used, if any, to deal with your feelings, thoughts, and
behaviors after the mistake.” - free response.
15. “Can you describe any specific way the mistake may have influenced you in other
parts of the audition? - free response.
The next questions require the participant to think about his/her next error or moments
that they felt that they weren’t performing to standard. These questions have free format answer.
16. “Did you make another error after the mistake?” (yes or no). “If yes, what
specifically happened?”
17. “Describe your feelings leading up to the mistake.” – free response.
18. “Describe your thoughts leading up to the mistake.” – free response.
19. “Describe your behaviors leading up to the mistake.” – free response.
46 20. “Describe your feelings after the mistake.” – free response.
21. “Describe your thoughts after the mistake.” – free response.
22. “Describe your behaviors after the mistake.” – free response.
23. “Describe the strategies you used, if any, to deal with your feelings, thoughts, and
behaviors after the second mistake” – free response.
24. “Can you describe any specific way the mistake may have influenced you in other
parts of the audition?” – free response.
Modified Revised Competitive State Anxiety Inventory for Performers. (Modified
CSAI-2R; Cox et al., 2003; Yoshie et al., 2009; Appendix C). The original CSAI-2R is a measure of competitive anxiety in athletes. Participants are asked to answer 17 items about their feelings on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1(not at all) to 4 (very much). The items are grouped into 3 subscales: cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence. Cox, Martens, and Russell (2003) have validated the 3-factor structure of the scale for a very good fit with two separate samples of collegiate athletes through confirmatory factor analysis. Correlation coefficients between the three factors were 0.61 for cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety, –0.58 for cognitive anxiety and self-confidence, and –0.35 between somatic anxiety and self- confidence.
The modified version of the CSAI-2R is used as a measure of state anxiety of performers.
Participants are asked to answer 17 items about their feelings on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much). The items are grouped into 3 subscales: cognitive anxiety (CA), somatic anxiety (SA), and self-confidence (SC). Two new items were introduced to replace two items determined to lack content validity by researchers (Yoshie et al., 2009). Item 5 which was in the cognitive anxiety subscale, “I am concerned about losing,” was replaced with
47 “I am concerned about failing,” and item 7 from the self-confidence sub-scale, “I am confident I
can meet the challenge,” was replaced with “I am confident I can meet the audience/judge’s
expectations.” These two alternative items were found to describe performers feelings of anxiety
properly. The CSAI-2R final subscale scores consists of summing up all of the items’ ratings in each subscale (item 14 is reversed). The internal consistency of this modified version of the
CSAI-2R was high for all three subscales (Cognitive Anxiety: M = 21.39, SD= 7.71, α = 0.84;
Somatic Anxiety: M = 18.83, SD= 6.72, α = 0.85; Self-confidence: M =19.67, SD = 7.59, α =
0.90).
State Self-Consciousness Scale for Dancers. (SCS; Appendix D). The SCS consists of 9 items and was adapted from a self-awareness measure developed for dancers (Castillo, 2018).
Example items are, “How aware were you of your weaknesses in learning the choreography?”,
“How aware were you of your strengths in demonstrating choreography during your performance?”, and “How aware were you of your weaknesses in self-expression?” Participants answered each item on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all aware) to 5
(extremely aware). The SCS final score consisted of summing up all of the items’ ratings.
Self-Efficacy Scale for Dancers. (SES; Appendix E). The SES was created for this study and consisted of 10 items. Sample items include, “I can demonstrate exceptional technique during my performance,” “If I make a mistake during my performance, I can let it go and move past it,” and “If I feel nervous during my performance, I can relax my body and mind using psychological skills in the moment.” Participants answered each item on a 10-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (cannot do at all) to 9 (certain can do). The SES score consisted of summing up all of the items’ ratings.
48 Psychological skill intervention (Appendix F)
The intervention consisted of seven sessions lasting one hour/week with a sport psychology consultant (SPC) to teach self-talk and PMR techniques (Table 2). Weekly homework between sessions were utilized to track self-awareness and to promote the utilization of the material outside of the sessions. The intervention was designed to adhere to the three phases of psychological skills training proposed by research (Gill, 2000; Horn, 2002). The first phase was the educational phase where participants began to develop an understanding of the importance of the skills being taught and how they could affect performance. Secondly was the acquisition phase which is where participants learned how to use the skills and best practices for implementation. Finally, we had the practice phase where participants devoted time to mastering the skills in practice and competitive situations. Over the course of the seven sessions, participants were first introduced to the concepts of self-talk and PMR in week 1 and beginning in week 2 worked to gain awareness of their self-talk tendencies and its impact on their performance. Each session included both a psycho-educational component and an activity. After the activity, the session concluded with a debrief and homework was assigned to be completed over the course of a week. Participants who did not complete their homework between sessions had an opportunity to complete their homework during the session in which it was due.
Participants were also encouraged to practice PMR 8.5-minutes a day (see Appendix I) outside of their weekly sessions in accordance with McCloughan, Hanrahan, Anderson, and Halson’s
(2015) study. PMR practice was monitored through weekly self-report.
Procedures
After obtaining institutional review board approval to conduct this study, participants were recruited for participation. Parental informed consent was obtained, and participant assent
49 was obtained prior to participation in the study. Participants were asked to complete the CSAI-
2R, the SES, and the SCS for dancers prior to their first competition. After their competition participants who consented to participate, completed the post-audition questionnaire and a demographic survey. Completion of the questionnaires took approximately 45 minutes. At the conclusion of the qualitative portion of this study, participants were asked if they wished to participate in part two of the study which was the 7-week intervention to help them prepare for subsequent competitions.
Table 2 Outline for 7 week mental skills training program Week Topics Activities and Homework
1 Introduction to Self-Talk and PMR PMR Activity and Recording Self-Talk 2 Awareness Building and Examining PMR Activity and Examining Current Effects of Negative Self-Talk Self-Talk Use 3 Creating Self-Statements and Body CBT Thought Record and Body Scanning for Tension Scanning for Tension 4 Evaluating Self-Statements and PMR Using Verbal Persuasion, CBT Check-In Thought Record, and PMR Practice 5 Revisiting Self-Statements and PMR Using PMR Without Audio Recording Usage and Self-Statement Discussion 6 Cognitive Restructuring Revisited and Checking in on Self-Statement Use and PMR Show and Tell PMR Competency 7 Summary and Conclusion Debriefing and Wrap-Up
Part two of this study addressed the second purpose of this study. After receiving their
consent to participate in part two of the study, the dancers were randomly assigned to either the
treatment group or the waiting list control group. The waiting list control group was only
50 expected to complete the measures before their next competition 7 weeks later - see psychological skill intervention in the methods chapter). The out of session practice consisted of audio recordings of a PMR script created by the researchers. During the intervention, dancers were asked to record in a journal about their self-talk and PMR use before, during, and after a performance. After the last session of the intervention, dancers were asked about their general impression of the intervention overall. Detailed weekly protocols for the seven-week intervention can be found in Appendix F. Approximately seven weeks later, participants competed in another competition, at which point we collected data of their results again (through observation of errors and collecting of final results of the audition).
After the audition, participants completed the same post-performance questionnaire about their audition experience to examine error perception (see Appendix B). Completion of the interview questionnaires took approximately 1 hour. For participating in this study, participants received $10 Target gift cards. A graphical depiction of the proposed time schedule of stage 2 is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Time schedule for Stage II
Qualitative Data analysis
The qualitative data were analyzed using a directed content analysis (Hickey & Kipping,
1996; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). First, data were transcribed and input into a password-protected
51 file. Content analysis began immediately after data collection. Initially, each interview was read over multiple times to gain an overarching contextual understanding of the data. The data analysis was directed by the integrated perceptual model, which allowed an opportunity to examine possible cognitive and/or emotional responses to perceived stressors. This also allowed identification of personal and situational factors that the model did not anticipate. Each piece of information was then coded using the operational definitions (see Table 3) as predetermined codes. An outside coder was enlisted to code anonymized data. Researcher agreement was set at
0.90 for Cohen’s Kappa. Finally, data that did not fit within the existing codes was analyzed later to determine possible establishment of a subcategory of a predetermined code.
Table 3 Operational definitions for coding procedures Category of Analysis Definition Errors Discussion of type of error and magnitude of error (minor, moderate, and major) Pressure Discussion of perceived pressure felt prior to initial error External Stressors Discussion of outside distractors (i.e. audience, judges, and costumes) Internal Stressors Discussion of internal distractors (i.e. self-image, prior error history, fear of failure, and self-consciousness) Emotions Discussion of emotional responses to errors Cognitions Discussion of cognitive stressors (i.e. perceived anxiety, negative self-talk, and low-self-efficacy) Error/ Cascading Discussion of subsequent errors after initial errors Coping Resources Discussion of utilization of problem focused, avoidance focused, and emotion focused coping strategies (i.e. self-talk, confidence building, focus, and relaxation techniques.)
52 Statistical Analysis
Prior to applying the statistical procedures aimed at testing the stage II study’s hypotheses, the data for each of the dependent variables were examined for normality violations
(e.g., Skewness and Kurtosis). In case of any data distribution violation, the data was transformed via logarithmic function and examined again for its distribution characteristics.
When the procedure was satisfied, the experimental and control conditions were compared to each other on the measures of anxiety, stress, self-consciousness, self-talk, self-confidence and efficacy, and error perceptions at the outset of the study using either ANOVA or MANOVA procedures for unidimensional or multidimensional variables, respectively. Following this statistical procedure, testing of the study’s hypotheses took place. RM ANOVAs or RM
MANOVAs were used to test any changes in the dependent variables which are assumed to be greater in the experimental than in the control conditions at the end of the study. Means, SDs, and SEs were calculated along with the multivariate and univariate statistical parameters. In addition, Cohen’s d coefficients were calculated to estimate the standardized difference between the means of the two conditions when necessary. Results are presented in tabulated and graphical forms. Significance level for testing the study’s hypotheses were set at p < .05.
53 CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
Qualitative Analysis
The following directed content analysis was used to substantiate the secondary purpose of
this dissertation, examining the integrated perceptual model of choking under pressure outlined
previously, and to examine the efficacy of the 7-week intervention program at changing error
perception and further incidences of the cascading effect. The original hypothesis pertaining to
this aim was that participants who completed the 7-week training program would reduce the severity of error perception and the likelihood of the cascading effect from pre to post in
comparison to the control condition. Results of the qualitative directed content analysis are
presented under the categories of analysis detailed in Table 3. Each of the following categories
and codes exceeded the criterion value of 0.90 for Cohen’s Kappa. Tabular representations of the
content analysis (see Table 4, 5, and 6) of these results for pre-intervention and post-intervention
are presented next.
Overall Rating of Performance
Despite reports of errors, participants still rated their performance as moderate to
excellent (see quantitative results). When asked why they rated their performance high even
though they had made errors during their piece, most dancers indicated that their rating was
attributed to three main causes: (a) the overall outcome of their performances, (b) comparisons to
previous performances, and/or (c) perfectionistic strivings.
54 Only 3 of all the dancers (Nintervention = 2, Ncontrol = 1) equated their overall rating to the
outcome of their performance pre-intervention. One example of this is from a dancer in the
control condition who stated, “As a group we won and performed at the faculty show, but the
dance could still be together.” Five dancers (Nintervention = 1, Ncontrol = 4) indicated that their
performance ratings were associated with comparisons to their previous performances. This is
illustrated through this quote from a dancer in the intervention condition, “I performed pretty
well because usually I get nervous but I didn’t this last time.” Most dancers (Nintervention = 10,
Ncontrol = 5) rated their performance based upon perfectionistic strivings as is evident by this
quote from a dancer in the intervention condition, “I did pretty good but I could have done
better.” Overall, dancers rated their performances based upon subjective criteria more so than
objective outcomes.
These responses were reflected similarly in the post-intervention. Overall dancers
continued to rate their performance as moderate to excellent. Most of the dancers in the
intervention condition (N=7) shifted their attributions for their performance ratings from
perfectionistic strivings to comparisons to their previous performance, “I feel like I did a pretty
good job on my last performance. I rate myself better than last time.” The remaining dancers in
the intervention condition attributed their ratings to increases in confidence (“I feel more
confident,” K = 3) and perfectionistic strivings (“I can always do better,” K = 3). The control
condition dancers retained similar rationales to pre-intervention with 3 participants attributing their rating to the overall outcome of the performance, for example, “…Because me and my team scored a lot of platinum’s and high golds.” Five dancers attributed their rating to perfectionistic strivings, “I felt that I performed good but I felt I could’ve done better,” and two attributing their
55 rating to previous performance, “I felt like I did good, and really performed better than my last
competition.”
Initial Errors
All dancers, except for one, indicated that in their most recent performance they had
experienced an error or mistake at the pre-intervention stage (see Table 4). Errors were coded in terms of error severity (minor, moderate, and major). Minor errors are errors that either affect the overall appearance of the performance (i.e. being out of line or off beat) or indicate technique lapses (i.e. forgetting to point your feet). Minor errors are generally associated with minute details that the average audience member wouldn’t notice. Moderate errors are errors that either visibly impact performance quality or involve difficulties in demonstrating learned choreography. Common moderate errors include dancing off beat, lacking emotive quality in their dancing, or forgetting choreography. These errors are generally associated with a lack of practice or novel performance. Major errors are errors that have the potential to stop a performance such as falling or getting injured. Other common major errors include forgetting sequences and freezing on stage.
Major errors are typically highly noticeable to the audience and a large source of anxiety for performers. The parameters of error severity were derived from an earlier qualitative pilot study. At the pre-intervention stage, 54% of the intervention dancers made minor errors. The most common errors (K = 5) were technique lapses such as forgetting to point the foot, not straightening the leg all the way in a turn, and not extending the arms. The other two dancers reported being out of line in their group piece and being behind the music (i.e., being off beat).
56 The remaining 46% of the dancers in the intervention condition experienced moderate errors (K
= 4) and major errors (K = 2).
Table 4 Content analysis for dancers’ experience of initial errors (pre- and post-intervention) Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Intervention Control Intervention Control Category N % N % N % N % Initial
Error Yes 13 100% 9 90% 5 38% 6 60% No 0 0% 1 10% 8 62% 4 40% Type of
Error Minor 7 54% 3 33% 2 40% 3 50% Moderate 4 31% 5 56% 3 60% 2 33% Major 2 15% 1 11% 0 0% 1 17%
The four dancers who reported moderate errors experienced forgetting choreography and lacking the appropriate emotive quality to their dance piece. The two dancers who reported major errors described instances of falling or slipping during their piece. 60% of the control dancers experienced moderate errors pre-intervention. The most common errors reported
included forgetting new choreography and forgetting to apply new corrections (K = 4). The other
moderate error reported was failing to fully complete the turns. The remaining control condition
dancers (40%) reported experiencing minor errors (K = 3) and major errors (K = 1). Similarly, to
the intervention condition, dancers who made minor errors described forgetting minute details of
57 their performance and being behind the music. The one dancer who reported a major error
described falling during her piece on unfamiliar flooring.
Overall, the dancers in the intervention condition experienced a 62% decrease in errors
from pre-to post- intervention vs the control condition dancers who experienced a 33% decrease.
Additionally, at the post-intervention stage, dancers experienced a decrease in the severity of errors. Out of the 11 dancers who experienced errors during their post-intervention performance, one control condition participant experienced a major error (falling). Dancers in the intervention condition reported errors involving legs not being fully extended during turns and/or not completing full revolutions in turns (K= 3) and difficulties properly emoting during performances (K = 2). Dancers in the control condition reported similar errors including difficulties displaying proper emotions (K = 2), difficulties demonstrating choreography (K = 1), being out of formation during a group dance (K = 1), and legs not fully being extended in turns
(K = 2).
Perceptions of Pressure, Internal and External Stressors
According to the proposed model, perceptions of pressure and stressors are precursors to
initial error occurrence. During the pre-intervention stage, all dancers in both the intervention and control conditions reported that their initial appraisals of their environment lead them to feel increased pressure and stressors. Responses were coded as being either an internal stressor or an external stressor. Internal stressors are stressors associated with the self, such as increased self-
consciousness and fear of failure. External stressors are stressors associated with factors outside
of the dancers control such as backstage distractions and audience perceptions. In the pre-
intervention stage, internal stressors were the reported causes of perceived pressure.
58 Table 5 Content analysis for dancers’ experience of stressors (pre- and post-intervention) Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Intervention Control Intervention Control Category N % N % N % N % External
5 38% 3 30% 0 0% 0 0% Yes Internal
8 62% 7 70% 1 60% 6 100% Yes
The most common internal stressors expressed were previous errors (Kintervention = 6 and
Kcontrol = 7) and fear of failure (Kintervention = 2). One dancer in the intervention condition illustrated this with the following quote, “I knew the hard part was coming that I had messed up with before. When it arrived, I was already second guessing myself.” Another dancer in the control condition described her feelings pre-error as, “I just kept thinking about it right before I went on.” Pre-intervention, common external distractors were unfamiliar environments
(Kintervention = 2 and Kcontrol = 1), costume malfunctions (Kintervention = 1 and Kcontrol = 0), and
outside observers’ expectations (Kintervention = 2 and Kcontrol = 2). One dancer from the intervention
described an experience with a costume mishap, “My top broke before I went on stage and it
brought me down before I went on stage,” while another dancer from the control condition spoke
about fear of judges, “I was thinking about what the judges thought and trying to focus and I just
kept getting nervous.” Another example from the intervention reported that having to perform
earlier than planned affected her performance.
59 At the post-intervention stage, dancers in the intervention condition experienced an 88% decrease in experiences of internal stressors and the control condition experienced an 14% decrease. Most dancers (K = 1) in the intervention condition did not report any attribution for their initial errors as described by one dancer who stated, “I made a minor mistake but I wasn’t nervous beforehand.” Dancers in the control condition however, attributed their errors exclusively to past performance. One dancer explained, “I just kept thinking about my previous performance and I got nervous.” Additionally, dancers in the control condition also frequently mentioned that leading up to their error they were thinking about the pressure and trying to remind themselves not to mess up.
Emotions, Cognitions, and the Cascading Effect
Many dancers indicated that pre-performance anxiety is a normal part of performing, and that they either learned to deal with it or it caused them to experience cognitive distortions. Key components of the integrated perceptual model of choking, are the primary and secondary appraisals that occurs after an initial error is made. During each appraisal dancers usually experience emotional and cognitive responses because of initial errors. During the primary appraisal, dancers were expected to experience a range of emotional responses that consume the cognitive resources of the dancer and cognitive anxiety symptoms. Additionally, after the initial appraisal, dancers evaluated their coping resources.
In the pre-intervention stage all the dancers in both the intervention and control conditions who made initial errors experienced emotions and cognitions similarly. The most common emotions expressed were sadness (Kintervention = 4 and Kcontrol = 3), frustration (Kintervention
= 7 and Kcontrol = 4), and fear (Kintervention = 2 and Kcontrol = 2). One dancer in the intervention
60 condition described her feelings as, “I felt really upset and embarrassed that I messed up in front
of everyone,” while another dancer from the control condition described her feelings as, “I was
sad then mad at myself.”
Just as the model outlines, the emotions experienced by the dancers led to accompanying
cognitions such as embarrassment, loss of self-confidence, self-doubt, and lower self-efficacy.
One dancer in the intervention condition described her feelings and thoughts after her errors as,
“I just kept wondering why did I do that and now I’m worried it will happen again.” This quote was commonly shared by many other dancers in both conditions (Kintervention = 5 and Kcontrol = 4).
Another quote by a dancer in the control condition also illustrated the effect of errors on post-
cognitions, “I just felt embarrassed like everyone saw me make a mistake.” Pre-intervention,
only dancers in both conditions talked about coping strategies they used after making an error.
Seven dancers described avoidance strategies such as evidenced by these direct quotes from a
dancer in the control condition, “I just tried not to think about it,” and a dancer in the
intervention condition, “I just kept saying don’t think about it.” The remaining dancers chose
emotional catharsis in the form of crying (K = 5) or just getting upset (K = 10) instead of
utilizing constructive coping skills.
At the post-intervention stage, dancers in both conditions who committed errors still
mentioned experiencing emotions and cognitions after making their initial error. However,
dancers in the intervention condition described their emotions and cognitions as less severe than
at the pre-intervention stage. An example of this was one dancer’s description of her thoughts
and feelings post-error, “I was upset at first but then I reminded myself that it is okay to make
mistakes and that I’ve got this and I felt better.” Dancers in the control condition described
experiencing their emotions and cognitions similarly to pre-intervention. An example of this is in
61 the quote from one dancer who said, “I was frustrated because I keep making the same mistake.”
As far as the coping strategies utilized during the post-intervention, five dancers from the
intervention condition who made an error in their most recent performance indicated that they
were aware of pressure and internal/external stressors such as others’ expectations and their
nerves, but that they utilized their self-talk skills to help them deal with them. As a result, they were better able to handle the subsequent emotions and cognitions that accompanied them. This quote from one of those dancers is an example of this, “Before I performed I was nervous, but I just reminded myself that I had this.” Dancers in the control condition continued to utilize similar coping skills as pre-intervention, emotional catharsis (K=2) and avoidance strategies (K = 4). An
example of this is illustrated in the following quotes, “I just tried not to think about it,” and “I
just got really upset because I thought I let my team down.”
According to the integrated perceptual model of choking, if a dancer appraises their
emotions/cognitions negatively and does not feel that they have appropriate coping skills then
the likelihood of a cascading effect increases. At the pre-intervention stage only 5 dancers (1
from the intervention condition and 4 from the control condition) experienced a secondary error.
All five of the dancers described thinking about their previous errors prior to making the next
one. One dancer from the control condition described her feelings as so, “I kept thinking about
my mistake and couldn’t focus on the dance or my performance.” At the post-intervention stage,
none of the dancers who reported making initial errors (K = 11) reported making a second error.
This suggested that the cascading effect was not present at post-intervention (see Table 6).
62 Table 6 Content analysis for dancers’ experience of emotions/cognitions and cascade effect (pre- and post-intervention) Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Intervention Control Intervention Control Category N % N % N % N % Emotions Sadness 4 31% 3 33% 2 40% 1 17% Frustration 7 54% 4 44% 3 60% 4 67% Fear 2 15% 2 22% 0 0% 1 17% Cognitions Embarrassment 8 62% 5 56% 1 20% 4 67% Self (efficacy/ 5 38% 4 44% 4 80% 2 33% confidence) Coping Self-Talk 0 0% 0 0% 5 100% 0 0% Avoidance 4 31% 3 33% 0 0% 4 67% Emotional Catharsis 9 69% 6 67% 0 0% 2 33% (Absence of Coping) Secondary Error Yes 1 8% 4 44% 0 0% 0 0% No 12 92% 5 56% 5 100% 6 100%
Quantitative Results
Normality Assumptions
Prior to testing the study’s quantitative hypotheses, normality assumptions were tested on
all the dependent variables of the study. The kurtosis values were all within the -7-7 range and the skewness within the -2-2 range, indicating that there were no normality violations in the data.
Table 7 depicts the descriptive statistics and normality assumptions of the study’s variables.
63
Table 7 Descriptive statistics and normality coefficients for the entire sample Variables M SD Min Max Skewness Kurtosis Performance Rating (PR) Pre 6.65 1.19 5 9 0.05 -0.93 Post 7.61 0.72 7 9 0.77 -0.59 Self-Efficacy (SE) Pre 61.70 18.77 26 90 -0.24 -0.75 Post 69.74 17.09 24 90 -1.27 1.81 Cognitive Anxiety (CA) Pre 11.65 2.92 8 17 0.22 -1.34 Post 11.00 3.18 6 18 0.47 -0.62 Somatic Anxiety (SA) Pre 15.61 6.19 7 27 -0.02 -1.07 Post 14.91 6.40 7 27 0.30 -1.17 Self-Confidence (SC) Pre 13.57 4.10 5 20 -0.40 -0.29 Post 15.65 3.96 6 20 -1.02 0.41 Self-Consciousness (SCS) Pre 32.17 7.54 10 41 -1.37 2.11 Post 36.04 7.06 20 49 -0.82 0.90
Effectiveness of Intervention: Testing the Study’s Hypotheses
The study’s hypotheses stated that dancers who complete the 7-week combined self-talk
and PMR training program will experience a decrease in anxiety and self-consciousness, and an increase in self-confidence, efficacy, and overall performance rating in comparison to the control condition dancers. An independent sample t-tests was conducted on the pre-intervention overall performance rating, self-efficacy, cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, self-confidence, and self-
64 consciousness between the intervention and control conditions. Table 8 presents the t-test analyses pertaining to these suppositions along with Means and SD for each condition.
Table 8 Descriptive statistics and independent t-tests by condition Intervention Control
Variables M SD M SD t p
Performance Rating (PR)
Pre 6.85 1.21 6.40 1.17 0.89 .39 Post 7.69 0.75 7.50 0.71 0.62 .54 Self-Efficacy (SE) Pre 67.31 16.97 54.40 19.32 1.70 .10 Post 76.23 10.90 61.30 20.39 2.26 .03
Cognitive Anxiety (CA) Pre 11.62 2.63 11.70 3.40 -0.07 .95 Post 9.92 3.12 12.40 2.80 -1.97 .06 Somatic Anxiety (SA) Pre 16.00 5.87 15.10 6.87 0.34 .74 Post 13.69 5.31 16.50 7.58 -1.05 .31 Self-Confidence (SC) Pre 13.85 3.89 13.20 4.54 0.37 .72 Post 17.31 2.69 13.50 4.43 2.56 .02
Self-Consciousness (SCS) Pre 33.71 8.58 30.70 6.06 0.82 .42 Post 37.38 6.59 34.30 7.60 1.04 .31
NIntervention = 13, Ncontrol = 10,
The analysis revealed that there were no initial differences between means of the intervention and control conditions prior to the start of the intervention for performance rating, t(21) = 0.89, p
= 0.39), self-efficacy, t(21) = 1.70 p = 0.10, cognitive anxiety, t(21) = -0.07, p = 0.95, somatic 65 anxiety, t (21) = 0.34, p = 0.31, self-confidence, t(21) = 0.37, p = 0.72), and self-consciousness, t(21) = 0.82, p = 0.42).
Given that there were no significant differences in the pre-intervention stage, RM
MANOVA followed by RM ANOVAS analyses were performed to test the study’s hypotheses maintaining that the intervention condition dancers would experience a decrease in cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-consciousness as well as an increase in self-confidence, self- efficacy, and overall performance in comparison to the control condition dancers. Table 9 represents the RM MANOVA related to these hypotheses.
Table 9 RM MANOVA for all dependent variable by condition (A) and time (B) Effect Wilk’s λ df F p 2
A. Condition 0.67 6, 16 1.31 0.31 0.33η B. Time 0.43 6,16 3.59 0.02 0.57
C. A x B 0.47 6,16 3.05 0.04 0.53
Non-significant effect was revealed for condition, F (6, 16) = 1.31, p = 0.31; however, the analysis revealed a significant main effect for time, F (6, 16) = 3.59, p = .02, and for condition x time interaction, F (6, 16) = 3.05, p = .04, which indicates a differential pre-post change of the dependent variable means between the conditions. Univariate RM ANOVAs were then performed for each of the study’s dependent variable. The first RM ANOVAs results are presented in Table 10. Non-significant effects were revealed for the condition, F(2,20) = 0.50, p
= .61 and the condition by time interaction, F(1,21) = 0.21, p = .65. However, a main effect for time was evident, F(1,21) = 12.29, p = .01.
66
Table 10 RM ANOVA for all performance rating by condition (A) and time (B) Effect Wilk’s λ df F p 2
A. Condition 0.95 2, 20 0.50 0.61 0.05η B. Time 0.63 1,21 12.29 0.01 0.37 C. A x B 0.99 1,21 0.21 0.65 0.01
This effect is shown in Figure 4a (for both conditions separately). Dancers in both
conditions rated their performance higher at the end of the intervention stage than at the pre-
intervention stage (MPre = 6.62, SD = 1.19 vs. MPost = 7.60, SD = 0.72; d = 0.90). The second RM
ANOVAs results pertain to self-efficacy and are presented in Table 11.
Table 11 RM ANOVA for self-efficacy by condition (A) and time (B) Effect Wilk’s λ df F p 2
A. Condition 0.80 2,20 2.45 .11 0.20η B. Time 0.72 1,21 8.13 .01 0.28
C. A x B 0.99 1,21 0.13 .72 0.01
Non-significant effects emerged for condition, F(2,20) = 2.45, p = .11, and the condition x time interaction effect, F(1,21) = 0.13, p = .72. However, a main effect was shown for time,
F(1,21) = 8.13, p = .01. This effect is shown in Figure 4b for both conditions separately. Dancers in both conditions perceived their self-efficacy higher at the end of the intervention stage than at
67 the pre-intervention stage (MPre = 60.85, SD = 18.78 vs. MPost = 68.77, SD = 17.09; d = 0.43).
The third RM ANOVA results pertaining to cognitive anxiety are presented in Table 12.
Table 12 RM ANOVA for cognitive anxiety by condition (A) and time (B) Effect Wilk’s λ df F p 2
A. Condition 0.80 2,20 2.51 .11 0.20η B. Time 0.97 1,21 0.68 .42 0.03 C. A x B 0.84 1,21 3.93 .06 0.16
Non-significant main effect emerged for the condition, F(2,20) = 2.51, p = .11, and time,
F(1,21) = 0.68, p = .42. However, a very strong tendency toward significant interaction effect was revealed, F(1,21) = 3.93, p = .06. This effect is shown in Figure 4c. At pre-intervention stage, dancers in both conditions rated their cognitive anxiety similarly (MInt = 11.62, SD = 2.63
vs. MControl = 11.70, SD = 3.40; d = 0.08). However, at the post-intervention stage, dancers in the
intervention condition experienced a decrease in cognitive anxiety while the control condition
dancers experienced an increase in cognitive anxiety (MInt = 9.92, SD = 3.12 vs. MControl = 12.40,
SD = 2.80; Δ = 2.48). This resulted in an overall d = 0.79. The fourth RM ANOVA pertained to
somatic anxiety and is presented in Table 13. Non-significant main effects were revealed for
condition, F(2,20) = 2.05, p = .15, and time, F(1,21) = 0.25, p = .62. However, a condition by
time interaction effect was evident, F(1,21) = 4.19, p = .05.
68
Table 13 RM ANOVA for somatic anxiety by condition (A) and time (B)
Effect Wilk’s λ df F p 2
A. Condition 0.83 2,20 2.05 .15 0.17η B. Time 0.99 1,21 0.25 .62 0.01 A x B 0.83 1,21 4.19 .05 0.17
The interaction effects are presented in Figure 4d. Dancers perceived their somatic
anxiety lower at the end of the intervention stage than at the pre-intervention stage (MPre = 15.55,
SD = 6.19 vs. MPost = 15.10, SD = 6.40; d = -0.07). At the pre-intervention stage, dancers in both
conditions rated their somatic anxiety similarly (MInt = 16.00, SD = 5.87 vs. MControl = 15.10, SD
= 6.87; Δ = -0.90). However, in the post-intervention stage, dancers in the intervention condition
experienced a decrease in somatic anxiety while the control condition dancers experienced an
increase in somatic anxiety (MInt = 13.69, SD = 5.31 vs. MControl = 16.50, SD = 7.58; Δ = 2.81).
This resulted in an overall d = 0.60. The fifth RM ANOVAs pertained to self-confidence and the
results are presented in Table 14.
Table 14 RM ANOVA for self-confidence by condition (A) and time (B) Effect Wilk’s λ df F p 2
A. Condition 0.67 2,20 5.04 .02 0.34η B. Time 0.71 1,21 8.69 .01 0.29 A x B 0.77 1,21 6.14 .02 0.23
Significant main effects were revealed for condition, F(2,20) = 5.04, p = .02, time,
F(1,21) = 8.69, p = .01 and their interaction, F(1,21) = 6.14, p = .02. These effects are shown in
Figure 4e. Dancers in the intervention condition reported higher self-confidence ratings than the control condition (MInt = 15.58, SD = 3.72 vs. MControl = 13.35, SD = 4.37, d = -0.54). Similarly, 69 dancers experienced increased self-confidence from the pre-intervention stage to the post- intervention stage (MPre = 13.52, SD = 4.10 vs. MPost = 15.40, SD = 3.96; d = 0.46). Furthermore, pre-intervention, dancers in both conditions rated their self-confidence similarly (MInt = 13.85,
SD = 3.89 vs. MControl = 13.20, SD = 4.54; Δ = -0.65). However, in the post-intervention, dancers in the intervention condition experienced a sharp increase in self-confidence while dancers in the control condition experienced only a slight incline in self-confidence (MInt = 17.31, SD = 2.69 vs.
MControl = 13.50, SD = 4.42; Δ = -3.81). This resulted in an overall d = -0.77. The final RM
ANOVA pertained to self-consciousness. The results are presented in Table 15.
Table 15 RM ANOVA for self-consciousness by condition (A) and time (B) Effect Wilk’s λ df F p 2
A. Condition 0.94 2,20 0.62 .55 0.06η B. Time 0.81 1,21 4.84 .04 0.19
A x B 1.00 1,21 0.02 .89 0.00
Non-significant main effects were evident for condition, F(2,20) = 0.62, p = .55, and the interaction of time by condition, F(1,21) = 0.02, p = .89. However, there was a significant main effect for time, F(1,21) = 4.84, p = .04. This effect is shown in Figure 4f for both conditions separately. Dancers in both conditions experienced an increase in self-consciousness from pre- intervention to post-intervention (MPre = 32.00, SD = 6.19 vs. MPost = 35.84, SD = 6.40; d = 0.62).
70 A
D
E F
Figure 4. Means for (A) overall performance rating, (B) self- efficacy, (C) cognitive anxiety, (D) somatic anxiety, (E) self-confidence, (F) self-consciousness for both interventions at the pre-and-post intervention stages
71 CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Choking under pressure has been studied extensively in the literature, but prior to this
dissertation very little has been done to capture the cascading effect of the phenomenon. The
purpose of this dissertation was to validate the integrated conceptual model of choking, and to
examine the effectiveness of a seven-week self-talk and progressive muscle relaxation
intervention (ST-PMR) in alleviating the effects of self-consciousness in choking under pressure in dance. The proposed model aimed to clarify the performance decline-choking incidence in the
dancing domain by including various appraisal processes that contribute to the likelihood one
error will domino into choking under pressure as well as the contribution of self-presentational concerns on anxiety and performance decline (Mesagno, 2009; Mesagno et al., 2011). According to the proposed model, a dancer’s initial pressure appraisal of their environment as negative may lead to increased emotions and cognitions (Conroy et al., 2001; Fenigstein et al., 1975; Lazarus,
1991, Noh et al., 2002, 2005; Noh & Morris, 2007). The negative perception is governed by the dancers’ overall notion that the environment is meaningful to the dancer (Folkman & Lazarus,
1985). Once an error is made and is appraised as such, the occurrence arouses a secondary emotional and cognitive response which negatively affects subsequent performance (Butler,
1996; Hamilton, 1997; Hanrahan, 2005; Jones, 2013, Kron et al., 2010; Taylor & Estanol, 2015).
This also aligns with the notion of ego threat which suggests that errors may be perceived as
threatening to self-image and feelings of control (Fisher & Zwart, 1982; Leary et al., 2009;
Robson, 2004). Furthermore, if the dancer surmises that he/she does not possess adequate coping
skills to overcome their self-determined severity of the error, then the likelihood that the cascade
72 effect will occur increases (Anshel, 1996; Anshel & Kaissidis, 1997; Lazarus, 1991, 1999;
Poczwardowski & Conroy, 2002; Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
The study’s first hypothesis stated that dancers who participated in the ST-PMR would
reduce the severity of error perception and decrease the likelihood of the cascading effect from
pre-to-post intervention in comparison to the dancers assigned to a control condition. This
hypothesis was tested qualitatively through a directed content analysis approach. My second set
of hypotheses predicted that ST-PMR program would increase self-confidence, self-efficacy, and
overall performance rating, and conversely decrease anxiety and self-consciousness in
comparison to dancers who were not engaged in the intervention. These hypotheses were tested
both quantitatively and qualitatively.
The Integrated Perceptual Model of Choking and The Effectiveness of The SR-PMR
Error Severity and the Cascade Effect
The first part of the first hypothesis assumed that dancers who participated in the ST-
PMR would report a decrease in error severity and as a result the cascading effect. The results from the content analysis supported this hypothesis by showing that the ST-PMR changed the perception of the dancers in relation to error severity much more than it did for the control condition dancers through a 62% decrease in errors and severity perceptions from pre-to-post intervention.
The second half of the hypothesis pertained to the effectiveness of the ST-PMR in decreasing the likelihood of the cascading effect. Overall, very few dancers at the pre- intervention stage made a secondary error after the initial error (22%). Although this is not a large percentage of dancers, each of the dancers who made a second error reported that the pressure from the initial error was a contributing factor to their second error. Conversely, at the
73 post-intervention stage, none of the dancers reported making a secondary error which suggests the absence of the cascading effect for both the ST-PMR and control conditions. To some extent,
these results contradict the study’s hypothesis that dancers in the ST-PMR condition will
improve from pre-to-post intervention, while the dancers in the control condition will remain or
decrease from pre-to-post. This is problematic for determining the effectiveness of the ST-PMR program. Similarities between the dancers’ practice routines within both conditions might explain why differences between the groups were not present.
All the dancers were taught by the same dance instructors and underwent identical rigorous practice schedules which involved multiple run-throughs of the individual dances they competed each time. This type of practice schedule aligns with the concept of deliberate practice.
Research findings demonstrated that individuals who engage in deliberate practice, that is systematic and purposeful, experience performance gains and increased expertise (Ericsson,
Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993). Dancers in both conditions practiced on average 10-15 hours/week on their individual dances, and this could have contributed to their overall performance gains from pre-to-post intervention in addition to the intervention itself. Research done with musicians and practice supports this claim. A study examining the amount of formal practice and instruction musicians report in comparison to their musical achievement reported that the musicians who practiced consistently and with increased effort were more likely to have high musical performance achievement in comparison to those who practiced less (Sloboda,
Davidson, Howe, Moore, 1996). Comparable results were found with track and field athletes
(Young & Behm, 2003). It was revealed that jumpers who practiced jumps prior to their performance were more likely to have successful performances in comparison to those who refrained from doing so.
74 Self-Efficacy and the Cascade Effect
The role of deliberate practice in performance could have also accounted for the results
on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy increased for dancers in both conditions from the pre-intervention
stage to the post-intervention stage. Although this difference was non-significant, self-efficacy was stronger in the ST-PMR condition (dSE = 0.43). This time/practice effect was evident across
multiple dependent variables including self-efficacy and self-confidence. Deliberate practice leads to mastery experience which has been shown to be the most effective way to either increase or decrease self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Carr & Wyon, 2003). Repetitive successful mastery experiences have the potential to increase self-efficacy and overall performance as a result.
Dancers in both conditions, over the course of the intervention stage, could cultivate mastery experiences that likely influenced their overall ratings of performance and contributed to their increased self-efficacy. As the dancers accumulated and experienced successes in their performance, their self-confidence and efficacy increase, preventing the cascading phenomenon to occur.
Coaches and choreographers are key to creating mastery experiences and, as previously mentioned, mastery experiences are the most effective way to increase self-efficacy. However, verbal persuasion is the most effective way a mental conditioning consultant can intervene with performers (Hardy, 2006). The differences found between the two conditions for self-efficacy can be explained by the concept of verbal persuasion. The dancers in the ST-PMR condition experienced stronger non-significant increases in self-efficacy thus the increases in self-efficacy could be linked to verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1997). The ST-PMR condition extensively focused on increasing awareness of verbal persuasion, changing the valence of their self-talk, and utilizing self-talk to enhance performance, on average they reported higher self-efficacy. The
75 greater increases in self-efficacy from pre-to-post intervention for dancers engaged in the ST-
PMR is attributed to the addition of positive self-talk in combination with mastery experience the dancers experienced between the pre-intervention to post-intervention stage.
Validating the Model and Anxiety. The second aim of the content analysis was to confirm the effectiveness of the integrated conceptual model of choking under pressure in explaining the cascade effect. The essence of this model is to not only explain the phenomenon of the cascading mechanism associated with choking under pressure, but to understand how a dancer’s appraisal of his/her environment impacts his/her performance decline through mitigating self-consciousness (Baumeister, 1984; Lazarus, 1991). As postulated in the model, a dancer’s initial appraisal of his/her environment influences his/her emotions and cognition. In the pre-intervention stage dancers in both conditions reported feeling pressure from the environment, judges, audience, conditions that they hadn’t prepared for (e.g., different flooring, going earlier than anticipated, and/or costume malfunctions), and the act of competition itself (Mesagno,
2009; Taylor & Estanol, 2015). This is in line with findings showing that a performer’s pre- performance perceptions of different environment components can result in performance errors, self-consciousness, fears of failure, and cognitive anxiety (Bar-Eli & Tenenbaum, 1989a.b;
Helin, 1989; Monsma & Overby, 2004; Soto-Morettini, 2012; Taylor & Estanol, 2015).
Additionally, the dancers’ pre-intervention reports of a lack of control associated with feeling unprepared for competition and/or changes on the day of performances supports the presence of elevated pre-intervention cognitive anxiety symptoms in dances in both conditions
(MInt = 11.62 and MCon = 11.70; Walker & Nordin-Bates, 2010). Multiple research studies have
suggested that as athletes experience increased cognitive anxiety, their performance is likely to
decline (Englert & Bertrams, 2012; Jordet, 2009; Kleine, 1990; Martens et al., 1990; Vine et al.,
76 2011; Woodman & Hardy, 2003). However, dancers in this study performed moderate-to
excellent overall despite experiencing increased cognitive anxiety in the pre-intervention stage.
Furthermore, all the dancers in both conditions either improved or retained high competition
scores from pre-to-post; meaning they either scored in first or second place across all 3
competitions (note that the competitions were judged by different judges and not all dancers
competed in all 3 competitions). While these results are also contradictory to the original
hypotheses, they support the role of deliberate practice and mastery experiences. Repetitive
exposure to competitive environments has been shown to lower anxiety, decrease avoidant
behaviors, and lead to more functional performance (Barlow et al., 2011; Gustafsson, Lundqvist,
& Tod, 2017). Moreover, the development of mastery experiences through deliberate practice
and multiple competitions may be beneficial for decreasing overall errors and increasing self-
confidence and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Ericsson et al., 1993).
None of the dancers reported experiencing more than one error in their post-intervention performance. We expected that dancers in the control condition would not experience a decrease in initial or secondary errors because they were not engaged in any intervention that affected their self-efficacy, self-confidence, anxiety, and self-consciousness; however, these psychological and behavioral outcomes were not evident. In addition to mastery experience being a potential cause for this result, the length of the dances themselves could have contributed to the absence of the cascade effect. Unlike dynamic sports such as soccer and basketball, dance routines do not typically last very long. The dancers in this condition performed routines which lasted four minutes or less. The shortened performance time likely masked the cascading phenomenon and dancers may not have had an opportunity to make a secondary error.
77 Although overall performance decrements weren’t evident pre-intervention, dancers in the pre-intervention stage still made initial errors. After making initial errors, dancer in both conditions felt elevated sadness, frustration, and cognitions such as embarrassment and loss of self-confidence. Dancers in the pre-intervention stage who were unable to utilize coping skills continued to ruminate over their previous errors which lead to subsequent errors which aligned with the proposed model. In the post-intervention stage, dancers who were exposed to ST-PMR were better able to appraise the dancing environments which resulted in better adaptive response to pressure than their counterparts. This was evident by an 88% decrease in experiences of internal stressors/pressures and a 100% decrease in the external stressors in the post-intervention stage. Dancers in the control condition experienced a slight 14% decrease in perceptions of stressors, however they still reported similar emotions, error severity, cognition, and utilization of avoidance coping skills post-intervention. These differences are attributed to the effectiveness of ST-PMR in the regulation of anxiety which the control condition dancers did not receive
(Maynard et al., 1995). Dancers in the ST-PMR condition reported a decrease in somatic and cognitive anxieties in comparison to dancers in the control condition who experienced an increase in anxieties.
The Model and Self-Consciousness. These results provided only partial support for the study’s hypothesis that the ST-PMR training would lead to higher decreases in anxiety and self- consciousness. According to the self-consciousness theory, pressure leads individuals to divert their attention inward which negatively affects their performance by depleting necessary cognitive resources (Baumeister, 1984; Fenigstein et al., 1975). Previous research suggests that increases in self-consciousness may lead to performance decline (Baumeister, 1984; Feingstein et al., 1975; Hefferline et al., 1959; Murayama & Sekiya, 2015; Wang et al., 2004). This result
78 was not evident qualitatively or quantitatively in this study. Dancers in both the ST-PMR and
control condition experienced an increase in self-consciousness from pre-to-post intervention; however, they did not experience a complementary decline in performance from pre-to-post intervention.
One rationale for this result could be that the State Self-Consciousness Scale for Dancers didn’t adequately ascertain or invoke self-consciousness in the dancers. The questions may have served as beneficial cues for the dancers’ performance; the questions asked dancers to describe their awareness of their choreography, self-expression, and strengths. Reminding dancers about their strengths aligns with research on a strength-based approach to consulting (Ludlam, Butt,
Bawden, Lindsay, & Maynard, 2016). A strengths-based approach can lead to increased self- efficacy and performance gains. Along with this rationale, the scale utilized likely increased the self-awareness of the dancers. Self-awareness is the self-knowledge of one’s behaviors, thoughts, and feelings (Ravizza, 1998). Best practices for performance psychology consulting is said to involve increasing self-knowledge as it could aid in performance gains (Martin, 2005). Self-
awareness in this study served as a buffer because self-awareness aligns with the strengths-based
approach; the dancers could think about their strengths prior to their performance rather than
their weaknesses which helped to improve performance overall. This can also provide an
explanation for the reason dancers in the control condition refrained from experiencing a decline
or cascading effect post-intervention despite an increase in anxiety. Anecdotally, one of the
dancers in the control condition told me that just by completing the surveys she felt more
confident in herself than she usually did prior to performance which supports my claim. Lastly,
self-consciousness was measured post-performance. Self-consciousness is associated with the pre-occupation of self-awareness and thus it is ideally measured prior to performance.
79 The Model and Error Conductance. The final component of the model that we
intended to explore was related to actual error occurrence. We postulated that the appraisal of
pressure and stress leads to increased emotions and anxiety, which ultimately results in the
cascade effect. It was anticipated that realistically initial errors were still likely to occur, but the
goal of the intervention was to target the secondary appraisal. During the secondary appraisal, dancers examine their ability to cope with the initial error, and if so, then the cascading effect can be mitigated (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985). According to the study’s hypotheses dancers in the
ST-PMR condition should have experienced a decrease in both initial and secondary error occurrence and severity in comparison to the control condition. The rationale behind this is that exposure and involvement in ST-PMR provide a buffer during the appraisal process that benefits the dancer and prevents them from experiencing the cascade effect. Dancers in both conditions experienced a decrease in initial errors post intervention. This result was attributed to the role of mastery experience in preventing performance decrements.
Limitations and Future Directions
The research findings must be considered with several limitations. First, future research must substantiate the integrated-conceptual model of choking under pressure within other domains including sport. The current study’s findings failed to demonstrate the cascading effect in the control condition post-intervention. This potentially was caused by the type of motor activity selected (dance), and the effects of deliberate practice on the dancers. The model may be better suited for dynamic sports and performances where continuous practice of the same routine is ineffective. For example, soccer requires players to practice extensively but they cannot prepare for every scenario because their opponents can be unpredictable; thus, potentially minimizing the time effects shown in this study. Examining this model with athletes and
80 performers who met these criteria can provide better substantiation of the integrated-conceptual
model of choking.
Secondly, a potential cause of this result could be attributed to deliberate practice. The
dancers in both conditions underwent similar training regimen and percentage of changes to
develop mastery experiences. I assume that these experiences led to improved overall
performance for dancers in both conditions. Future research must explore the role deliberate
practice and mastery experiences play on choking under pressure. One example of a future
research study can be on dancers with limited practice experiences. Studying performers and
athletes in a dynamic setting with reduced rate of deliberate practice may better represent the
cascading effect. Another reason for this result could’ve been that all dancers in this study had the same choreographer. The choreographer was in attendance at the majority of the intervention
sessions and this could’ve inadvertently influenced the control group. Although the
choreographer didn’t report that dancers in the control group were taught self-talk skills, unconsciously she could’ve have implemented aspects of self-talk within her training practices.
Thirdly, intervention studies typically consist of smaller sample sizes because of the level
of commitment needed from participants. Unfortunately, this limitation does not aid in creating
solid empirical support for interventions. More replications must be conducted to test the model and the effectiveness of the intervention with different athletes and performers in different environments. The multiple iterations will help to solidify the results obtained in this study despite the limited sample size.
Fourth, future research must utilize different measures to examine the dependent variables. The present research utilized a self-consciousness scale that didn’t accurately measure this variable, and thus, future explorations of choking and cascading must develop a specific self-
81 consciousness measure that determines the performer’s perceptions of how their self-awareness either hinders or enhances their performance.
Fifth, the study failed to examine coping strategies, stress appraisals, self-talking usage and valence, and PMR usage utilizing empirical measures. Although we can make assumptions about the effectiveness of the model in changing these variables from pre-to-post intervention, specific measures that test these effects would be beneficial. It would also be advantageous to consider selecting a stronger mental skill to decrease somatic anxiety other than PMR. One notion would be to teach dancers to reappraise their emotions and cognitions in the moment and view the impact on self-consciousness.
The final limitation involves the intervention itself. Dancers reported enjoying the intervention and found it beneficial to their performance. However, during participant recruitment for this study, many other dancers felt that the ST-PMR was too time consuming.
Future research must examine the ST-PMR for the most influential components and attempt to condense the intervention from seven one-hour sessions to seven thirty-minute sessions.
Conclusion
Overall, these results supported the hypotheses about the effectiveness of the ST-PMR training program by increasing self-confidence, self-efficacy, and overall performance rating more than dancers in the control condition. In addition, the ST-PMR training decreased somatic and cognitive anxieties significantly for dancers engaged in in it in comparison to dancers in the control condition. While the results failed to show a decrease in self-consciousness as expected, dancers in the ST-PMR condition likely experienced a greater increase in self-awareness that was beneficial to their performance. The secondary aim of this study was also partially supported by the results. The pre-intervention data suggests that the dancers’ initial appraisals of their
82 performance led to increased cognitive anxiety and emotional arousal which preceded initial
error occurrence. The dancers’ ability to utilize coping skills contributed to the likelihood that
they experienced subsequent errors, which is consistent with the integrated conceptual model of
choking under pressure. However, the post-intervention data failed to support the study’s hypotheses as all dancers in the ST-PMR and control conditions did not experience the cascade effect. We attributed these findings to the condensed nature of dance performances and
deliberate practice. Over time, the dancers developed mastery experience which contributed to
performance enhancement across conditions. Additionally, the shortened time of individual
dances prevented the cascading effect.
83 APPENDIX A
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
Q1 Age ______Q2 Gender o Male (1) o Female (2)
Q3 Which ethnic group or racial group do you belong to or most identify with? White (not of Hispanic origin) (1) Black (not of Hispanic origin) (2) Hispanic (3) Native American or American Indian (4) Asian or pacific Islander (5) Don't know (6) Some other group - Please identify (7) ______
Q4 How many years have you been dancing? ______Q5 Are you currently dancing?
o Yes (1) o No (2)
Q6 What is your primary dance style (select all that apply)? Ballet (1) Modern (2) Contemporary (3) Tap (4) Hip Hop (5)
Q7 Briefly describe your current or past dance experience?
84 APPENDIX B
POST-AUDITION RETROSPECTIVE QUESTIONNAIRE AND SCRIPT
Hello, my name is______. Thank you for participating in my study. First, please read this informed consent form for this particular portion of the study. If you have any questions please feel free to ask them at any time. If you do not have any issues continuing on with the questionnaire please sign the consent form and keep one copy for yourself. Next, please fill out the demographic information form and questionnaire.
Retrospective Performance Questionnaire
Instructions: Please answer the following questions in regards to your own personal experience during this audition.
How would you rate your overall performance during this audition?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Poor Moderate Excellent
Briefly explain your reasoning for your performance rating. (For example: Why didn’t you rate your performance one point higher or one point lower?
Was there any point during the audition where you felt that you didn’t perform the way you wanted to?
Yes
No
If yes, what specifically happened that made you feel that you were performing below your expectations and why? 85
Thinking about the first moment that you made an mistake in your dance or felt that you weren’t
performing to your standard:
Describe your feelings leading up to the mistake. Please be as detailed as possible (For example:
I felt…, my body felt…, I thought…)
Describe your thoughts leading up to the mistake. Please be as detailed as possible (For example: I felt…, my body felt…, I thought…)
Describe your behaviors leading up to the mistake. Please be as detailed as possible (For example: I felt…, my body felt…, I thought…)
Describe your feelings after the mistake. Please be as detailed as possible (For example: I felt…, my body felt…, I thought…)
Describe your thoughts after the mistake. Please be as detailed as possible (For example: I felt…, my body felt…, I thought…)
Describe your behaviors after the mistake. Please be as detailed as possible (For example: I felt…, my body felt…, I thought…)
86 To what extent did you feel that your feelings, thoughts, and behaviors were detrimental to your performance? List below the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors in the space provided and rate them.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not at Moderate Very
all much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not at Moderate Very
all much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not at Moderate Very
all much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not at Moderate Very
all much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not at Moderate Very
all much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not at Moderate Very
all much
87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not at Moderate Very
all much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not at Moderate Very
all much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not at Moderate Very
all much
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not at Moderate Very
all much
How long did you continue to think about the mistake after it happened?
Describe the strategies you used, if any, to deal with your feelings, thoughts and behaviors after the mistake. Be as detailed as possible.
Can you describe any specific way the mistake may have influenced you in other parts of the audition?
Did you make another mistake after the one you just talked about?
88 Yes
No
If yes, what specifically happened?
Thinking about this moment that you made a mistake or felt that you weren’t performing to your
standard:
Describe your feelings leading up to the mistake. Please be as detailed as possible (For example:
I felt…, my body felt…, I thought…)
Describe your thoughts leading up to the mistake. Please be as detailed as possible (For example: I felt…, my body felt…, I thought…)
Describe your behaviors leading up to the mistake. Please be as detailed as possible (For example: I felt…, my body felt…, I thought…)
Describe your feelings after the mistake. Please be as detailed as possible (For example: I felt…, my body felt…, I thought…)
Describe your thoughts after the mistake. Please be as detailed as possible (For example: I felt…, my body felt…, I thought…)
89 Describe your behaviors after the mistake. Please be as detailed as possible (For example: I felt…, my body felt…, I thought…)
Describe the strategies you used, if any, to deal with your feelings, thoughts and behaviors after this mistake. Be as detailed as possible.
Can you describe any specific way the mistake may have influenced you in other parts of the audition?
Thank you for your time in answering the questions. I really enjoyed having the opportunity to talk to you about your audition process. I will be offering a seven-week intervention on self-talk and progressive muscle relaxation that will be used to help prepare you mentally for auditions in the spring, future performances, and general well-being. This seven-session intervention will be offered to a select number of dancers for the fall semester and the remaining will receive the training in the spring. Furthermore, by participating in the seven-week intervention you will receive a $10 Target gift card. If you are interested in participating please provide me with your preferred contact information and I will contact you to schedule your first intervention. Again thank you for your time and have a nice day!
90 APPENDIX C
MODIFIED COMPETITIVE STATE ANXIETY INVENTORY FOR PERFORMERS
Read each statement and circle the appropriate number to indicate how you feel right now, at this moment. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement.
Not at Somewhat Moderately Very all So Much So
1. I feel jittery before my performance. 1 2 3 4
2. I am concerned I may not do as well in this 1 2 3 4 performance as I could.
3. I feel self-confident thinking about my 1 2 3 4 performance.
4. My body feels tense. 1 2 3 4
5. I am concerned about failing during my 1 2 3 4 performance.
6. I feel tense in my stomach. 1 2 3 4
7. I am confident I can meet the 1 2 3 4 choreographer’s expectations.
8. I’m concerned about choking under 1 2 3 4 pressure during my performance.
9. My heart is racing. 1 2 3 4
10. I’m confident about performing well. 1 2 3 4
11. I’m concerned about performing poorly. 1 2 3 4
12. I feel my stomach sinking. 1 2 3 4
13. I’m confident because I picture myself 1 2 3 4 reaching my goal.
14. I’m concerned that others will be 1 2 3 4 disappointed with my performance.
15. My hands are clammy. 1 2 3 4
91 16. I’m confident of coming through under 1 2 3 4 pressure.
17. My body feels tight when I think about 1 2 3 4 my performance.
92 APPENDIX D
STATE SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS SCALE FOR DANCERS
Instructions: Please read each question carefully and then indicate your level of awareness from 1 to 5 using the scale given below. There are no right or wrong answers. Please be as truthful as you can.
How aware have you Not at all Slightly Somewhat Moderatel Extremely been of your aware aware aware y aware aware choreography? 1 2 3 4 5 your weaknesses in 1 2 3 4 5 learning the choreography? movement qualities? 1 2 3 4 5 self-expression? 1 2 3 4 5 facial expressions? 1 2 3 4 5 feelings? 1 2 3 4 5 thoughts? 1 2 3 4 5 your strengths in 1 2 3 4 5 demonstrating choreography during your performance? your weaknesses in 1 2 3 4 5 demonstrating choreography during your performance?
93 APPENDIX E
SELF-EFFICACY SCALE FOR DANCERS
Instructions Read each statement and answer to what extent do you believe you can perform the following behaviors from 0 (cannot do at all) to 10 (certain can do).
1. I can demonstrate exceptional 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 technique during my performance.
2. I can perform up to my expectations 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 during my performance.
3. I can demonstrate exceptional artistic 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 expression during my performance.
4. I can demonstrate overall fluidity in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 movement during my performance.
5. If I make a mistake during my 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 performance, I can let it go and move past it.
6. I can stop myself from comparing 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 myself to other dancers when I perform.
7. If I experience negative thoughts 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 during my performance, I can stop them from impacting my performance.
8. If I feel nervous during my 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 performance, I can relax my body and mind using psychological skills in the moment.
9. I can use positive self-talk during my 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 performance if needed.
10. I can improve upon my previous 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 performances during my next performance.
94 APPENDIX F
INTERVENTION PROTOCOLS
Self-Talk and PMR: Week 1
Primary Aims of Intervention: To introduce the concept of self-talk, PMR, and provide awareness. When to Implement the Intervention: This session will serve as the introductory session on self-talk and PMR. Secondary Aims of Intervention: To utilize self-talk and PMR to reduce cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-consciousness in participants. Number of Participants: One. These are individual sessions Equipment/Materials:1) Notebook for homework, 2) computer, 3) projector, 4) internet connectivity, 5) paper and pen for notes Expected Session Time Length: 60 minutes
Rationale (Introduction)---10 minutes 1. Ask open-ended question: Have you ever heard of self-talk?
2. Define self-talk: “dialogue [in which] the individual interprets feelings and perceptions, regulates and changes evaluations and convictions, and gives him/herself instructions and reinforcement” (Hackfort & Schwenkmesger, 1993; p. 355) 3. Further explain: self-talk is any of the positive and negative thoughts we say to ourselves prior to, after, and/or during our everyday life and performances. 4. Provide two examples: 1) The Little Engine That Could (Children’s Book)---“I Think I Can.” 2) An example from the consultants own personal life or athletic experience 5. Explain that self-talk can be: calming/relaxing (take a breath), instructional, motivational, and focus driven 6. Explain that the video you have for today is a visual representation of the role our thoughts have on our actions.
Introduction of Self-Talk through the use of video---5 minutes 1. Ask the participant if they have seen “Passengers On A Bus”. 2. Explain to the participant that they will be watching the two videos with you and they can take notes if they would like. 3. Play the videos: “Passengers On A Bus-an Acceptance & Commitment Therapy Metaphor.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z29ptSuoWRc
Debrief and Wrap-up of Self-Talk—15 minutes 1. Ask the participant: What did you think about the video? 2. Ask closed question: Have you ever had thoughts such as those in your daily life? 95 3. Ask closed question: Have you ever had thoughts such as those when you are performing or after you performed? 4. Ask probing question: Tell me about a time where you had negative thoughts about your performance? 5. Ask open questions: When are some other times that self-talk can impact your life? 6. Ask probing questions: Tell me about a time where you had negative thoughts in your daily life? 7. Ask closed question: How important do you think self-talk is in your life? 8. Ask closed question: How important do you think self-talk is in your dancing? 9. Discuss: Why do you think it is or isn’t important? 10. Ask closed question: On a scale of 1-5 (with 1 being very detrimental and 5 being beneficial to your performance) how would you rate your self-talk regarding your dancing? 11. Ask closed question: Do you think this is something that you could improve? 12. Ask open question: When do you feel that your self-talk is most negative (key points) 13. Introduce Self-Talk Homework: a. Give the participant the journal and ask them to record their thoughts for the next two weeks b. Ask them to pay special attention to the key points/moments they listed earlier as well as every day moments c. Ask them to be as detailed as possible so you can discuss it in the next session. d. Ask them to identify any barriers to completing the homework. e. Help them identify ways to overcome barriers if necessary. f. Ask if they have any questions or need clarifications. 14. Summarize self-talk a final time
Introduction of Progressive Muscle Relaxation---10 minutes 1. Ask open-ended question: What do you do when you experience tension in your body? 2. Ask open-ended question: Have you ever heard of progressive muscle relaxation or PMR?
3. Define PMR: the practice of progressively relaxing and tensing muscle groups (Ampofo-Boateng, 2009) 4. Further explain: PMR can be used to help you completely relax tension in your body and if done correctly can even aid in sleep.
PMR Script and Debrief—20 minutes 1. Ask the participant: On a scale of 0 (very tense) to 10 (very relaxed), how does your body feel at this moment? 2. Ask the participant: Would you be willing to be lead through a PMR script right now? 3. Lead the participant through a 10-minute PMR scipt 96 4. Ask open question: On a scale of 0 (very tense) to 10 (very relaxed), how does your body feel now that you’ve completed the PMR exercise? 5. Ask probing question: Tell me about a time when you felt tense. 6. Ask closed question: How important do you think have muscle relaxation is to your life? 7. Ask closed question: How important do you think muscle relaxation is to your dancing? 8. Discuss: Why do you think it is or isn’t important? 9. Introduce PMR Homework: a. Ask the participant if they would be willing to practice PMR on their own using an audio tape for the next week. b. Give the participant the journal and ask them to record their use of PMR and how their body felt before they relaxed (scale of 0-10) and after (scale of 0-10) c. Ask them to identify any barriers to completing the homework. d. Help them identify ways to overcome barriers if necessary. e. Ask if they have any questions or need clarifications. 10. Summarize PMR and homework a final time
Journal Log Date Time of Day What happened? What did you Was it Positive How did say? or Negative Self- you feel/ Talk? what happened next?
97 Self-Talk and PMR: Week 2
Primary Aims of Intervention: To provide awareness of self-talk behavior and begin to examine the effects of negative self-talk. When to Implement the Intervention: This session will serve as the second session on self- talk. Secondary Aims of Intervention: To utilize self-talk and PMR to reduce cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-consciousness in participants. Number of Participants: One. These are individual sessions Equipment/Materials:1) Notebook for homework, 2) paper and pen for notes Expected Session Time Length: 60 minutes
Rationale (Introduction)—5 minutes 1. Ask open-ended question: How was your week?
2. Ask closed-ended question: Were you able to complete your homework assignment? 3. Ask open-ended question: What, if any, were the barriers to completing your homework assignment this week? 4. If they haven’t you can bring out a clean copy of the journal log and have them complete it with you as you go through the rest of the protocol. 5. Explain that today you will go over and discuss the journal log. Journal Log Discussion: Self-Talk In Action----15 minutes 1. Ask the participant to take out their journal log and share with you a little about what happened the past week 2. Ask the participant to tell them about the first instance of self-talk use they wrote about on their log a. What happened? b. Where were they? c. What was the self-talk? d. Was it facilitative or detrimental to your performance/well-being? e. What happened afterwards? 3. Continue asking the participant to tell you about each instance of self-talk on their log (max 5) Debrief of Self-Talk ---15 minutes 1. Ask the participant: What did you learn from the process of keeping the log? a. What do you notice about the times you use detrimental self-talk versus facilitative self-talk? (What are the antecedents?) b. Tell me about how you feel when you use negative self-talk that was detrimental to your performance/ well-being? Facilitative self-talk? (consequences) 2. Re-Introduce Homework:
98 a. Ask the participant to continue recording their thoughts for the next week. b. Ask them to pay special attention to how they feel when they use self-talk that was detrimental to their performance/well-being and facilitative. c. If they had more instances of self-talk in their personal life, ask them to focus on dance context and vice versa. d. Ask if they have any questions or to identify any barriers they see to completing this assignment 3. Summarize the homework a final time PMR----25 minutes 4. Ask the participant to take out their journal log and share with you a little about their PMR use this week. a. What happened? b. Where were they? c. Was it facilitative or detrimental to your performance/well-being? 4. Ask the participant: Would you be willing to let me lead you through a PMR script again (this time using music) a. On a scale of 0 (very tense) to 10 (very relaxed), how does your body feel now that you’ve completed the PMR exercise? b. Tell me about how you felt about music being included in this PMR script. c. Ask open ended question: Do you have a preference for music or no music? 5. Re-Introduce Homework: a. Ask the participant to continue recording their PMR use for this week (either with music or without) b. Ask them to pay special attention to how they feel before and after using PMR c. Ask if they have any questions or to identify any barriers they see to completing this assignment 6. Summarize the homework a final time
Self-Talk and PMR: Week 3
Primary Aims of Intervention: To provide awareness of self-talk behavior and begin to create self-statements. Additionally to introduce the concept of body scanning for tension and targeted PMR. When to Implement the Intervention: This session will serve as the third session on self-talk and PMR. Secondary Aims of Intervention: To utilize self-talk and PMR to reduce cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-consciousness in participants. Number of Participants: One. These are individual sessions Equipment/Materials:1) Notebook for homework 2) paper and pen for notes Expected Session Time Length: 60 minutes
Rationale (Introduction)---5 minutes 99 1. Ask open-ended question: How was your week?
2. Ask closed-ended question: Were you able to complete your homework assignment? 3. Ask a open question: What, if any, were the barriers to completing your homework assignment today? 4. If the participant did not complete the HW, bring out a clean copy of the journal log and have them complete it with you as you go through the rest of the protocol. 5. Explain that today you will go over and discuss the homework. Self-Talk Discussion---30 minutes 7. Ask the participant to share what happened this past week using their log a. What happened? b. Where were they? c. What was the self-talk d. Was it facilitative or detrimental to your performance/well-being? e. What happened afterwards? 8. Continue asking the participant to tell you about each instance of self-talk on their log (max 5) 9. Ask the participant: What did you learn from the process of keeping the log? a. What do you notice about the times you use detrimental self-talk versus facilitative self-talk? (What are the antecedents?) b. Tell me about how you feel when you use negative self-talk that was detrimental to your performance/ well-being? Facilitative self-talk? (consequences) 10. Introduce Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) a. Define antecedents, consequences, and automatic thoughts as they relate to the ABC model of CBT (activating event, belief, and consequences). b. Explain how they relate to their log and self-talk 11. Introduce the CBT Thought Record ( Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979) a. Explain to the participant that it is important to begin to understand and dispute their negative self-talk. b. Ask them to select one example from their journal log to work with. c. Have them write down again: Where were they? The emotion or feeling associated with (the antecedent).The negative automatic thought that came to them. d. Work with the participant to identify evidence that supports their negative thought, “What leads you to believe ______?” e. Help the participant identify evidence that disputes their thought, “ Why aren’t you______or why isn’t that accurate?” f. Help the client participant an alternative thought: “What could you say instead?” g. Ask the participant: How does the alternative thought make you feel about what
100 happened? 12. Discuss: Why do you think this exercise was important? 13. Ask closed question: Do you think this is something that you could work on (disputing thoughts)? 14. Introduce Homework: a. Give the participant a clean CBT Thought Record b. Using the example you did together ask them to chart their thoughts again but this time write out the evidence of the thoughts and a competing alternative thought c. Ask if they have any questions or to identify any barriers they see to completing this assignment 15. Summarize the homework a final time PMR---25 minutes 1. Ask the participant to take out their journal log and share with you a little about their PMR use this week a. What happened? b. Where were they? c. Was it facilitative or detrimental to your performance/well-being? 2. Ask the participant: Would you be willing to try something a little different with PMR today? 3. Introduce the concept of body scanning for tension a. Ask the participant: on a scale of 0 (very tense) to 10 (very relaxed), how does your body feel? b. Ask the participant: identify any one part of your body that is experiencing tension, which muscle group or part is it? c. Instruct them to tense that muscle group or body part and release it (in the style of the previous PMR scripts) d. Explain that you can also use PMR to address specific areas of tension and that it doesn’t always have to be their full body. e. Ask participants: When do you think this could be useful for them? 4. Introduce Homework a. Ask the participant to practice scanning their bodies for tension and using PMR to target that specific point. b. Ask them to continue recording their use and to pay special attention to how they feel before and after using PMR c. Ask if they have any questions or to identify any barriers they see to completing this assignment. 5. Summarize the session and homework a final time.
101
Self-Talk and PMR: Week 4
Primary Aims of Intervention: To provide awareness of self-talk behavior and to evaluate self- statements. When to Implement the Intervention: This session will serve as the fourth session on self-talk and PMR. Secondary Aims of Intervention: To utilize self-talk and PMR to reduce cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-consciousness in participants. Number of Participants: One. These are individual sessions Equipment/Materials:1) Notebook for homework 2) paper and pen for notes, 3) computer, 4) projector Expected Session Time Length: 60 minutes
Rationale (Introduction)—5 minutes 7. Ask open-ended question: How was your week?
8. Ask closed-ended question: Were you able to complete your homework assignment? 9. Ask open-ended question: What (if any) were barriers to you completing your homework this week? 102 10. If the participant did not complete the HW, bring out a blank copy of the CBT record. a. Ask them when was the last time they beat themselves up or felt bad about themselves? b. Have them write about that experience using the remainder of the protocol as a prompt. 11. Explain that today you will go over and discuss the homework.
CBT Record Discussion: Disputing Thoughts---15 minutes 6. Ask the participant to take out their homework and share with you a little about what happened the past week 7. Ask the participant to tell them about the first instance of self-talk use they wrote about on their log a. What happened? b. Where were they? c. What was the negative automatic thought? d. What was evidence that supported and didn’t support the thought? e. What alternative thought did you go with? f. How did the alternative thought make you feel? 8. Continue asking the participant to tell you about each instance on their log (max 5) Speech Activity: Coaching Yourself---10 minutes 1. Explain to the participant that you have an idea and would like them to give it a try. 2. Tell them that they have to give a speech about why they should work for a dance company. 3. Tell them they have 5 minutes to prepare to give their speech 4. For the first 2.5 minutes of preparation ask them to talk to themselves using “I”: “I______” 5. For the remaining 2.5 minutes ask them to talk to themselves using the third person: “You______” 6. Have the participant give the speech Debrief of Self-Talk---15 minutes 1. Ask the participant: How was that experience for you? 2. Ask the participant: What did you tell yourself during the first 2.5 minutes? a. How did it make you feel? 3. Ask the participant: What did you tell yourself during the last 2.5 minutes? a. How did it make you feel? b. Ask them to select one example from their journal log to work with. 4. Ask the participant: Did your self-talk differ based on the use of “I” or “You” a. What was most helpful? 5. Explain to the participant that the activity asked them to think of their own self- 103 statements. a. Self-talk doesn’t always have to be negative sometimes you can use it to help yourself. b. Productive self-statements are focused on what you want to achieve (not avoid), the present, what is controllable, realistic, and action oriented. c. Part of the reason we keep logs is for us to identify ways to utilize self-talk more efficiently that can also build you up. 6. Give the participant examples of times that you have used self-talk to build yourself up (verbal persuasion) a. Model only examples of productive self-statements (see above for guidelines) 7. Ask the participant to think of an example from the past two weeks (or beyond that if they can’t think of one) where they used self-talk in this way. 8. Ask the participants to write on a piece of paper things they could say to themselves if they were feeling negative or needed to boost themselves up. a. Try to get at least 5 examples of positive self-statements or verbal persuasion 9. Ask the participant to utilize these self-statements for the next week when their self-talk is negative or they feel they need it a. Ask if they have any questions, need clarification, or there are any barriers to completing this assignment 10. Summarize the homework a final time PMR---10 minutes 1. Ask the participant to take out their journal log and share with you a little about their PMR use this week a. What happened? b. Where were they? c. Was it facilitative or detrimental to your performance/well-being? 2. Re-Introduce Homework a. Ask the participant to practice scanning their bodies for tension and using PMR audio to target that specific point. b. Ask them to continue recording their use and to pay special attention to how they feel before and after using PMR c. Ask if they have any questions or to identify any barriers they see to completing this assignment. 3. Summarize the session and homework a final time.
Self-Talk and PMR: Week 5
Primary Aims of Intervention: To provide awareness of self-talk behavior and to evaluate self- statements. When to Implement the Intervention: This session will serve as the fifth session on self-talk and PMR. 104 Secondary Aims of Intervention: To utilize self-talk and PMR to reduce cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-consciousness in participants. Number of Participants: One. These are individual sessions Equipment/Materials:1) Notebook for homework 2) paper and pen for notes, 3) computer, 4) projector Expected Session Time Length: 60 minutes
Rationale (Introduction)—5 minutes 1. Ask open-ended question: How was your week?
2. Ask closed-ended question: Were you able to complete your homework assignment? 3. Ask open-ended question: What (if any) were barriers to you completing your homework this week? 4. Explain that today you will go over and discuss the homework.
Video Intro: Jessica’s Daily Affirmation---10 minutes 1. Explain to the participant that you would like to start out today’s session with a short video 2. Ask them if they have seen “Jessica’s Daily Affirmation” before? 3. Tell them to watch the video and then you will discuss it afterwards 4. Play “Jessica’s Daily Affirmation”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR3rK0kZFkg 5. Ask them what they thought of the video 6. Ask them how they think the video relates to what we’ve been working on the past 3 weeks
Self-Statement Discussion: Verbal Persuasion---15 minutes 1. Ask the participant to take out their homework and share with you a little about what happened the past week a. If they have not completed their assignment. Verbally ask them if they experienced any challenges this past week and if so what strategies did they employ to overcome them? Then complete the protocol as detailed. b. Remember that they may have unconsciously been utilizing self-statements so try to get that from them using the questions below. 2. Ask the participant to tell them about their use of their self-statements a. What happened? b. Where were they? c. What was the thought that preceded your use of self-statements? d. What self-statement did you use? e. How did using the self-statement make you feel? 3. Continue asking the participant to tell you about another example (max 5) 4. Ask the participant: What self-statements did you use the most? 105 a. Try to narrow it down to 2-3 most used ones
Debrief of Self- Talk----20 minutes 1. Ask the participant: Why did they select the 2-3 self-statements that they did? 2. Ask the participant: Do you think you would be able to use the self-statements effectively? 3. Ask the participant: Do you forsee any potential barriers to utilizing these self- statements? If so, what are they? 4. Ask the participant to close their eyes and take a deep breath in and out a. Lead them through a couple deep diaphragmatic breaths. Once they are relax begin: b. Using an example from provided by the participant in step 3 (above). c. Introduce the situation you have chosen based off the client’s barriers. d. Ask the participant: Tell me about the room you are in e. Try to get as much detail as you can to make the image as vivid as possible f. Ask them: How does this situation make you feel? g. Ask them: Tell me what you would say to yourself in this situation that would be negative h. Ask them: What would you like to say to yourself in this situation? (positive self- statement) i. Ask them: How does using your self-statement make you feel? j. Instruct them to take a deep breath in and out (2x) and then when they are ready they can open their eyes. 5. Ask the participant: How did that exercise make you feel? a. What was most helpful? 6. Ask the participant to utilize their self-statements for the next week when their self-talk is negative or they feel they need it again a. Ask them how they can enhance their ability to utilize these: write them down? Display them? Other ideas? b. Ask them to really try to use them as much as possible and in as many different situations. c. Instruct them that you would like them to make notes of these situations, their automatic thoughts to the situation, and the self-statement they used. i. They can either write it down on paper or keep it in the phone. d. Ask if they have any questions, need clarification, or there are any barriers to completing this assignment 7. Summarize the session and the homework a final time
PMR---10 minutes 1. Ask the participant to take out their journal log and share with you a little about their PMR use this week 106 a. What happened? b. Where were they? c. Was it facilitative or detrimental to your performance/well-being? 4. Introduce Homework a. Ask the participant to begin practicing doing their PMR without the aid of the audio recording if they feel comfortable. b. Ask them to continue recording their use and to pay special attention to how they feel before and after using PMR c. Ask them to, if they haven’t already, try to utilize PMR in their classes and performances d. Ask if they have any questions or to identify any barriers they see to completing this assignment. 5. Summarize the session and homework a final time.
Self-Talk and PMR: Week 6
Primary Aims of Intervention: To provide awareness of self-talk behavior and to evaluate self- statements. When to Implement the Intervention: This session will serve as the seventh session on self- talk and PMR. Secondary Aims of Intervention: To utilize self-talk and PMR to reduce cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-consciousness in participants. Number of Participants: One. These are individual sessions Equipment/Materials:1) Notebook for homework 2) paper and pen for notes, 3) computer, 4) projector Expected Session Time Length: 60 minutes
Rationale (Introduction)---5 minutes 1. Ask open-ended question: How was your week?
2. Ask closed-ended question: Were you able to complete your homework assignment? 3. What, if any, were the barriers to completing your homework from the previous week? Self-Statement Discussion: Checking-In—10 minutes 1. Ask the participant to tell you about their use of self-statements this past week a. What happened? b. Where were they? c. What was the thought that preceded your use of self-statements? d. What self-statement did you use? e. How did using the self-statement make you feel? 2. Ask the participant: What self-statements did you use the most?
107 Debrief and Wrap-up Self-Talk---15 minutes 1. Ask the participant: Have there been any barriers to using self-statements? a. If so, how can we work to address them? 2. Ask the participant: Out of the self-statement(s) you used, why do you think they worked so well for you? 3. Ask the participant: How has your self-talk been lately? Is it more facilitative or detrimental? 4. Ask the participant to think of all of the negative thoughts they have had or are having a. These can be about dance, life, school, etc. b. Ask them to write them all down on a piece of paper c. Ask them to next read each statement out loud d. After reading each one, ask them to say “I reject that
PMR---30 minutes 1. Ask the participant to take out their journal log and share with you a little about their PMR use this week a. What happened? b. Where were they? c. Was it facilitative or detrimental to your performance/well-being? 2. Ask the participant to lead you through their PMR routine. a. Ask them: what do they find most useful about their routine? b. Ask them: do they feel comfortable using their routine when they experience tension? c. Ask them: do they have any questions about their current routines? 3. Introduce Homework a. Ask the participant to continue practicing doing their PMR without the aid of the audio recording.
108 b. Ask them to continue recording their use in their journal and to pay special attention to how they feel before and after using PMR c. Ask them to continue utilizing PMR in their classes and performances d. Ask if they have any questions or to identify any barriers they see to completing this assignment. 3. Summarize the session and homework a final time.
Self-Talk and PMR: Week 7
Primary Aims of Intervention: To provide awareness of self-talk behavior and PMR and to wrap up the self-talk/PMR intervention. When to Implement the Intervention: This session will serve as the final session on self-talk. Secondary Aims of Intervention: To utilize self-talk and PMR to reduce cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-consciousness in participants. Number of Participants: One. These are individual sessions Equipment/Materials: 1) Notebook for homework 2) paper and pen for notes Expected Session Time Length: 60 minutes
Rationale (Introduction)—10 minutes 1. Ask open-ended question: How was your week?
2. Ask closed-ended question: Were you able to work on what we talked about last week? 3. Ask open-ended question: What were the barriers, if any, to you completing what we discussed in the previous week?
Self-Statement Wrap-Up and Debrief---15 minutes Intervention Wrap-Up and Debrief 1. Ask the participant to tell you about their use of self-statements this past week a. What happened? b. Where were they? c. What was the thought that preceded your use of self-statements? d. What self-statement did you use? e. How did using the self-statement make you feel? 2. Ask the participant: What self-statements did you use the most? 3. Ask the participant: Have there been any barriers to using self-statements? a. If so, how can we work to address them? 4. Ask the participant: How has your self-talk been lately? Is it more facilitative or debilitating?
109 5. Ask the participants: Do you catch yourself thinking of what it is your thinking and acting upon (i.e., changing your thought when it is hindering you or being pleased with your self when your self-talk facilitates performance)? 6. Explain to the participants that even if they are still having some negative self-talk what is important is that they are aware it is happening and that they have the tools to restructure their thoughts to more positive ones in those instances b. Further: it is normal to have some negative/unproductive thought at times but as they have shown in the past 5 weeks, it is possible to control them. 7. Ask the participant: How was your PMR usage this past week a. What happened? b. Where were you? c. Was it facilitative or detrimental to your performance/well-being? 5. Ask the participant: What have you learned from the past 6 weeks? 6. Ask them: How did these past 6 weeks make you feel? 7. Ask participant: Do you think you would be able to utilize facilitative self-talk and PMR on your own in the future if a thought or worry came to you or you need it? 8. Ask participant: What barriers do you anticipate may arise? How can you overcome these barriers? 9. Ask participants: What have you learned about yourself through this process? 10. Summarize the entire interventions and allow the participant time to ask in concluding questions.
110 APPENDIX G
PROGRESSIVE MUSCLE RELAXATION SCRIPT
Get into a comfortable position either sitting or lying down in a place that you cannot be
interrupted and close your eyes. Throughout this exercise visualize your muscles tensing and relaxing until you feel all of the tension leave your body. It is important that you keep breathing
throughout this exercise. If your mind begins to wander bring your attention back to your
breathing and the muscle you are working on. If at any point your experience any pain in your
muscles, please feel free to move on to a different muscle group.
Now let’s begin with a few deep breaths. Visualize your belly like a balloon. As you take a deep breath in allow the air to fill your abdomen. Hold your breath for a few seconds and then exhale
slowly, pushing all the air out of your belly. Feel the tension leave your body as you feel more relaxed. Now breathe in again…and exhale. And one final time, breath in…and exhale. Feel how
relaxed your body is feeling. As we go through this exercise remember to keep breathing.
Now I would like for you to tighten the muscles in your forehead by raising your eyebrows as high as you can. Squeeze tightly for a few more seconds. Tight, tight, tight. And release. Take a
deep breath in.. and out. Again in…and out.
Now tense your mouth and cheeks. Squeeze, tight, tight, tight, and release. Take a deep breath in…and out. Again in…and out. Next, tighten your eye muscles by squinting your eyelids shut.
Tight, tight, tight, and release. Take a deep breath in…and out. Again in…and out. Now squeeze
your whole face. Scrunch it up like your are about to sneeze. Tight, tight, tight. And release.
Take a deep breath in…and out. Again in…and out.
Now look up to the ceiling. Gently squeeze tight, tight, tight. And release. Take a deep breath
in…and out. Again in…and out. Feel the weight of your relaxed head and neck sink into the
111 space. Let go of all the stress in your face and neck. Breath in…and out. In…and out. Take a
moment to release any extra tension in your face and neck with your final inhale and with your
exhale release it. Breath in…and out.
Now, bring your attention to your fists. Clench your fists tightly until I say stop. Squeeze tight, tight, tight and release. Take a deep breath in…and out releasing the tension. Now, squeeze your biceps. Tighten them as you flex that muscle. Tight, tight, tight, and release. Take a deep breath
in…and out. Again in…and out. Now tighten your triceps by extending your arms out and
locking your elbows. Gently tighten, tight, tight. And then release. Take a deep breath in…and
out. Again in…and out.
Now lift your shoulders up to your ears. Tight, tight, tight. And release. Take a deep breath in
and as your exhale feel all the remaining tension in your shoulders release. Take a deep breath
in…and out. In…and out. Next, tense your upper back by pulling your shoulders back to make your shoulder blades touch. Squeeze tight as you can. Tight, tight, tight and release. Take a deep breath in and out. In…and out. Now tighten your chest and stomach. Squeeze tight, tight, tight.
And release. Take a deep breath in..and out. Again in..and out. Arch your lower back gently. And gently squeeze tight…and release. Take a deep breath in…and out. Again in…and out. Let go of all the stress in your upper body. Breath in…and out. In…and out. Take a moment to release any
extra tension in your upper body with your final inhale and with your exhale release it. Breath
in…and out.
When you are ready tighten your butt. Tighten it as tight as you can. Tight, tight, tight…and
release. Take a deep breath in…and out as you sink deeper into the space. Again deep breath in…and out. Now squeeze your thighs by pressing your knees together. Tighten until there is no space. Tight, tight, tight…and release. Take a deep breath in… and out. Again in…and out. Now
112 flex your feet and feel the tension in your calves. Tight, tight, tight…and release. Take a deep
breath in…and out. In… and out. Feel the weight of your legs as they sink into the space. Now
pointe your toes straight down. Hold for as long as you can…and release. Take a deep breath
in…and out. Again in… and out. Let go of all the stress in your legs. Breath in…and out.
In…and out. Take a moment to release any extra tension in your legs with your final inhale and
with your exhale release it. Breath in…and out.
Feel the wave of relaxation spreading through your body from the top of your head and all the
way down to your feet. Breathe in…and out…in…out….in…out. When you are ready slowly
open your eyes.
113 APPENDIX H
HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL LETTER AND CONSENT/ASSENT FORMS
114
115
116
117 REFERENCES
Aldwin, C.M. (2007). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative approach (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Ampofo-Boateng, K. (2009). Understanding Sport Psychology. Shah Alam, Malaysia: UPENA.
Anderson, J.R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369-406.
Anderson, J.R. (1993). Rules of mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anshel, M.H. (1996). Coping styles among adolescent competitive athletes. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 311-324.
Anshel, M.H. (2001). Qualitative validation of a model for coping with acute stress in sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 223-246.
Anshel, M.H. (2003). Sport psychology: from theory to practice. New York: Benjamin Cummings.
Anshel, M.H. & Kaissidis, A.N. (1997). Coping style and situational appraisals as predictors of coping strategies following stressful events in sport as a function of gender and skill level. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 263-276.
Anshel, M.H., Raviv, S., & Jamieson, J. (2001). Cognitive appraisals and coping strategies following acute stress among skilled competitive male and female athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 128-134.
Ariely, D., Gneezy, U., Loewenstein, G., & Mazar, N. (2009). Large stakes and big mistakes. Review of Economic Studies, 76, 451-469. DOI: 0034-6527/09/00160451$02.00
Aronen, E.T., Vuontela, V., Steenari, M.R., Salmi, J., & Carlson, S. (2005). Working memory, psychiatric symptoms, and academic performance at school. Neurobiology of Learning & Memory, 83, 33-42.
Ashby, F.G., Ell, S. W., & Waldron, E.M. (2003). Procedural learning in perceptual categorization. Memory & Cognition, 14, 33-53.
Ashcraft, M.H., & Kirk, E.P. (2001). The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 224-237.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.K. Freeman.
118 Bar-Eli, M. (1984). The diagnosis of individual psychological crises in sport competition: A probabilistically oriented, theoretical and empirical study giving special attention to the game of basketball. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Deutsche Sporthochscule, Koln, Germany.
Bar-Eli, M., & Tenenbaum, G. (1988). The interaction of individual psychological crisis and time phases in basketball. Perceptual Motor Skills, 66, 523-530.
Bar-Eli, M., & Tenenbaum, G. (1989a). A theory of individual psychological crisis in competitive sport. Applied Psychology, 38, 107-120.
Bar-Eli, M., & Tenenbaum, G. (1989b). Coach-psychologist relations in competitive sport. The Journal of Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics, 4, 150-156.
Bar-Eli, M., Tenenbaum, G., & Geister, S. (2006). Consequences of players’ dismissal in professional soccer: A crisis-related analysis of group-size effects. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 1083-1094. DOI: 10.1080/02640410500432599
Barlow, D.H., Farchione, T.J., Fairholme, C.P., Ellard, K.K., Boisseau, C.L., Allen, L.B., & May, J.T.E. (2011). Unified protocol for transdiagnostic treatment of emotional disorders: Therapist guide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Baumeister, R.F. (1982). Self-esteem, self-presentation, and future interaction: A dilemma of reputation. Journal of Personality, 50, 29-45. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1982.tb00743.x
Baumeister, R.F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 610-620. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.610.
Baumeister, R.F., & Hutton, D.G. (1987). Self-presentation theory: Self-construction and audience pleasing. In B. Mullen & G.R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of Group Behavior (pp.72-87). New York: Springer
Beilock, S. (2010). Choke: What the secrets of the brain reveal about getting it right when you have to. New York: Free Press.
Beilock, S.L., Bertenthal, B.I., McCoy, A.M. & Carr, T.H. (2004). Haste does not always make waste: Expertise, direction of attention and speed versus accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 373-379. DOI: 10.3758/BF03196585
Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 701- 725. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.701.
119 Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2005). When high powered people fail: Working memory and “choking under pressure’ in math. Psychological Science, 16, 101-105. DOI: 10.1111/0956-7976.2005.00789.x
Beilock, S.L., Carr, T.H., MacMahon, C., & Starkes, J.L. (2002). When paying attention becomes counterproductive: Impact of divided versus skill-focused attention on novice and experienced performance of sensorimotor skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 6-16.
Beilock, S.L., & DeCaro, M.S. (2007). From poor performance to success under stress: Working memory, strategy selection, and mathematical problem solving under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 983-998.
Beilock, S. L. & Gray, R. (2007). Why do athletes choke under pressure? In G. Tenenbaum & R.C. Eklund (pp.425-444.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Beilock, S. L., Kulp, C. A., Holt, L. E., & Carr, T. H. (2004). More on the fragility of performance: Choking under pressure in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 584-600. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.4.584
Bell, J.J., & Hardy, J. (2009). Effects of attentional focus on skilled performance in golf. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 163–177.
Beuter, A., & Duda, J.L. (1985). Analysis of the arousal/motor performance relationship in children using movement kinematics. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 229-243.
Broadhurst, P.L. (1957). Emotionality and the Yerkes-Dodson law. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 345-352
Brooks, A. W. (2014). Get excited: Reappraising pre-performance anxiety as excitement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1144–1158.
Bull, S.J., Albinson, J.G., & Shambrook, C.J. (1996). The mental game plan: Getting psyched for sport. Eastbourne, UK: Sports Dynamics.
Buszard, T., Farrow, D., & Masters, R.S.W. (2013). What is the ‘significance’ of choking in sport? A commentary on Mesagno and Hill. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 44(4), 278-280.
Burton, D. (1988). Do anxious swimmers swim slower? Re-examining the elusive anxiety- performance relationship. Journal of Sport Psychology, 10, 45-61.
Butler, R.J. (1996). Sports psychology in action. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
120 Carr. S. & Wyon, M. (2003). Motivational climate and goal orientations, trait anxiety and perfectionism in dance students. Journal of Dance Medical Science, 7, 105-114.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1981) Attention and self-regulation: A control theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Velag.
Castillo, E. (2018). Implementation and evaluation of a performance profile intervention with collegiate dancers: A randomized controlled trial. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida.
Chesney, M.A., Neilands, T.B., Chambers, D.B., Taylor, J.M., & Folkman, S. (2006) A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. British Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 421-437. DOI: 10.1348/135910705X53155.
Chiu, S., & Alexander, P.A. (2000). The motivational function of preschoolers’ private speech. Discourse Processes, 30, 133–152.
Chiu, Y.H., Lu, F.J.H., Lin, J.H, Nien, C.L., Hsu, Y.W., & Liu, H.Y. (2016). Psychometric properties of the perceived stress scale (pss): Measurement invariance between athletes and non-athletes and construct validity. Peer J, 2, 1-30.
Christensen, W., Sutton, J., & McIllwain, D. (2015). Putting pressure on theories of choking: Towards an expanded perspective on breakdown in skilled performance. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 14, 253-293.
Clark, D.B. (1989). Performance-related medical and psychological disorders in instrumental musicians. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 11, 28-34.
Conroy, D.E., Poczwardowski, A., & Henschen, K.P. (2001). Evaluative criteria and consequences associated with failure and success for elite athletes and performing artists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 300-322.
Cohen, S. & Williams, G.M. (1988) Perceived stress in a probability sample in the united states. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (pp. 31-67) The social psychology of healthy. Newbury Park: Sage.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-20.
Cox, R.H., Martens, M.P., & Russell, W.D. (2003). Measuring anxiety in athletics: The revised competitive state anxiety inventory-2. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 519- 533.
Crocker, P.R.E. (1992). Managing stress by competitive athletes: Ways of coping. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 161-175.
121 Crocker, P.R.E., Tamminen, K. & Gaudreau, P. (2015). Coping in sport. In S. Hanton & S. Mellalieu (Eds.), Contemporary advances in sport psychology: A review (pp. 28-67). New York: Routledge.
Crocker, P.R.E., Kowalski, K.C., & Graham, T.R. (1998). Measurement of coping strategies in sport. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 149-161). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Cumming, J., Nordin, S.M., Horton, R., & Reynolds, S. (2006). Examining the direction of imagery and self-talk on dart-throwing performance and self-efficacy. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 257-274.
Damasio, A.R., (2004). William James and the modern neurobiology of emotion. In: Evans, D., Cruse, P. (Eds.), Emotion, Evolution and Rationality. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 3–14.
DeCaro, M.S., Thomas, R.D., Albert, N.B., & Beilock, S.L. (2011). Choking under pressure: Multiple routes to skill failure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 390- 406. de Neit,G.J., Tiemens, B.G., Kloos, M.W., & Hutschemaekers, G.J.M. (2009). Review of systematic reviews about the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions to improve sleep quality in insomnia. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 7, 233- 242. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1609.2009.00142.x
DeSouza, M.L., DaSilveira, A., & Gomes, W.B. (2008). Verbalized inner speech and the expressiveness of self-consciousness. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5, 154-170. DOI: 10.1080/14780880701734511
Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M.W. (1998). Working memory capacity in high trait-anxious and repressor groups. Cognition & Emotion, 12, 697-713
Easterbrook, J.A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 183-201.
Englert, C., & Bertrams, A. (2012). Anxiety, ego depletion, and sports performance. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 580-599.
Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: Bradford books/MIT Press.
ESPN.com, Stephen Curry. (2016). Retrieved June 4, 2017, from http://www.espn.com/nba/ player/stats/_/id/3975/stephen-curry
122 Eysenck, M.W., & Calvo, M.G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409-434.
Eysenck, M.W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M.G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 7, 336-353. PubMed doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191
Feldman, G., Greeson, J., & Senville, J. (2010). Differential effects of mindful breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, and loving-kindness meditation on decentering and negative reaction to repetitive thoughts. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 48, 1002-1011.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522-527.
Fenigstein, A. (1987) On the nature of public and private self-consciousness. Journal of Personality, 55, 543-554.
Fisher, A.G., & Zwart, E.F. (1982). Psychological analysis of athletes’ anxiety responses. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 58, 844-854.
Fitts, P., Bahrick, H., Noble, M., & Briggs, G. (1961). Skilled performance. New York: Wiley.
Fitts, P.M., & Posner, M.T. (1967). Human performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Fletcher, D., & Hanton, S. (2003). Sources of organizational stress in elite sports performer. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 175-195.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150-170.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 466-475.
Ford, P., Hodges, N. J. and Williams, A. M. (2004). Testing notions of automaticity through attentional- focus manipulations. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, S92-S93.
Fryer, A.M., Tenenbaum, G., & Chow, G.M. (2017). Linking performance decline to choking: players’ perceptions in basketball, Journal of Sports Sciences. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2017.1298829
123 Gaudreau, P., & Blondin, J.P. (2002). Development of a questionnaire for the assessment of coping strategies employed by athletes in competitive sport settings. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3, 1-34.
Geukes, K., Mesagno, C., Hanrahan, S.J., Kellmann, M. (2013). Activation of self-focus and self- presentation traits under private, mixed, and public pressure. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 35, 50-59.
Giacobbi, P.R., Foore, B., & Weinberg, R.S. (2204). Broken clubs and expletives: The sources of stress and coping responses of skilled and moderately skilled golfers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 166-182.
Gill, D. (2000) Psychological Dynamics of Sport and Exercise, 2nd edition, Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Gimmig, D., Huguet, P., Caverni, J.P., & Cury, F. (2006). Choking under pressure and working memory capacity: When performance pressure reduces fluid intelligence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 1005-1010.
Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Gould, D., Finch, L.M., & Jackson, S.A. (1993). Coping strategies utilized by national champion figure skaters. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 453-468.
Gould, D., Petlichkoff, L., Simons, J., & Vevera, M. (1987). Relationship between competitive state anxiety inventory-2 subscale scores and pistol shooting performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 33-42.
Gray, R. (2004). Attending to the execution of a complex sensorimotor skill: expertise differences, choking, and slumps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 42-54. DOI: 10.1037/1076-898X.10.1.42
Gucciardi, D.F., & Dimmock, J.A. (2008). Choking under pressure in sensorimotor skills: Conscious processing or depleted attentional resources? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 45-49.
Gustafsson, H., Lundqvist, C., & Tod, D. (2017). Cognitive behavioral intervention in sport psychology: A case illustration of the exposure method with an elite athlete. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 8, 152-162.
Hadwin, J.A., Brogan, J., & Stevenson, J. (2005). State anxiety and working memory in children: A test of processing efficiency theory. Educational Psychology, 25, 379-393.
Hamilton, L.H. (1997). The dancer’s healthy survey part II. Dance Magazine, 71, 60-65.
124 Hammermeister, J., & Burton, D. (2001). Stress appraisal, and coping revised: Examining the antecedents of competitive state anxiety with endurance athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 66-90.
Hanin, Y.L. (1978). A study of anxiety in sports. In W.F. Straub (Ed.), Sport psychology: An analysis of athlete behavior (pp. 236-249). Ithaca, NY: Movement Publications.
Hanin, Y.L. (1995). Individual zones of optimal functioning (IZOF) model” An idiographic approach to performance anxiety. In K.P. Henschen & W.F. Straub (Eds.), Sport psychology: An analysis of athlete behavior (pp.103-119). Longmeadow, MA: Mouvement.
Hanin, Y.L. (1997). Emotions and athletic performance: Individual zones of optimal functioning model. European Yearbook of Sport Psychology, 1, 29-72.
Hanin, Y.L. (2000). Emotions in sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Hanin, Y.L. (2004). Emotions in sport: An individualized approach. In C.D. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied psychology (Vol.1, pp. 739-750). Oxford: Elsevier Academic Press.
Hanin, Y.L. (2007). Emotions in sport: Current issues and perspectives. In G. Tenenbaum & R.C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of Sport Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 31-58). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Hanin, Y.L., & Syrja, P. (1995a). Performance affect in junior ice hockey players: An application of the individual zones of optimal functioning model. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 169-187.
Hanin, Y.L., & Syrja, P. (1995b). Performance affect in soccer players: An application of the IZOF model. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 16, 260-265.
Hanrahan, S.J. (2005). On stage: Mental skills training for dancers. In M.B. Andersen (Ed.), Sport Psychology in Practice (pp. 109-127) Champaign, Il: Human Kinetics.
Hanton, S., Mellalieu, S.D., & Hall, R. (2004). Self-confidence and anxiety interpretation: A qualitative investigation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5, 477-495.
Hardy, J. (2006). Speaking clearly: A critical review of self-talk literature. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 81-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.04.002 Hardy, J., Hall, C.R., & Hardy, L. (2007). Quantifying athlete self-talk. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 905-917.
125 Hardy, L., & Hutchinson, A. (2007). Effects of performance anxiety on effort and performance in rock climbing: A test of processing efficiency theory. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 20, 147-161. DOI: 1080/10615800701217035
Hardy, L., & Jackson, B. (1995). Effect of state anxiety upon effort and performance in rock climbers. Communication to the British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences Annual Conference, Belfast, September.
Hardy, J., Oliver, E., & Tod, D. (2009). A framework for the study and application of self-talk within sport. In S.D. Meallalieu, & S. Hanton (Eds.), Advances in applied sport psychology: a review (pp. 37-74). London: Routledge.
Hardy, L., Jones, G., & Gould, D. (1996). Understanding psychological preparation for sport: Theory and practice of elite performers. Chichester, UK: Wiley
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Theodorakis, Y., & Zourbanos, N. (2004). Self-talk in the swimming pool: The effects of self-talk on thought content and performance on water-polo tasks. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 138-150.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Galanis, E., & Theodorakis, Y. (2011). Self-talk and sport performance: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 354-362.
Hays, K.F. (2002). The enhancement of performance excellence among performing artists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 299-312.
Hefferline, R., Keenan, B., & Hardord, R. (1959). Escape and avoidance conditioning in human subjects without their observation of the response. Science, 130, 1338-1339.
Helin, P. (1989). Mental and physiological tension at professional ballet dancers’ performances and rehearsals. Dance Research Journal, 21, 7-14
Hickey, G., & Kipping, C. (1996). Issues in research. A multi-stage approach to the coding of data from open-ended questions. Nurse Researcher, 4, 81-91.
Hill, D.M., Hanton, S., Fleming, S., & Matthews, N., (2009). A re-examination of choking in sport. European Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3(1), 203-212.
Hill, D.M., Hanton, S., Matthews, N., & Fleming, S. (2010a.). Choking in sport: A review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3(1), 24-39.
Hill, D.M., Hanton, S., Matthews, N., & Fleming, S. (2010b). A qualitative exploration of choking in elite golf. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 4, 221-240.
Hill, D.M., Hanton, S., Matthews, N., & Fleming, S. (2011). Alleviation of choking under pressure in elite golf: An action research study. The Sport Psychologist, 25, 465-488.
126 Hill, D, M., & Shaw, G. (2013). A qualitative examination of choking under pressure in team sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 103-110. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport. 2012.07.008.
Holt, N.L. & Hogg, J.M. (2002). Perceptions of stress and coping during preparations for 1999 women’s soccer world cup finals. The Sport Psychologist, 16, 251-271.
Holt, N. L., & Tamminen, K. A. (2010). Improving grounded theory research in sport and exercise psychology: further reflections as a response to Mike Weed. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 405-413.
Holzer, B.K., Carmody, J., Evans, K.C., Hoge, E.A., Dusek, J.A., Morgan, L., Pitman, R.K., & Lazar, S.W. (2010). Stress reduction correlates with structural changes in the amygdala. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 5, 11-17. DOI: 10.1093/scan/nsp034
Horn, T.S., Bloom, P., Berglund, K.M., & Packard, S. (2002). Relationship between collegiate athletes’ psychological characteristics and their preferences for different types of coaching behavior. Sport Psychology, 25, 190-211. DOI: 10.1123/tsp.25.2.190
Howle, Timothy Creswell, "Cognitions And Emotions Experienced Under Pressure: A Self- Presentation And Challenge/threat Perspective" (2012). Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 4918. http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd/4918
Hseih, H.F., & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288.
Humphreys, M. S., & Revelle, W. (1984). Personality, motivation and performance: A theory of the relationship between individual differences and information processing. Psychological Review, 91, 153–184.
Iwatsuki, T., Van Raalte, J.L., Brewer, B., Petipas, A., & Takahsi, M. (2016). Psychological factors related to choking under pressure. ITF Coaching and Sport Science Review, 68, 11-12.
Jackson, R.C. (2013). Babies and bathwater: Commentary on Mesagno and Hill’s proposed re- definition of ‘choking.' International Journal of Sport Psychology, 44(4), 281-284.
Jackson, R.C., Ashford, J.J., & Norsworthy, G. (2006). Attentional focus, dispositional reinvestment and skilled performance under pressure. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 28, 49-68.
Jacobson, E. (1938). Progressive relaxation (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Johnston, B., & McCabe, M.P. (1993). Cognitive strategies for coping with stress in a simulated golfing task. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 30-48.
127 Jones, G. (1995). More than just a game: Research developments and issues in competitive anxiety in sport. British Journal of Psychology, 86, 449-478.
Jones, M. (2003). Controlling emotions in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 471-486.
Jones, M.V., Mace, R.D., & Williams, S. (2000). Relationship between emotional state and performance during international field hockey matches. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90, 691-701.
Jordet, G. (2009). When superstars flop: Public status and choking under pressure in international soccer penalty shootouts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 125-130. DOI: 10.1080/10413200902777263
Kimbel, C.E., & Rezabeck, J.S. (1992). Playing games before an audience: Social facilitation or choking? Social Behavior and Personality, 20, 115-120. DOI: 10.2224/ sbp.1992.20.2.115
Keable, D. (1989). The management of anxiety: A manual for therapists. London: Churchill Livingstone.
Kerr, J. H. (1997). Motivation and emotion in sport: Reversal theory, East Sussex, , United Kingdom: Psychology Press, Ltd.
Kleine, D. (1990). Anxiety and sport performance: A meta-analysis. Anxiety Stress Coping, 2, 113-131.
Klint, K.A., & Weiss, M.R. (1986). Dropping in and dropping out: Participation motives of current and former youth athletes. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 11, 106- 114.
Kowalski, K.C., & Crocker, P.R.E. (2001). The development and validation of the Coping Function Questionnaire for adolescents in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 23, 136-155.
Konttinen, N., Lyytinen, H., & Viitasalo, J. (1998). Preparatory heart rate patterns in competitive rifle shooting. Journal of Sports Sciences, 16, 235-242. DOI: 10.1080/026404198366759
Koutedakis, Y., & Jamurtas, A. (2004). The dancer as a performing athlete: Physiological considerations. Sports Medicine, 34, 651-661.
Krohne, H.W. (1993). Vigilance and cognitive avoidance as concepts in coping research. In H.W. Krohne (Ed.), Attention and avoidance: Strategies in coping with aversiveness (pp. 19-50). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber.
Krohne, H.W., & Hindel, C. (1988). Trait anxiety, stat anxiety, and coping behavior as predictors of athletic performance. Anxiety Research, 1, 225-234.
128 Kron, A., Schul, Y., Cohen, A., & Hassin, R.R. (2010). Feelings don’t come easy: Studies on the effortful nature of feelings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 520-534. DOI: 10.1037/a0020008
Landers, D.M., Wang, M.Q., & Courtet, P. (1985). Peripheral narrowing among experienced and inexperienced rifle shooters under low-and high-stress conditions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 122-130.
Landers, D. M., & Boutcher, S. H. (1998). Arousal-performance relationships. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (3rd ed., pp. 197–218). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Law, J., Masters, R., Bray, S. R., Eves, F. and Bardswell, I. (2003). Motor performance as a function of audience affability and metaknowledge. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 484–500.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R.S. (1998). Coping from the perspective of personality. Zeitschrift fur Differenzialle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 19, 211-225.
Lazarus, R.S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York: Springer.
Lazarus, R.S. (2000). How emotions influence performance in competitive sports. Sport Psychologist, 14, 229.
Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Leary, M.R., Terry, M.L., Batts Allen, A., & Tate, E.B. (2009). The concept of ego threat in social and personality psychology: Is ego threat a viable scientific construct? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 151-164.
Lee, T.G., & Grafton, S.T. (2015). Out of control: Diminished prefrontal activity coincides with impaired motor performance due to choking under pressure. Neuroimage, 105, 145-155. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.058.
Lewis, B., & Linder, D. E. (1997). Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 937-944. DOI: 10.1177/0146167297239003.
Lockwood, A.H. (1989). Medical problems of musicians. New England Journal of Medicine, 320, 221-227.
Ludlam, K.E., Butt, J., Bawden, M., Lindsay, P., & Maynard, I.W. (2016). A strengths-based consultancy approach in elite sport: Exploring super-strengths. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 28, 216-233.
129 MacLeod, C., & Donnellan, A.M. (1993). Individual differences in anxiety and the restriction of working memory capacity. Personality & Individual Differences, 15, 163-173.
MacMahon, K.M.A., & Masters, R.S.W. (1999). From novice to expert and back again: Chunking and dechunking in motor skills. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 606-607.
Markham, R., & Darke, S. (1991). The effects of anxiety on verbal and spatial task performance. Australian Journal of Psychology, 43, 107-111. DOI: 10.1080/00049539108259108
Markman, A. B., Maddox, W. T., & Worthy, D. A. (2006). Choking and excelling under pressure. Psychological Science, 17(11), 944-948. DOI:10.1111/j.1467- 9280.2006.01809.x
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R.S., Bump, L.A., & Smith, D.E. (1990). Development and validation of the competitive state anxiety inventory-2. In R. Martens, R.S. Vealey & D. Burton (Eds.) Competitive anxiety in sport (pp.117-213). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Martin, J. (2005). Sport psychology consulting with athletes with disabilities. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 33-39
Masters. R.S.W. (1992). Knowledge, knerves and know how: The role of explicit versus implicit knowledge in the breakdown of a complex sporting motor skill under pressure. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 343-358.
Masters, R.S.W., & Maxwell, J. (2008). The theory of reinvestment. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 160-184.
Matthews, A., & Macleod, C. (1994). Cognitive approaches to emotion and emotional disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 25-50.
Maynard, I.W., Warwick-Evans, L., & Smith, M.J. (1995). The effects of a cognitive intervention strategy on competitive state anxiety and performance in semiprofessional soccer players. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 428-446.
McCallie, M.S., Blum, C.M., & Hood, C.J. (2006). Progressive muscle relaxation. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 13, 51-66. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1300/J137v13n03 04
McCloughan, L.J., Hanrahan, S.J., Anderson, R. & Halson, S.R. (2016). Psychological recovery: Progressive muscle relaxation (pmr), anxiety, and sleep in dancers. Performance Enhancement & Health, 4, 12-17.
Mesagno, C. (2009). Choking under pressure: Toward a self-presentation explanation of why athletes use self-monitoring techniques. Paper presented at the 12th World Congress of Sport Psychology, Marrakesh, Morocco.
130 Mesagno, C., Harvey, J. T., & Janelle, C. M. (2011). Self-presentation origins of choking: Evidence from separate pressure manipulations. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 441-459.
Mesagno, C., Harvey, J.T., & Janelle, C.M. (2012). Choking under pressure: The role of fear of negative evaluation, Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 60-68.
Mesagno, C., & Hill, D. M. (2013a.). Definition of choking in sport: Re-conceptualization and debate. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 44(4), 267-277.
Mesagno, C., & Hill, D. M. (2013b.). Choking under pressure debate: Is there chaos in the brickyard? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 44(4), 294-302.
Mobbs, D., Hassabis, D., Seymour, B., Marchant, J.L., Weiskopf, N., Dolan, R.J. & Frith, C.D. (2009). Choking on the money: Reward-based performance decrements are associated with midbrain activity. Psychological Science, 20, 955-962. DOI: 10.1111/j. 1467- 9280.2009.02399.x.
Monsma, E.V. & Overby, L.Y. (2004). The relationship between imagery and competitive anxiety in ballet auditions. Journal of Dance Medical Science, 8, 11-19.
Morin. A. (1993) Self-talk and self-awareness: on the nature of the relation. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 14, 223-234.
Morin, C. M., Hauri, P. J., Espie, C. A., Spielman, A. J., Buysse, D. J., & Bootzin, R. R. (1999). Nonpharmacologic treatment of chronic insomnia. An American Academy of Sleep Medicine review. Sleep, 22, 1134–1156.
Murayama, T., & Sekiya, H. (2015). Factors related to choking under pressure in sports and the relationships among them. International Journal of Sport & Health Science, 13, 1- 16.
Murray, N.P., & Janelle, C.M. (2007). Event-related potential evidence for the processing efficiency theory. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 161-171.
Nagel, J.J. (1992). Stage fright and the performing classical musician: Psychological and career issues. Presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Naylor, A.H. (2009). The role of mental training in injury prevention. Injury Prevention & Performance Enhancement, 14, 27-29.
Nelson-Jones, R. (2003). Basic counseling skills: A helper’s manual. London: Sage.
Nicholls, A.R. (2010). Effective versus ineffective coping in sport. In A.R. Nicholls (Ed.), Coping in sport: theory, methods, and related constructs (pp. 263-276). New York: Nova Science.
131 Nicholls, A.R. & Polman, R.C. J. (2007). Coping in sport: A systematic review. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 11-31. DOI: 10.1080/02640410600630654
Nideffer, R.M. (1992). Psyched to win. Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.
Noh, Y., & Morris, T. (2007). Psychological intervention programs for reduction of injury in ballet dancers. Research in Sports Medicine, 15, 13-32. DOI: 10.1080/ 15438620600987064
Noh, Y., Morris, T., & Anderson, M.B. (2002, October). Sources of stress and coping strategies of Korean ballet dancers. Presentation presented at the annual conference of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology (AAASP), Tucson, AZ.
Noh, Y., Morris, T., & Anderson, M.B. (2005). Psychosocial factors and ballet injuries. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3, 7-25.
Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S.J.H. (2000). Relationship of intensity and direction of competitive anxiety with coping strategies. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 360-371.
Orlick, T.D. (1990). In pursuit of excellence (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Owens, M., Stevenson, J., Norgate, R., & Hadwin, J.A. (2008). Processing efficiency theory in children: Working memory as a mediator between trait anxiety and academic performance. Anxiety Stress & Coping, 21, 417-430. DOI: 10.1080/10615800701847823
Oxendine, J.B. (1970). Emotional arousal and motor performance. Quest, 13, 23-32.
Parfitt, C. G., Hardy, L., & Pates, J. (1995). Somatic anxiety, physiological arousal and performance: Differential effects upon a high anaerobic, low memory demand task. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 196-213.
Parfitt, C.G., Jones, J.G., & Hardy, L. (1990). Multidimensional anxiety and performance. In J.G. Jones & L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and performance in sport (pp. 43-80). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Parnabas, V.A., Mahamood, Y., Parnabas, J., & Meera Abdullah, N. (2014). The relationship between relaxation techniques and sport performance. Universal Journal of Psychology, 2, 108-112. DOI: 10.13189/ujp.2014.020302
Paulus, P.B., Shannon, V.C., Wilson, D.L., & Boone, T.D. (1972). The effects of operator presence on gymnastics performance in a field situation. Psychonomic Science, 29, 88- 90. Pragman, D. (1998). Understanding sport psychology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Poczwardowski, A., & Conroy, D.E. (2002). Coping responses to failure and success among elite athletes and performing artists. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 313-329.
132 Quested, E., Cumming, J., & Duda, J. L. (2012). Profiles of perfectionism, body-related concerns, and indicators of psychological health in vocational dance students: An investigation of the 2 × 2 model of perfectionism. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 729-738.
Raglin, J.S. (1992). Anxiety and sport performance. Exercise and Sport Sciences Review, 20, 243-274.
Raglin, J.S., & Hanin, Y.L. (2000). Competitive anxiety. In Y.L. Hanin (ed.), Emotions in sport (pp.93-111). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ravizza, K. (1998). Increasing awareness for sport performance. In J.M. Williams (Ed.). Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance. (3rd ed: pp. 171-181). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield
Reeves, J.L., Tenenbaum, G., & Lidor, R. (2007). Choking in front of the goal: The effects of self-consciousness training. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3, 240-254.
Rivera, D.C., Alexander, J.L., Nehrenz, G.M., & Fields, B.J. (2012). Dancers’ perceptions of injuries. Journal of Music and Dance, 2, 9-12.
Robazza, C. (2006). Emotion in sport: An IZOF perspective. In S.Hanton & S.D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport psychology (pp.127-158). New York: Nova Science.
Robazza, C., Bortoli, L., & Nougier, V. (2000). Performance emotions in an elite archer: A case study. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 144-163.
Robson, B.E. (2004). Competition in sport, music, and dance. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 19, 160-166.
Ruiz, M., & Hanin, Y. (2004). Metaphoric description and individualized emotion profiling of performance states in top karate athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 258- 273.
Sataloff, R., Rosen, D., & Levy, S. (1999). Medical treatment of performance anxiety: A comprehensive approach. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 14, 122-126.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Schneider, J.F. (2002). Relations among self-talk, self-consciousness, and self-knowledge. Psychological Reports, 91, 807-812.
Seskevich, J.E. & Pieper, C.F. (2007). Brief meditation training can improve perceived stress and negative mood. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 13, 38-44.
133 Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L. , Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10, 80–83.
Sloboda, J.A., Davidson, J.W., Howe, M.J.A., & Moore, D.G. (1996). The role of practice in the development of performing musicians. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 287-309.
Smith, R.E. (1986). Toward a cognitive-affective model of athletic burnout. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 36-50.
Smith, N.C., Bellamy, M., Collins, D.J., & Newell, D. (2001). A test of processing efficiency theory in a team sport context. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 321-332.
Soto-Morettini, D. (2013). Mastering the audition: how to perform under pressure. London: Bloomsbury
Steele, C.M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.
Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Tanner, S., & Sands, R. (1997). Choking in tennis: A refocus on the interaction between personal and situational factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Taylor, J. (1995). A conceptual model for integrating athletes’ needs and sport demands in the development of competitive mental preparation strategies. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 339–357.
Taylor, J., & Estanol, E. (2015). Dance psychology for artistic and performance excellence. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
Taylor-Pilia, R.E., Haskell, W.L., Waters, C.M., & Froelicher, E.S. (2006). Change in perceived psychosocial status following a 12-week tai chi exercise program. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 54, 313-329. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03809.x.
Thelwell, R.C., & Greenlees, I.A. (2001). The effects of a mental skills training package on gymnasium triathlon performance. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 127-141.
Thelwell, R.C., Greenlees, I.A., & Weston, N.J.V. (2006). Using psychological skills training to develop soccer performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 254-270.
134 Thomas, O., Maynard, I., & Hanton, S. (2004). Temporal aspects of competitive anxiety and self-confidence as a function of anxiety perceptions. Sport Psychologist, 18, 172-187.
Thomas, O., Maynard, I., & Hanton, S. (2007). Intervening with athletes during the time leading up to competition: theory to practice II. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 398- 418.
Tod, D., Hardy, J., & Oliver, E. J. (2011). Effects of self-talk: A systematic review. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33, 666-687.
Van Raalte, J.L., Cornelius, A.E., Brewer, B.W., & Hatton, S.J. (2000). The antecedents and consequences of self-talk on perceptions of tennis players. Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 3, 164-179.
Van Raalte, J. L., Cornelius, A.E., Copeskey, M.K., & Brewer, B.W. (2014). Say what? An analysis of spontaneous self-talk categorization. The Sport Psychologist, 28, 390-393.
Van Raalte, J.L., Vincent, A., & Brewer, B.W. (2016). Self talk: Review and sport-specific model. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 139-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016 /j.psychsport.2015.08.004
Vealey, R.S. (1988). Future directions in psychological skills training. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 318-336.
Vincent, P & Yahaya, M. (2012). Anxiety and Imagery of Green Space among Athletes. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 4, 67-72.
Vine, S.J., Moore, L.J., & Wilson, M.R. (2011). Quiet eye training facilitates competitive putting performance in elite golfers. Frontiers in Movement Science and Sport Psychology, 2, 1- 9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00008
Wachelka, D. & Katz, R.C. (1999). Reducing test anxiety and improving academic self-esteem in high school and college students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 30, 191-198.
Wang, J., Marchant, D.B., Morris, T., & Gibbs, P. (2004). Self-consciousness and trait anxiety as predictors of choking in sport. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 7, 174-185.
Walker, I.J. & Nordin-Bates, S.M. (2010). Performance anxiety experiences of professional ballet dancers: The importance of control. Journal of Dance Medicine & Science, 14, 133-145.
Walsh, I., Holton, J.A., Baily, L., Fernandez, W., Levina, N., & Glaser, B. (2015). What grounded theory is…a critically reflective conversation among scholars. Organizational Research Methods, 18, 581-599.
135 Wankel, L.M. (1972). Competition in motor performance: An experimental analyses of motivational components. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 427-437. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1031(72)90068-6.
Weinberg, R.S. & Gould, D., (2011). Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Welch, C.M., Banks, S.A., Cook, F.F., & Draovitch, P. (1995). Hitting a baseball: A biomechanical description. Journal of Orthopedic Sports Physical Therapy, 22, 193-201. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.1995.22.5.193
Wilson, M., Chattington, M., Marple-Horvat, D.E., & Smith, C.N. (2007). A comparison of self- focus versus attentional explanations of choking. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 29, 439-456.
Wine, J. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 92-104. DOI: 10.1037/h003133.
Wood, W., Perunovic, W.Q., & Lee, J.W. (2009). Positive self-statements: power for some, peril for others. Psychological Science, 20, 860-866. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9280.2009.02370.x
Woodman, T., & Hardy, L. (2003). The relative impact of cognitive anxiety and self-confidence upon sport performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 443-457. PubMed doi:10.1080/0264041031000101809
Yamadori, A. (2008). Neuropsychology of intellect, emotion, and volition. Tokyo: Sitosha.
Yerkes, R.M., & Dodson, J.D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation. Journal of Comparative and Neurological Psychology, 18, 459-482.
Yoshie, M., Shigemasu, K., Kudo, K., & Ohtsuki, T. (2009) Effects of state anxiety on music performance: Relationship between the revised competitive state anxiety inventory-2 subscales and piano performance. Musicae Scientiae, 13, 55-84.
Young, W.B., & Behm, D.G. (2003). Effects of running, static stretching and practice jumps on explosive force production and jumping performance. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 43, 21-27.
Yu, R. (2015). Choking under pressure: The neuropsychological mechanisms of incentive- induced performance decrements. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9 (19), 1-8. DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00019.
136 Zourbanos, N., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Chroni, S., Theodorakis, Y., & Papaioannou, A. (2009). Automatic self-talk questionnaire for sports (ASTQS): Development and preliminary validation of a measure identifying the structure of athletes’ self-talk. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 233-251.
Zourbanos, N., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Goudas, M., Papaioannou, A., Chroni, S., & Theodorakis, Y. (2011). The social side of self-talk: Relationships between perceptions of support received from the coach and athletes’ self-talk. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 12, 407- 414. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.03.001
137 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Ashley Fryer is a doctorate student in Educational Psychology. Ashley grew up all over the world as a child of an air force officer. Through her experiences as a pre-professional ballerina she discovered the power of mental skills training and wellness. After suffering a serious knew injury Ashley decided to pursue a career that would allow her to help others to become the best version of themselves. In her spare time Ashley likes to take walks with her dog Sloopy, watch college football, and have mini dance parties in her kitchen. Ashley hopes to pursue a career working in performance domains and with elite athletes.
138