Choking under pressure - attention and motor control in performance situations [Elektronische Ressource] / eingereicht von Felix Ehrlenspiel

Ehrlenspiel

Sujets

• Psychologie

Informations

• Publié par: universitat_potsdam
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2006
• Nombre de lectures: 25
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

THE PROBLEM – CHOKING UNDER PRESSURE 1








Choking under Pressure –
Attention and Motor Control in Performance Situations


Dissertation



Eingereicht von
Felix Ehrlenspiel
bei der
Humanwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der
Universität Potsdam

Oktober 2006


Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Reinhold Kliegl, Universität Potsdam
Prof. Dr. Jürgen Beckmann, Technische Universität München THE PROBLEM – CHOKING UNDER PRESSURE 2
Contents
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................. 4

Choking under Pressure –
Attention and Motor Control in Performance Situations............................................ 6
The Problem – Choking under Pressure.................................................................. 7
Search for moderators: conditions............................................................. 10
Search for mediators: processes ................................................................. 12
A Solution? – The Nodalpoint Hypothesis of Motor Control ........................... 19
The nodalpoint hypothesis and its four threads ...................................... 20
Empirical evidence and open questions.................................................... 26
Solving the Problem – Designing a Research Strategy......................................... 29
Developing a core assumption................................................................... 31
Developing secondary assumptions .......................................................... 33

Bouncing a Ball under Pressure – Staying Tuned in Dynamical Stability ......... 36
Introduction to Study 1............................................................................................. 37
Dynamical Systems and their Stability....................................................... 37
General Hypothesis for Study 1................................................................. 42
Experiment 1 ..............................................................................................................43
Methods......................................................................................................... 43
Results............................................................................................................ 49
Discussion ..................................................................................................... 55
Experiment 259
Methods 59
Results 62
Discussion 70
General Discussion of Study 1................................................................................. 71

Tracking under Pressure – Two Become One but does One Become Two? .... 76
Introduction to Study 2............................................................................................. 77
General Hypothesis for Study 2................................................................. 79
Experiment 3 ..............................................................................................................80
Methods......................................................................................................... 81
Results............................................................................................................ 88
Discussion ..................................................................................................... 92 THE PROBLEM – CHOKING UNDER PRESSURE 3
Experiment 4 ..............................................................................................................95
Methods......................................................................................................... 95
Results..........................................................................................................100
Discussion ...................................................................................................107
General Discussion of Study 2...............................................................................109

Choking under Pressure – What have we learned?...................................................112
Brief Summary113
The four key issues ..................................................................................................115
The pressure manipulation: Was it effective?.........................................115
Explicit monitoring: Did it occur?...........................................................116
Explicit knowledge: Is it relevant? ...........................................................116
The task: Was it the right type? ................................................................117
Future directions ......................................................................................................119
Open questions ........................................................................................................123

References.............................................................................................................................125

Author Index ........................................................................................................................135

Erklärung ..............................................................................................................................137

_Toc147518627 THE PROBLEM – CHOKING UNDER PRESSURE 4
Acknowledgments
During a time when a German “summer fairy tale” almost came true because the Ger-
man soccer team was close to winning another world cup and even (may be because…)
a sportpsychologist was sitting on their bench – I had to write my dissertation! When
watching a game, though, I was hoping to witness a moment of “choking”, someone
missing a clear goal, something I could use as an anchor in my introduction. But unfor-
tunately in the only moment of choking that I saw, someone lost his head but with it he
didn’t miss his goal... So, instead of examining the topic of the dissertation life on TV, I
had to analyze and interpret data from dubious laboratory experiments. Dubious, that’s
probably what most of the participants in my experiments thought of the tasks they had
to do. To them I have to express my deep gratitude – this dissertation would be purely
theoretical if it hadn’t been for them! In this context, I’m indebted to David Conroy
who offered his students credits for my experiments. The significant part of this disser-
tation ows to my two stays at Penn State – thanks to the people in the Action Lab, spe-
cifically Kunlin “Dr. K.” Wei, for their openness, critique, advice and help. The tracking
task would not have been possible without the programming skills of Jonas Lorenzen –
he produced a high-end product on a low-budget. Whereas the participants doubted the
tasks, the student assistants in Potsdam must have doubted my mental health – still they
spent endless hours in analyzing the tone-judgment tasks. I’m also grateful to the entire
“teams” in Potsdam but also, since recently, in Munich – both provided the atmosphere
that this dissertation could come to a (hopefully) successful end. But I do want to pick
out Enrique Silva-Cousino and Christian Heiss, who have for long and for short helped
me stay sane by giving plenty opportunities to re-focus.
The thoughts and ideas of many went into this work, although only the ones I
read about I could cite. Beyond these papers, my discussions at the Action Lab, my
presentations in Heidelberg, Giessen and our Winterakademie in the Kleinwalsertal
proved seminal to this dissertation– my gratitude to all who contributed. Further this is
a good opportunity to thank Prof. Ernst-Joachim Hossner for stimulating my work and
for pushing me to the idea that was realized in Study 2. Always honestly critically follow-
ing this dissertation was Dr. Daniel Erlacher, to whom I’m deeply in debt. His ques-
tions, ideas and corrections significantly contributed to what good there is in this work.
This dissertation had three advisors, my grateful thanks to Prof. Reinhold Kliegl
who steered the dissertation to this end by intermittently giving me (and my work) his THE PROBLEM – CHOKING UNDER PRESSURE 5
full attention and asking the right questions, to Prof. Dagmar Sternad, for giving me the
opportunity to stay at her lab, for all the feedback and the continuous support, and to
Prof. Beckmann, who let me do “my thing” and never seemed to have any doubts that it
would have a good ending – I’m looking forward to addressing some of the issues raised
by this dissertation in Munich.
“Choking under Pressure” is only the topic of my dissertation, not the theme of
my life – this is owing to my wife, Lena. With her help, I feel I can survive any pressure. THE PROBLEM – CHOKING UNDER PRESSURE 6

























Introduction
Choking under Pressure –
Attention and Motor Control in Performance Situations THE PROBLEM – CHOKING UNDER PRESSURE 7
July 17th 1994, Rose Bowl, Pasadena, just after 3 pm. Carlos Dunga has just scored to