Igniting the pressure acclimatization training debate: contradictory pilot-study evidence from Australian football.
Beseler, Bradley ; Mesagno, Christopher ; Young, Warren 等
Australian football is the pre-eminent sport in Australia. Played
between two teams of 22 players, with 18 players on the field at any
given time, the main way to score is to punt the oval shaped ball
through the two centre goal posts to score six points. Australian
Football is a team sport that is played in an open skilled environment
with closed skills (i.e., set shots for goal) within game play. A set
shot is when a player has a shot at goal after taking a mark (i.e.,
catching a kicked ball) or receiving a free kick (i.e., penalty from an
opposing player). One aspect of set shots in Australian Football that is
different to other sports involving shots at goal (e.g., soccer, hockey
and basketball) is the opposing player's role. The direct opponent
becomes the "man on the mark", standing in the position where
the mark or free kick was awarded and attempting to distract the kicker
or block the ball's flight path. A set shot is similar to punting
in American football; however, it is a more closed skill where the
player can execute the task without being forced to rush the kick due to
external pressure from defenders.
In the past two decades, Australian football has improved in nearly
all aspects of the game. It is generally agreed that field kicking and
handballing accuracy (i.e., passing), and defensive pressure have all
improved and according to Gray and Jenkins (2010), data collected
through global positioning systems technology and video analysis has
shown Australian football is getting faster, yet according to Champion
data Statistician Karl Jackson (personal communication, April 30, 2012);
set shot goal kicking accuracy has declined over the last 12 years by
1.4 percent. One reason for the decline could be that set shots can lead
to increased psychological pressure which is defined as "any factor
or combination of factors that increases the importance of performing
well on a particular occasion" (Baumeister, 1984). Choking under
pressure (i.e., choking) is a term that is used to describe an inferior
performance under increased levels of pressure. Mesagno and Hill (2013)
defined choking as "an acute and considerable decrease in skill
execution and performance when self-expected standards are normally
achievable, which is the result of increased anxiety under perceived
pressure" (p. 273). Not surprisingly, a number of studies have
highlighted the problem of athletes performing poorly under pressure
(Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr, 2001; Gucciardi & Dimmock,
2008; Lewis & Linder, 1997; Mesagno & Mullane-Grant, 2010;
Mesagno, Harvey, & Janelle, 2011; Oudejans, Kuijpers, Kooijman,
& Bakker, 2011; Oudejans & Pijpers, 2009, 2010; Wilson, Wood,
& Vine, 2009).
One intervention that has helped stabilize these decreases in
performance under pressure is acclimatization (also known as
self-consciousness, or simulation training). Acclimatizing refers to a
player adapting or becoming accustomed to increased anxiety, by training
with additional mild anxiety (Oudejans & Pijpers, 2009). Supporters
of acclimatization (e.g., Beilock & Carr, 2001; Lewis & Linder,
1997; Nieuwenhuys & Oudejans 2011, Reeves, Tenebaum, & Lidor,
2007) believe that, if an athlete can train in a manner that helps
him/her become accustomed to the pressure in competition, performance
may improve in high pressure situations. Lewis and Linder (1997)
conducted an initial acclimatization study that compared golf putting
performance. All participants were first involved in a low pressure
phase, whereby they completed 10 putts to a target in a practice setting
with one group experiencing increased self-awareness adapted training by
being video-taped during their practice trials and the non-adapted group
not being video-taped. All participants were then exposed to high
pressure, to determine if the self-awareness adapted group had become
acclimatized to the "pressure". This involved the participants
being informed they would receive double the normal credit points for
participation if they performed well. The results indicated that the
self-awareness adapted group performed better under pressure than the
self-awareness non-adapted training group.
Another acclimatization study involved two experiments using
basketball free-throws and dart throwing. Oudejans and Pijpers (2009)
examined whether training with mild anxiety could prevent choking. The
first experiment involved two elite basketball teams that performed free
throws. Two tests were completed during the pretest and posttest, one
with high pressure (HP) and one with low pressure (LP). Pressure was
induced by videotaping participants and informing them the footage would
be evaluated by experts, involving participants in sub-team competitions
with the winning team receiving a cash prize, with coaches and other
players present to witness the shots, and asking participants to imagine
the free throws were potential match winners. Both teams then completed
a five week intervention, whereby the experimental group (EG)
intervention included pressure induced by manipulations similar to that
of the HP test except the cash prizes were replaced by individual and
team sanctions (sprints and push-ups) per missed free throw. The control
group (CG) intervention did not involve additional pressure. The pretest
results indicated that both groups performed worse in the HP than in the
LP. However, during the posttests, only the CG performed worse during
the HP. One limitation of the Oudejans and Pijpers study was that,
during the pressure manipulation, participants were instructed to
imagine that the shots were match winning attempts, which introduces
another possible positive intervention (i.e., mental imagery) into the
HP situation. More recently, Nieuwenhuys and Oudejans (2011)
investigated the effects on training with anxiety on police
officers' shooting behavior under pressure. The pre-test,
post-test, and retention test study involved officers completing a
shooting exercise under low anxiety (i.e., opponent did not shoot back)
and high anxiety conditions (i.e., against an opponent that occasionally
shot back using colored soap cartridges). Results indicated that, during
the post-test and retention test, the experimental group who practiced
under high anxiety conditions performed better under high anxiety
conditions than the control group who practiced under low anxiety
conditions. Thus, the results of these studies supported the
acclimatization theory because the participants who experienced HP
during their intervention sessions maintained performance in the post HP
tests, whereas participants who did not experience acclimatization
decreased performance in the post-intervention HP tests.
Thus, the purpose of the current study was to investigate whether
pressure acclimatization training is as effective in Australian football
set shot goal kicking, where the pressure applied by opponents is more
interactive than the distractions applied by opponents in other sports.
To investigate this, we implemented more ecologically valid
manipulations during the intervention sessions. It was hypothesized that
acclimatization would improve set shot goal kicking performance under
pressure.
Method
Participants
Thirty experienced (playing experience: M= 10.90; SD = 3.60 years)
Victorian Football League (the 2nd highest ranked competition in
Australian football) players from the same team were selected to
participate in the study. Due to player issues (e.g., being delisted,
injuries, player relocation, or missed testing sessions), only 12 male
participants ([M.sub.playing experience] = 11.58; [SD.sub.playing
experience] = 3.66 years) completed all testing and were used for the
analyses (age: M = 20.58; SD = 2.23 years).
Measures
Mental readiness form-3 (Krane, 1994). To examine the effect that
anxiety had on performance, participants completed a Mental Readiness
Form-3 (MRF-3) to measure their state anxiety. The MRF-3 was chosen
because of its efficiency of data collection and is a measure of state
anxiety that has been used successfully in other studies (Krane, 1994;
Wilson et al., 2009). The MRF-3 has three separate 100 millimetre (mm)
continuums that are anchored between calm and worried for cognitive
anxiety, relaxed and tense for somatic anxiety and confident and not
confident for self-confidence. The participant placed a mark on each of
the lines to show how he was feeling at that moment. The measurement
between the left edge of the line and the mark on the line was the
player's score out of 100, with higher scores indicating a higher
anxiety. Wilson et al. reported the correlations of the MRF-3 to the
Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2; Martens, Burton, Vealey,
Bump, & Smith, 1990), a widely used sport anxiety questionnaire, to
be 0.76 for cognitive anxiety, 0.69 for somatic anxiety, and 0.68 for
self-confidence.
Performance. Performance was measured with set shots. The scoring
system in this study included a goal (i.e., football being kicked
between the two centre posts) equalling two points, a behind (i.e.,
football being kicked between either of the two outer scoring sections)
equalling one point, and a shot that went outside the outer posts
receiving zero points. The normal Australian football scoring system
(goal = 6 points, behind = 1 point) was not used because scoring zones
are similar distances apart and the normal Australian football scoring
would magnify "goals" relative to "behinds" in the
results. In order to ensure the distance of the kick was enough to avoid
being stopped by a defender in a game, a rope was also tied between the
outside posts at a height of 270 cm, which acted as a
"crossbar" to replicate the height of a jumping defender on
the goal line with his arms raised above his head, who may stop the ball
as it approached goal. For a score to be registered, the kick needed to
clear the crossbar (without touching it), otherwise a score of zero was
awarded for that kick. The total score for the 10 shots was used as the
dependent performance variable.
Design
The design of the study was similar to the Oudejans and Pijpers
(2009), with an intervention phase completed between the
pre-intervention and post-intervention testing (where the tests included
a LP and HP component). The difference was that the task was Australian
football goal kicking and the HP was slightly different (as explained
below) and there was additional manipulations implemented to increase
anxiety levels, such as prize money, increased interaction from
opponents, and up to date scoreboards.
Procedures
Prior to commencing the study, coaches from the team were
approached and pilot testing conducted on players of equal ability, but
not used as participants in the current study, to determine appropriate
kicking angles and distances from goal. After consulting the coaches and
analysing the pilot data, the kicking positions were selected, which
replicated some of the common positions where set shots for goal are
taken in match situations (see Figure 1). Standard football equipment
(i.e., footballs, football field and goal posts) was used during the
data collection.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Conditions. Prior to the first session, participants completed an
informed consent form that explained the University Research Ethics
Committee approved the study. During the pre-intervention testing, the
participants took 10 kicks at goal in a LP condition, with only the
researcher present. One kick was taken from each of the 10 common
goal-kicking positions with five shots taken from a distance of 20 m,
and the other five taken from 30 m, away from goal. The order of the
positions was randomized to decrease the likelihood of order effects. As
the participants attempted the shots at goal, one researcher stood
directly in front of the participant completely still at the
pre-determined kicking distance and position, which is similar to the
position of the kicker's opponent in a normal Australian football
game. To accurately measure how participants were feeling during the
goal kicking, the MRF-3 was completed after each participant's
fifth shot at goal, which was administered by the first author who
explained the form by reading an instruction sheet verbatim to ensure
consistency.
The HP condition was similar to the LP condition with the exception
that teammates who were either on the mark or in close proximity to the
kicker, attempted to distract their opponents by yelling out, jumping
around, and using any other techniques within Australian football rules.
Coaching staff were also present to observe the tests. The participant
was video-taped from various angles, by a digital video camcorder (Sony
DCR-DVD810E), and told that coaching staff would evaluate the video
footage. A monetary incentive of S150AU was awarded to the participant
with the best score. Prior to the HP test, participants were made aware
that results would also be posted in a highly visible area in the team
change rooms. These methods used to induce pressure in the current study
were similar to those of other studies (e.g., Baumeister, 1984; Beilock
& Carr, 2001; Gucciardi & Dimmock, 2008; Mesagno &
Mullane-Grant, 2010; Mesagno et al., 2011; Oudejans & Pijpers, 2009,
2010). The order of the HP and LP conditions were counterbalanced to
ensure that an order effect did not occur.
Groups. Following the pre-intervention tests and when allocating
participants to the two groups, participant playing positions were
considered to ensure group similarities for forwards, backs and midfield
players. After group homogeneity was considered, participants were then
randomly assigned into one of two groups: EG or CG. The CG completed the
intervention phase with LP, the EG completed the intervention phase with
HP.
Intervention Phase. The two groups completed separate intervention
phases at the same time at opposite ends of the field that involved 14
sessions conducted over seven weeks. The intervention sessions were the
same as the testing (i.e., 10 shots for goal) and occurred on separate
nights to the testing sessions. The EG, whose scores were recorded
during all sessions, completed their intervention training with similar
pressure manipulations used in the HP test, with a few changes. First,
the player with the best cumulative score after the 14 sessions, instead
of the best session, received the prize money. Second, participants were
placed into sub-teams of three, and the team with the best cumulative
score shared $250AU in prize money. Third, an up to date leader board of
weekly team and individual scores, were posted in a highly visible area
in the team change rooms. Last, the MRF-3 was completed after fifth
attempt of Sessions 3, 8, and 14 only to verify the level of anxiety
experienced during the intervention phase.
The CG completed the intervention sessions similar to the LP, with
the sessions being completed in pairs. One player completed his 10
shots, while his partner returned the balls, and then they switched
roles. The groups alternated sides of the field for each session to
ensure that neither group received a part of field advantage.
Post-Intervention Test. The post-intervention test was identical to
the preintervention test, with groups being involved in the LP and HP
conditions again. All preintervention, intervention, and
post-intervention testing sessions were conducted at the team's
home ground and at the conclusion of the team's normal training
sessions.
Results
Statistical Analyses
Four dependent variables (i.e., performance and three scores from
the MRF-3) were investigated and analyzed using a 3-factor (Group: EG,
CG x Condition: LP, HP x Test: pre, post) repeated measures Analysis of
Variance (3-way RMANOVA). Further analysis was conducted using
independent samples t tests, paired samples t tests and correlation
analyses. To decrease the likelihood of Type I error, Bonferroni
corrections were implemented for each set of t tests. The statistical
significance for the RMANOVA was set at p < 0.05, with the alpha
level for Bonferroni-corrected t tests set at p < 0.0125 (=0.05/4).
Effect sizes (ES) adhered to Hopkins (2006) categorization of 0.2 or
less (trivial), 0.2-0.6 (small), 0.6-1.2 (moderate), 1.2-2.0 (large),
2.0--4.0 (very large), and 4.0 and above (nearly perfect).
Group Difference Check
To determine homogeneity of groups, the pre-intervention test
scores for both groups on the four dependent variables were analyzed by
independent samples t tests (Table 1). The pre-intervention LP and HP
tests both indicated no significant Group differences for performance,
somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety or confidence.
Primary Analyses: Three Way ANOVAs
The 3-way (Group x Condition x Test) RMANOVA indicated a
significant Condition main effect for somatic anxiety (F(1,10) =
14.706,p = 0.003, partial [[eta].sup.2] = .595), cognitive anxiety
(F(1,10) = 15.862, p = 0.003, partial [[eta].sup.2] = 0.613), and
confidence (F(1,10) = 7.284,p = 0.022, partial [[eta].sup.2] = .421).
The results indicated that, for both Groups and both Tests, anxiety and
confidence scores were significantly higher in the HP tests compared to
the LP. Other anxiety results (p > 0.10) indicated that there were no
other significant effects due to Group or Test and there were no
significant interactions among Group, Condition and Test.
The RMANOVA for performance indicated a significant main effect of
Test (F (1,10) = 6.451, p = 0.029, partial [[eta].sup.2] = 0.392), with
performance being significantly lower at posttest than at pre-test for
both LP and HP conditions. The other performance scores (p > 0.10)
indicated no other significant effects due to Group or Condition, and
there were no significant interactions.
Pre-Intervention Anxiety Manipulation Check
Further analyses of pre-intervention LP and HP scores were
conducted separately for each group using paired t tests. The
pre-intervention test results for the CG indicated a differences between
LP and HP that approached statistical significance (Bonferroni corrected
p < 0.0125) for somatic anxiety (t (5) = -2.644, p = 0.046) and
cognitive anxiety (t (5) = -3.580,p = 0.016) but not for confidence (t
(5) = -1.796, p = 0.132). The results for the EG showed no significant
difference between LP and HP for somatic anxiety (t (5) = -1.156, p =
0.300), cognitive anxiety (t (5) = -1.897, p = 0.116) or confidence (t
(5) = -1.430, p = 0.212).
Post-Intervention Anxiety Manipulation Check
To examine whether or not the pressure manipulations were
successful at raising anxiety levels in the post-intervention test,
paired t tests of LP and HP scores were conducted separately for each
group. The CG's anxiety scores showed no significant difference
between LP and HP for somatic anxiety (t (5) =-2.126, p = 0.087),
cognitive anxiety (t (5) = -.800, p = 0.460), or confidence (t (5) =
-.304, p = 0.773). The results for the EG indicated that the difference
between LP and HP approached significance (Bonferroni corrected p <
0.0125) for somatic anxiety (t (5) = -2.621, p = 0.047), and cognitive
anxiety (t (5) =-2.646, p = 0.046) but not confidence (t (5) = -.842, p
= 0.438).
During-Intervention Anxiety Manipulation Check
To examine whether or not the pressure manipulations of the EG
during the intervention phase were successful at raising anxiety levels,
RMANOVAs of HP anxiety levels for the EG at the five time points that
these were measured (pre, Session 3, Session 8, Session 14, post), were
undertaken. There were no significant differences over time for
Cognitive F(1,4) = 1.425, p = 0.370, partial [[eta].sup.2] = .588 ,
Somatic F(l,4) = 1.471, p = 0.359, partial [[eta].sup.2] = .595 or
Confidence F(1,4) = 1.720, p = 0.306, partial [[eta].sup.2] = .632,
indicating that the pressure manipulation for the EG during the
intervention sessions were successful at raising anxiety levels to
levels similar to those observed in pre and post phases.
Indicative trends
While the primary ANOVAs did not reveal statistically significant
interactions, there were consistent indications of a 3-factor
interactive pattern in the mean levels of somatic and cognitive anxiety.
The results in Table 2 summarize for each of EG and CG, the differences
in the three dependent variables between LP and HP conditions, and
compares those differences from pre-intervention testing to
post-intervention testing. For somatic anxiety and cognitive anxiety,
while not significant, the EG and CG differences trended in opposite
directions in the two groups. The CG somatic and cognitive scores in the
post-intervention testing were trending towards being less affected by
HP. Conversely, the EG somatic and cognitive scores in the
post-intervention testing were trending towards being more affected by
HP.
Low Pressure and High Pressure Kicking Performance
The altered scoring system implemented allowed a scoring range
maximum of 20 and a minimum of zero. When the performance scores of each
group were analyzed using paired sample t tests, the results of the
pre-intervention testing indicated that both the CG (t(5) = -0.146, p =
0.889) and the EG (t (5) = -0.229, p = 0.828) showed trivial
improvements between LP and HP performance.
When a paired t test analysis was conducted on the
post-intervention testing performance scores of each group, the CG high
pressure post-intervention test performance had a non-significant
improvement from their low pressure post-intervention test performance
(t(5) = -1.408, p = 0.218). The EG high pressure post-intervention test
performance was marginally lower than their low pressure
post-intervention test performance (t(5) = 1.955, p = 0.108).
Pre to Post Performance Comparison
The results of the RMANOVA indicated a significant Test main effect
relating performance, E(1,10) = 6.451, p = 0.029, partial [[eta].sup.2]
= .392; for both Groups and Conditions, the performance decreased in the
post-intervention testing. There were no other significant results
relating to performance (p < 0.10). To examine the pre- to
post-intervention test performance comparison in more detail, paired
sample t test analyses were conducted. For the LP condition, the CG
post-intervention test approached significance when compared to the
pre-intervention test, t(5) = 3.07, p = 0.028. The EG post-intervention
LP performance was not significantly different when compared to their
pre-intervention LP performance t(5) = .316, p = 0.765. The CG
post-intervention HP performance was also not significantly different to
the pre-intervention HP performance, t(5) = .432,p = 0.684. The EG
postintervention HP performance was not significantly different to the
pre-intervention HP performance, t(5) = 2.177,p = 0.081.
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether
pressure acclimatization training improves Australian football goal
kicking performance in a high-pressure situation. We also examined
whether anxiety levels changed from LP to HP as a result of the training
interventions. The results demonstrated that an increase in pressure
resulted in increased anxiety levels from LP to HP in the pre and
post-intervention tests. The results also indicated that, contrary to
other research (e.g., Oudejans & Pijpers, 2009), performance scores
did not improve as a result of the acclimatization intervention.
Anxiety Manipulation Check
Considering the main focus was to examine whether practicing under
pressure assists Australian football players to become acclimatized to
the pressure, it was necessary to ensure that anxiety increased during
HP testing. In line with other acclimatization studies (e.g., Oudejans
& Pijpers, 2009), it was hypothesized that anxiety (i.e., cognitive
and somatic anxiety) would be higher in the HP than in the LP condition.
The results indicated that cognitive and somatic anxiety were
significantly higher in the HP compared to the LP condition. As such,
the pressure manipulations were successful at increasing anxiety for
both groups and both testing sessions. The anxiety scores observed in
the current study were similar to the results of other experimental
studies focusing on anxiety and attentional control that involved
participants attempting soccer penalty kicks under high and low pressure
(e.g., Wilson et al., 2009).
In the current study, the CG was more affected (i.e., greater
anxiety increase) than the EG by the HP in the pre-intervention testing.
This difference indicated that, prior to the intervention, the CG
experienced more anxiety, which did not lead to a drastic change in
performance. The post-intervention testing results showed that the HP
anxiety scores were higher than the LP, indicating that the measures
taken to increase pressure levels were still having the desired effect.
Additionally, the anxiety effect reversed for the groups during the
post-intervention testing. That is, the EG was more affected by HP than
the CG after the intervention phase. Contrary to our hypothesis, the EG
group was becoming more sensitive to high pressure after the
intervention. These results are in contrast to the results of Oudejans
and Pijpers (2009) basketball study where post-intervention tests
indicated significant anxiety differences between HP and LP conditions.
Low and High Pressure Kicking Performance
In contrast to the Oudejans and Pijpers (2009) findings, the
results from the current study indicated that in the pre-intervention
test a trivial improvement in kicking performance during the HP
occurred. Furthermore, the post-intervention test results were also in
contrast to the findings of other studies (e.g., Beilock & Carr,
2001; Oudejans & Pijpers, 2009). Oudejans and Pijpers'
post-intervention test indicated that after the acclimatization training
the CG free throw shooting accuracy was still negatively affected by
pressure. That is, the CG performed worse in the HP than in the LP
condition, and the EG improved their scoring in the HP condition
(indicating the EG had acclimatized to the HP). Beilock and Canfound
that under certain training environments (e.g., self-consciousness
training), choking can be reduced. In the present study, after the
intervention sessions the EG's performance scores declined
moderately in the HP testing. The CG, however, tended to show a moderate
improvement in accuracy in the HP testing. These equivocal results
indicate that acclimatization training may be counterproductive,
possibly creating a conditioned response for athletes in which they may
become more pressure sensitive, leading to higher anxiety and
performance decrements. These results could also be explained through
the CG and EG having different levels of expectations of success.
Baumeister, Hamilton and Tice (1985) explained that when an athlete
feels others are expecting success and that athlete experiences
self-doubt, the result may be an increased level of pressure and a poor
performance. Conversely those who were not expected to succeed may
experience the lower levels of pressure and positive performance
effects. Linking Baumeister et al. to the present study, the
participants in the EG were involved in the HP intervention sessions and
may have perceived that others (e.g., coaches, researchers) were
expecting them to perform well, whereas the CG felt less expectation in
the post HP test because they were not involved in the HP intervention
sessions and were able to deliver the superior performance.
Pre to Post Performance Comparison
When comparing the pre-intervention to the post-intervention test
scores, the CG showed a larger decline in performance in the LP than the
HP testing, but the opposite occurred for the EG, who showed a larger
decline in the HP testing than LP. Possible explanations for contrasting
results to Oudejans and Pijpers (2009) study include (but are not
limited to) the number of intervention sessions, dose effect, and amount
of pressure. One possible factor is the number of intervention sessions
and number of attempts the participants took in this study compared to
participants in the Oudejans and Pijpers study. In the Oudejans and
Pijpers study, participants completed 96 free throws over nine sessions,
whereas in the current study, participants completed 140 attempts over
14 sessions. There may be a "dose response effect", where
there reaches a point that any further practice becomes detrimental to
the acclimatization training. Furthermore, the type of skills (i.e.,
basketball free-throw shooting vs. football goal-kicking) completed in
the two studies may also have had an effect on the success of the
acclimatization. That is, the free throw is a non-ambulatory fine motor
skill in comparison to the Australian football set shot where
individuals use gross motor movement while ambulating forward to kick
for goal. Furthermore, it is also possible that these results could be
caused by a combination of the number of attempts and type of skill, but
further research is needed to develop explanations for this
contradictory evidence.
Limitations
The study was designed with scientific rigour in mind;
nevertheless, some limitation should still be mentioned. One limitation
was the environmental conditions at the team's home ground. The
different wind conditions on the two testing days (Pre-intervention
testing = no wind, Post-intervention testing = medium wind blowing
across the face of the goals), may have affected results. We attempted
to collect the data in the same environmental conditions as possible,
but it was not logistically possible based on the allowed training
schedule. Nevertheless, both groups experienced the same conditions
therefore the effects of the acclimatization should still be evident.
Future acclimatization research in Australian football would need to
ensure that pre and post- intervention testing conditions (both audience
and environmental conditions) are identical. The positives of conducting
the study on an actual playing field are too important to alter the
design of the experiment; a laboratory setting would lose ecological
validity. An ideal scenario would be using an indoor football field. If
this is not possible, having the flexibility to ensure the conditions in
the pre-intervention testing are similar to the conditions in the post-
intervention testing is extremely important. Another limitation is the
lack of crowd noise experienced by participants during the pre and post
testing and during the EG intervention. Oudejans and Pijpers (2010)
suggested it is not feasible to practice under match conditions because
they are too context specific. The measures taken to simulate these
conditions, characterized (in part) by other participants yelling out as
shots were taken at goal were deemed to be one of the best methods to
increase participant anxiety levels while also considering ecological
validity. A final limitation was the small sample size; the small sample
size confines the extent that results can be generalised, ideally a
larger sample would be beneficial to the results of the study. However,
the study paves the way for future studies to be investigated.
Future Research
Oudejans and Pijpers (2009) found that acclimatization training can
improve free throw performance under simulated pressure; however, our
results contradicted these findings. If acclimatization is beneficial,
another question that coaches would view as important is, can this
acclimatization to pressure be maintained under match pressure? In
basketball this is a distinct possibility because there is no
inter-trial variability, with the foul line always the same distance and
height from the basket. Free throw percentage in competition could be
measured prior to, and following, an acclimatization phase. If
improvement is shown to be durable, coaches would benefit from applying
acclimatization training to help athletes deal with pressure during
competition. Attempting this type of pre and post- intervention testing
study with Australian football is far more complicated because of the
inter-trial variability; set shots can be taken from many positions on
the playing field and from many distances in any given match. If,
however, the acclimatization was found to be durable in basketball under
match conditions where the variables are consistent with free throws,
there is the possibility that it could also be durable in other sports
with identical closed skill tasks and requirements (e.g., soccer penalty
kicks, archery). Future research may benefit from the inclusion of
measures of self-consciousness and effort to determine if a
player's ability to acclimatize to pressure is affected by his or
her level of self-consciousness or whether effort increased during the
HP. Future research should also investigate whether the combination of
type of skill and the number of attempts has an impact on the success of
acclimatization training.
Conclusions
In conclusion, the results from this study, which contradict the
results of similar studies (Beilock & Carr, 2001; Lewis &
Linder, 1997; Oudejans & Pjipers, 2009; Reeves et al., 2010), may
ignite the pressure acclimatization debate and suggested that further
research is required into the effectiveness of acclimatization training
as a means of ameliorating the effects of performing under high
pressure. Opposing performance and anxiety trends were displayed in this
study, compared to other studies. That is, the EG were more affected by
pressure in the post- intervention test, indicating that it could be
detrimental to expose players to HP training. As such researchers and
practitioners should not categorically expect acclimatization training
can improve a players' ability to perform under pressure.
In contrast to previous acclimatization research conducted on
basketball free throws, darts and golf putting (Lewis & Linder,
1997; Oudejans & Pijpers, 2009), the results of the present study
did not substantiate the predicted hypothesis and, conversely, indicated
that practicing with pressure may be detrimental to Australian football
goal kicking performance. The results of this study indicated that the
time consuming nature of this type of acclimatization training may not
be an efficient way to practice set shot goal kicking.
Bradley Beseler
Christopher Mesagno
Warren Young
Jack Harvey
Federation University Australia
References
Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure:
Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3),
610-620.
Baumeister, R., Hamilton, L, & Tice, M. (1985). Public versus
private expectancy of success. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48(6), 1447-1457.
Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of
skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 701-725.
Gray, A. J., & Jenkins, D. G. (2010). Match analysis and the
physiological demands of Australian football. Sports Medicine, 40(4),
347-360.
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(1), 45-59.
Hopkins, W. (2006). A scale of magnitudes for effect statistics. A
new view of statistics. Retrieved October 4, 2012, from
http://www.sportsci.org/resource/stats/effectmag.html
Krane, V. (1994). The mental readiness form as a measure of
competitive state anxiety. Sport Psychologist, 8(2), 189-202.
Lewis, B. R, & Linder, D. E. (1997). Thinking about choking?
Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 937-944.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R. S., Bump, L. A., & Smith,
D. E. (1990). Development and validation of the CSAI-2. In R. Martens,
R. S. Vealey & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive anxiety in sport (pp.
117-190). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Mesagno, C., Harvey, J. T., & Janelle, C. M. (2011).
Self-presentation origins of choking: Evidence from separate pressure
manipulations. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 55(3),
441-459.
Mesagno, C., & Hill, D.M. (2013). Definition of choking in
sport: Re-conceptualization and debate. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 44, 267-277
Mesagno, C., & Mullane-Grant, T. (2010). A comparison of
different pre-performance routines as possible choking interventions.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22(3), 343-360.
Nieuwenhuys, A. Oudejans, R.R.D. (2011). Training with anxiety:
Short- and long-term effects on police officers' shooting behavior
under pressure. Cognitive Processing, 12, 227-288.
Oudejans, R. R. D., Kuijpers, W., Kooijman, C., & Bakker, F. C.
(2011). Thoughts and attention of athletes under pressure: Skill-focus
or performance worries? Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 24(1), 59-73.
Oudejans, R., & Pijpers. (2009). Training with anxiety has a
positive effect on expert perceptual-motor performance under pressure.
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1631-47.
Oudejans, R. R. D., & Pijpers, J. R. (2010). Training with mild
anxiety may prevent choking under higher levels of anxiety. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 7/(1), 44-50.
Reeves, J., Tenebaum, G., & Lidor, R. (2007). Choking in front
of the goal: The effects of self-consciousness training. International
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5(3), 240-254.
Wilson, M. R., Wood, G., & Vine, S. J. (2009). Anxiety,
attentional control, and performance impairment in penalty kicks.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31(6), 761-775.
Address correspondence to: Bradley Beseler, School of Health
Science, Federation University Australia. P.O. Box 663, Ballarat,
Victoria 3353 AUSTRALIA. Email: b.beseler@federation.edu.au
Table 1
Pre-Intervention Test Means [+ or -] SD and Group Differences
CG (M [+ or -] SD) EG (M [+ or -] SD) P ES
Pre Low Pressure 14.3 [+ or -] 0.8 14.0 [+ or -] 2.3 0.743 0.17
PERFORMANCE
Pre Low Pressure 18.3 [+ or -] 8.2 25.5 [+ or -] 21.0 0.464 0.45
SOMATIC
Pre Low Pressure 14.5 [+ or -] 5.2 14.8 [+ or -] 10.5 0.946 0.04
COGNITIVE
Pre Low Pressure 45.3 [+ or -] 21.4 28.8 [+ or -] 2.1 0.118 1.09
CONFIDENCE
Pre High Pressure 14.5 [+ or -] 2.7 14.3 [+ or -] 1.9 0.903 0.09
PERFORMANCE
Pre High Pressure 37.5 [+ or -] 20.8 40.7 [+ or -] 24.0 0.812 0.14
SOMATIC
Pre High Pressure 49.7 [+ or -] 27.7 36.2 [+ or -] 23.8 0.387 0.52
COGNITIVE
Pre High Pressure 62.8 [+ or -] 18.8 42.8 [+ or -] 25.2 0.153 0.9
CONFIDENCE
Table 2
Trends in the Difference in Response to Low Pressure and High
Pressure Anxiety Conditions
Pre Post Significance
DV ES ES Trend
CONTROL SOMATIC 1.21 0.91 Less affected
GROUP by HP
COGNITIVE 1.71 0.47 Less affected
by HP
CONFIDENCE 0.87 0.18 Less affected
by HP
EXPERIMENTAL SOMATIC 0.67 1.59 More affected
GROUP by HP
COGNITIVE 1.16 1.35 More affected
by HP
CONFIDENCE 0.78 0.39 Less affected
by HP
Note. Pre = Pre-testing, Post = Post-testing, ES = Effect size
