Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Free Access - Register Here

Click here for free access to the SAGE eReference platform!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, B. P.
Right arrow Articles by Linder, D. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, B. P.
Right arrow Articles by Linder, D. E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 23, No. 9, 937-944 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167297239003

Thinking about Choking? Attentional Processes and Paradoxical Performance

Brian P. Lewis

Arizona State University, lewis{at}psych.ucla.edu

Darwyn E. Linder

Arizona State University

When pressure to perform is increased, individuals commonly perform worse than if there were no pressure ("choking under pressure'). Two mechanisms have been proposed to account for this effect-distraction (cognitive load), wherein pressure distracts attention from the task, and self focus, wherein attention shifts inward interfering with performance. To distinguish between these two competing explanations, the current experiment manipulated pressure by offering performance-contingent rewards. For half the participants, cognitive load was increased by requiring participants to count backward from 100. Additionally, adaptation to self awareness was manipulated by videotaping half the participants during practice trials. Results show that pressure caused choking when participants were not distracted and had not been adapted to self awareness. This effect was attenuated when cognitive load was increased or when self-awareness adaptation had occurred. These results support self focus mediated misregulation as the mechanism for choking and disconfirm the distraction hypothesis.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Environment and BehaviorHome page
J. Tougne, B. Paty, D. Meynard, J.-M. Martin, T. Letellier, and E. Rosnet
Group Problem Solving and Anxiety During a Simulated Mountaineering Ascent
Environment and Behavior, January 1, 2008; 40(1): 3 - 23.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
S. L. Beilock, W. A. Jellison, R. J. Rydell, A. R. McConnell, and T. H. Carr
On the Causal Mechanisms of Stereotype Threat: Can Skills That Don't Rely Heavily on Working Memory Still Be Threatened?
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, August 1, 2006; 32(8): 1059 - 1071.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Psychology of MusicHome page
C. Y. Wan and G. F. Huon
Performance degradation under pressure in music: an examination of attentional processes
Psychology of Music, April 1, 2005; 33(2): 155 - 172.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Sport and Social IssuesHome page
D. R. Smith
The Home Advantage Revisited: Winning and Crowd Support in an Era of National Publics
Journal of Sport and Social Issues, November 1, 2003; 27(4): 346 - 371.
[Abstract] [PDF]