Laurie Anderson and Dr. Ben Ogles, Psychology
Our study sought to add to the current literature on the explicit monitoring and distraction theories. We have created a theory known as the Optimal Focus Theory. This theory states that choking can be avoided and performance under pressure will improve if athletes achieve the right amount of focus. Rather than over-focusing, such as the explicit monitoring theory suggests, or being distracted by irrelevant stimuli, as the distraction theory purports, the Optimal Focus Theory calls for a balance of focus. We aimed to study subjects’ anxiety, perceived control, and sport confidence as they shot free throws in a pressure situation. We hypothesized that the Optimal Focus intervention would improve free-throw shooting performance under pressure.
Twenty-nine students from Brigham Young University participated in the study. Subjects were recruited using a Facebook event and flyers advertising a basketball free throw shooting contest. 26 males and 3 females participated. Students shot three rounds of 25 free throws. In round one, they shot a baseline of free throws under no pressure. Then pressure was induced by the following: having participants shoot in front of a crowd, by making it a competitive contest, and by allowing only 3 minutes for all 25 shots. The second and third rounds were both under pressure. Between the second and third rounds we conducted an “Optimal Focus Intervention” in which a basketball expert gave advice to each subject, advising them to achieve the right amount of focus by thinking “eyes on the rim, up and in” as they shot in the third round.
We ran a t-test to determine if anxiety increased when we induced pressure. Somatic Anxiety (a subscale of the CSAI-2R) increased significantly, t = -3.889, p < .001. Calculating the total sums (based on the shot recording scale) for each round of shooting, we ran a within-subjects contrast to determine if pressure affected performance. No significant differences were found between the control and conditions, F = 2.742 for Round 1 vs. Round 2 and F = .661 for Round 1 vs. Round 3. There were no significant differences in performance between any of the three rounds of shooting. We ran a bivariate correlation of measured variables in relation to the total sums of each round of shooting. The following variables appeared to be important in predicting performance: SSCI scores, how many hours a week one has played basketball in the last two months, highest level of competitive basketball, self-ratings of free throw shooting ability, self-ratings of ability to concentrate or focus, self-ratings of basketball skill, Self-Confidence subscale scores of the CSAI-2R, and Perceived Control scores. In running a correlation of these eight variables, we found that they all significantly overlap and correlate with each other with few exceptions. When all variables that predicted performance were entered into a stepwise regression, only the SSCI entered the equation. Because there was no significant difference in performance between the second and third rounds of shooting, we conclude that the Optimal Focus Intervention had no effect on performance. We believed that a balanced sense of focus (not too much nor too little focus, but just enough focus) would aid the subjects in better performance of free throw shooting. However, this was not the case. In determining why our intervention did not work, we propose several theories. First, the intervention just was not effective because the phrase we asked subjects to think about (“eyes on the rim, up and in”) did not actually pertain to an optimal level of focus. It is also possible that the participants did not perceive our basketball “expert,” the assistant coach of the BYU men’s basketball team, as an expert; this may have caused subjects to disregard his advice (the intervention). Finally, the free throw shooting contest was set up in such a way that the winners included those who scored the most out of 50 free throws (the second and third rounds combined). All participants could see the performance of the others. When subjects shot poorly in the second round, but saw others who did well in the second round, they went into the third round knowing they had no chance of winning the contest. This may have caused the participants to care and try less than they would have if they hadn’t known their current standings in relation to the other subjects. We believe that this final theory is the most likely explanation for the ineffectiveness of the intervention We determined that eight particular variables best predicted free throw shooting performance. We then determined that the Sport Self-Confidence Inventory best expressed all of these eight variables. This measure that assesses how self-confident participants feel in the current moment about performing successfully best encompasses the eight variables that predict performance. That is to say, the SSCI takes into account how often a person plays basketball, self-confidence, basketball skill, free throw shooting ability, ability to focus, and perceived control. The biggest limit of our study is the small number of participants (n = 29). We would like to replicate this study with a much larger N to see if our intervention would have more of an effect and to determine if the eight variables we found would further differentiate performance levels. As discussed, the format of the contest was another major limit. If we replicated this study, we would consider using a random, non-participatory audience to induce pressure while ensuring that the subjects do not know of their current standings in relation to the other shooters- this would motivate them to continue performing at their highest level throughout rounds two and three. Despite the fact that our Optimal Focus intervention proved to be ineffective, this study still contains important implications. Namely, the importance and efficacy of the SSCI in predicting sport performance. Our study found SSCI scores to be the best predictors of performance under pressure, specifically because the SSCI encompassed all other predicting variables. Our study provides support for the SSCI, leading us to suggest that the SSCI can act as an important tool for coaches and sport psychologists to assess their athletes’ ability to perform, even under pressure. This study was presented at the Mary Lou Fulton Chair Student Research Conference on April 12, 2013