Choking

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:On: 18 January 2010Access details: Access Details: Free AccessPublisher Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Sport SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t714592354

A re-examination of choking in sportDenise M. Hill a; Sheldon Hanton b; Scott Fleming b; Nic Matthews aa Faculty of Sport, Health and Social Care, University of Gloucestershire, Gloucester b Cardiff School ofSport, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK

To cite this Article Hill, Denise M., Hanton, Sheldon, Fleming, Scott and Matthews, Nic(2009) 'A re-examination ofchoking in sport', European Journal of Sport Science, 9: 4, 203 212To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/17461390902818278URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461390902818278

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A re-examination of choking in sport

DENISE M. HILL1, SHELDON HANTON2, SCOTT FLEMING2, & NIC MATTHEWS1

1Faculty of Sport, Health and Social Care, University of Gloucestershire, Gloucester, and 2Cardiff School of Sport, University

of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK

AbstractThe purpose of this study was to re-examine choking in sport. Using a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967),qualitative data were gathered from four experts of applied sport psychology, who had published within the stress andanxiety literature, and worked extensively with athletes who had performed in highly stressful situations. The expertsperceived that the contemporary definitions of choking in sport fail to reflect fully the experiences of chokers, and createda more detailed definition in response. They considered the choking process to consist of a stress response that culminates ina significant drop in performance a choke, which psychologically damages the performer. It was also suggested that thechoking process and its consequences were moderated by individual differences and type of sport. Accordingly, theyrecommended interventions that may alleviate choking and, importantly, generated characteristics that can be used toidentify a choker. Such findings offer an extended understanding of choking in sport and provide a framework for futureecologically valid research.

Keywords: Paradoxical performance, pressure, stress, grounded theory

Introduction

Choking in sport is considered to be a sub-optimal

performance under stressful conditions (Lewis &

Linder, 1997) and has been defined as the occur-

rence of inferior performance despite striving and

incentives for superior performance (Baumeister &

Showers, 1986, p. 361). However, recent research has

indicated that this definition may fail to reflect fully

the experiences of athletes who have choked (e.g.

Gucciardi & Dimmock, 2008; Mesagno, Marchant, &

Morris, 2008) and it therefore warrants further

attention. It has been suggested that choking should

be a term used to convey an acute performance

failure under pressure (Clark, Tofler, & Lardon,

2005; Wilson, Chattington, Marple-Horvat, &

Smith, 2007) rather than any inferior or sub-optimal

performance. Indeed, the popular media tend to refer

to athletes such as Jana Novotna and Greg Norman as

chokers. Specifically, both have lost in competition

from seemingly unassailable positions because of a

considerable decrement in performance during pres-

surized periods of play (see Gladwell, 2000).

Although researchers must refrain from re-exam-

ining and re-defining terms based on their colloquial

use within the media, it should also be recognized

that an inferior performance, as suggested by

Baumeister and Showers (1986), may not accurately

represent the acute and dramatic deterioration in

performance associated with choking in sport (Guc-

ciardi & Dimmock, 2008). By adopting Baumeister

and Showers (1986) definition, contemporary re-

search has considered any deterioration in perfor-

mance to be choking, and therefore the suggested

cause and potential mechanisms of choking have

been established through the examination of perfor-

mances that may have only declined moderately

under pressure. For example, Gucciardi and Dim-

mock (2008) concluded that choking had occurred

within a group of their participants, when attempts

to putt to a target 3 m away declined under pressure.

However, the absolute error score (total distance

from hole) of the choking participants only

increased by an average of approximately 3 cm per

set of 10 putts. Wilson et al. (2007) also suggested

that their participants had choked under pressure

Correspondence: D. M. Hill, Faculty of Sport, Health and Social Care, University of Gloucestershire, Gloucester GL2 9HW, UK. E-mail:

[email protected]

European Journal of Sport Science, July 2009; 9(4): 203212

ISSN 1746-1391 print/ISSN 1536-7290 online # 2009 European College of Sport ScienceDOI: 10.1080/17461390902818278

Downlo

aded

At:

16:

02 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

10

when they experienced processing inefficiency of

task-relevant information within a stressful situation.

Yet, such inefficiency failed to affect performance

standards. Therefore, by regarding any deterioration

of performance as choking, there may have been a

failure in the literature to identify and subsequently

investigate choking in sport, which arguably is a

more acute and significant decline.

The extant choking research does however provide

a valuable insight into the experience of performance

failure, and therefore the findings merit considera-

tion when examining the choking phenomenon.

There is evidence that a deterioration of perfor-

mance under pressure is a consequence of atten-

tional disturbances caused by heightened anxiety

(for a review, see Beilock & Gray, 2007), with two

sets of contrasting theories proposed to describe the

process. The first set are the distraction theories

(Carver & Scheier, 1981), which maintain that

under stressful conditions, the athletes attentional

capacity will be overloaded by task-irrelevant stimuli

such as worry and self-doubt, resulting in perfor-

mance decrements. The second set are the self-focus

theories (Baumeister, 1984), which include the

conscious processing hypothesis (Masters, 1992),

and are collectively termed explicit monitoring

(Beilock & Carr, 2001). They state that performance

deteriorates as a consequence of the athlete reinvest-

ing explicit technical information and consciously

monitoring and/or controlling a skill that normally

would be performed automatically.

Beilock and colleagues (Beilock, Holt, Kulp, &

Carr, 2004) suggested that both distraction and self-

focus could cause choking, depending on the skill

being performed. They argued that because sensor-

imotor proceduralized tasks are executed outside the

working memory, they are resistant to distractions but

susceptible to self-focus. However, a complex de-

clarative task requiring high levels of cognitive control

to execute will consume most of the working memory

capacity, leaving it vulnerable to distractions.

It is unsurprising that most choking research within

the sporting domain has offered support for self-focus

theories (e.g. Gray, 2004; Jackson, Ashford, &

Norsworthy, 2006), as well-learnt complex motor

skills are normally sensorimotor and proceduralized

(Beilock & Carr, 2001), but the role of distraction has

not been ruled out (Mullen, Hardy, & Tattersall,

2005). In one study, for example, Hardy and collea-

gues (Hardy, Mullen, & Martin, 2001) observed

performance deterioration when athletes with high

state anxiety were exposed to conditions designed to

increase their self-focus (i.e. coaches called out

explicit technical cues). Although this appeared

to support the self-focus theories, Hardy et al

proposed that the combination of high anxiety with

additional technical cues may have exceeded the

athletes attentional capacity, and caused choking

through distraction. It is possible therefore that a

sporting situation that places high demands upon an

athletes working memory can provoke a choking

episode through distraction rather than self-focus

(Beilock & Carr, 2001; Beilock & Gray, 2007).

Choking research has also identified several factors

that are thought to moderate performance failure,

including audience effects (Wallace, Baumeister, &

Vohs, 2005), self-confidence (Baumeister, Hamilton,

& Tice, 1985), trait anxiety (Baumeister & Showers,

1986), self-consciousness (Baumeister, 1984), dis-

positional reinvestment (Masters, Polman, & Ham-

mond, 1993), skill level (Beilock & Carr, 2001), task

properties (Beilock & Carr, 2001), coping strategies

(Wang, Marchant, Morris, & Gibbs, 2004), and

stereotype threat (Chalabaev, Sarrazin, Stone, &

Cury, 2008). Little evidence exists, however, to verify

or explain the extent of their influence. Most research

that has investigated the moderators has focused on

self-consciousness, but even here agreement on its

precise role has yet to be reached (see Beilock & Gray,

2007).

To address the lack of clarity and consensus that

exists within the choking literature, and to develop a

greater appreciation of the choking phenomenon,

there are calls for a move away from the wholly

experimental approach of contemporary choking

research towards a more ecologically valid (Jackson

et al., 2006), idiographic (Clark, 2002), and quali-

tative methodology (Gucciardi & Dimmock, 2008).

However, developments cannot be achieved unless

researchers are able to identify chokers, and as a

result are unquestionably examining a choking

episode, rather than any performance decrement.

For example, a recent study by Mesagno et al.

(2008) isolated athletes who were susceptible to

choking via self-consciousness, trait anxiety, and

coping style scores. Although the use of subjectively

selected potential choking moderators as a means of

distinguishing chokers may be questionable, the

study has reinforced the importance of correctly

identifying and selecting chokers for future research.

Through qualitative methods, the aims of this

study are to re-examine choking in sport, re-visit the

operational definitions of choking in sport, and

ascertain the characteristics of choking under pres-

sure to identify chokers for future research. This

will facilitate a clearer understanding of the phenom-

enon, provide a foundation for subsequent choking

studies, and enable the generation of interventions

aimed at alleviating the choke.

Methods

A grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss,

1967) was adopted to address the aims of this

204 D. M. Hill et al.

Downlo

aded

At:

16:

02 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

10

research. The study has an underlying constructivist

epistemology, which follows a growing number of

researchers who have moved grounded theory away

from its objectivist origins (e.g. Charmaz, 2000;

Clark, 2003). A constructivist grounded theory can

generate a comprehensive description and explana-

tion (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) of choking in sport

while also following rigorous and systematic meth-

ods (see Bigus, Hadden, & Glaser, 1994).

Participants

Purposive sampling was used to select participants

who had comprehensive theoretical and applied

knowledge of the choking phenomenon. The parti-

cipants were four applied sport psychologists who

worked at British universities, and were all consid-

ered experts in the field of stress and performance.

Collectively, they had published extensively within

the stress and anxiety literature (i.e.100 publica-tions) and, over an extended period of time, had also

worked with athletes who had performed in highly

stressful conditions, such as major international

Games and Championships (including team, indivi-

dual, contact, non-contact, open and closed sports,

and sub-elite, elite, and super-elite athletes). Their

ages ranged from 30 to 43 years and all were male. In

accordance with the British Association of Sport and

Exercise Sciences (BASES) Code of Conduct,

voluntary informed written consent was gained

from each participant. The psychologists were as-

sured of their anonymity within the study and were

informed that their interview transcripts would only

be viewed by the research team. The study was

approved by the Research Ethics Committee at the

lead authors university.

Procedure

All participants took part in a focus group discussion

followed by an individual interview. This protocol is

in line with that found within current qualitative

sports psychology research (e.g. Jones, Hanton, &

Connaughton, 2002, 2007), whereby the focus

group encourages the development of ideas, and

the follow-up individual interviews are used to re-

visit and expand upon the key issues raised within

the group setting. In accordance with grounded

theory, the preliminary data collected from the focus

group were used to guide further data collection

within the interviews (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Data collection

The focus group interview guide was divided into six

parts: an evaluation of the contemporary definitions

of choking in sport; the choking process; the

consequences of choking in sport; the possible

moderating factors of choking in sport; a considera-

tion of potential interventions that may alleviate

choking in sport; and the identifiable characteristics

of a choker. The interview guide had a clear structure,

but there was also flexibility to allow for further

probing and elaboration if required (see, for example,

Hanton, Fletcher, & Coughlan, 2005). It also fol-

lowed the recommendations for grounded theory

data collection by using tell me about, how, what

and when questions . . . [and then] buttress them withqueries to elaborate or to specify (Charmaz, 2002,

p. 59).

All follow-up individual interview guides were

designed in line with the recommendations of Patton

(2002) and consistent with studies within recent

sport and exercise psychology literature (e.g. Thel-

well, Weston, Greenlees, & Hutchings, 2008; Tho-

mas, Hanton, & Maynard, 2007). Although each

guide had a similar semi-structured design that re-

visited the central issues raised within the focus

group, each participant also received questions that

were pertinent to them and their views. Each inter-

view guide therefore remained part of an overall

framework but contained individual differences

where required. The in-depth interviews enabled

the construction of an accurate account of choking

in sport from the respondents perspective (Char-

maz, 2006). As required within a grounded theory

study, the questions became more focused as the

interview progressed so as to move beyond a thick

description (Geertz, 1973) and develop an explana-

tory theoretical framework (Holt & Dunn, 2004) of

choking in sport.

Data analysis and coding

Data collection and analysis occur simultaneously

within grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998)

and therefore analysis/coding began during the focus

group discussion and continued throughout and

beyond the individual interviews. The specific steps

taken to analyse and code the data were as follows:

1. All interviews were transcribed verbatim to

increase familiarity with the data and ensure a

thorough appreciation of the participants ac-

count of choking (Holt & Mitchell, 2006).

2. Two members of the research team indepen-

dently completed line-by-line open coding,

which involved breaking the data down into

their component parts (Giacobbi, Hausenblas,

Fallon, & Hall, 2003). Raw data themes were

then identified inductively and labelled with

relevant in vivo codes (Strauss & Corbin,

1998).

A re-examination of choking 205

Downlo

aded

At:

16:

02 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

10

3. Using constant comparison, all raw data themes

were examined for their causes, conditions,

actions/interactions, and consequences, and

placed within a relevant overarching category

of similar themes (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

4. Through theoretical sampling within the indi-

vidual interviews (Charmaz, 2006), categories

were continuously constructed, refined, ex-

tended, and checked deductively against the

data (Giacobbi et al., 2003). This process

ensured that each theme and category was

constructed directly from the data, rather than

forcing the data into pre-defined categories

(Charmaz, 2002, 2006).

5. Each theme and category was further analysed

by the use of memos (Bringer, Brackenridge, &

Johnston, 2006; Charmaz, 2006), enabling a

full examination of any relationships that ex-

isted within and between the categories.

6. Once theoretical saturation of the sample had

been reached, the categories were subjected to

focused or selective analysis (Glaser & Strauss,

1967). This involved the integration of themes

and categories around core categories to pro-

duce a framework that described the overall

characteristics of choking in sport. Memo-

writing was used to expand upon and explain

the relationship between the categories within

the framework, and raised the categories from a

descriptive to an analytical level (Charmaz,

2002; Holt & Dunn, 2004). This framework

provided the foundation for a grounded theory

of choking in sport.

Trustworthiness

Following the recommendations of Lincoln and

Guba (1985) and Sparkes (1998), trustworthiness

was gained through several methods. First, the

participants were able to describe their world in

detail, through the use of open-ended and flexible

interviews. Second, the transcripts were indepen-

dently coded line-by-line and corroborated by two

researchers, and the transcripts, generated themes,

and categories were sent to the participants for

member checking. Finally, the extensive use of

memos (Charmaz, 2006) and a reflexive journal

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985) throughout the research

process added to the thick description and en-

couraged the principal researcher to remain self-

aware of any bias that may have impacted on the

research process.

Results

By re-examining choking in sport, the participants

offered their perceptions of: the contemporary defi-

nitions of choking in sport; the choking process; the

consequence of choking in sport; the possible

moderating factors of choking in sport; potential

interventions that may alleviate choking in sport; and

identifiable characteristics of a choker. The findings

will be presented in turn.

The contemporary definitions of choking in sport

It was perceived by all participants that extant

definitions of choking in sport (e.g. Baumeister &

Showers, 1986) fail to represent fully the choking

experience. In response, the participants used their

theoretical and applied knowledge to construct an

operational definition that they considered offered a

more accurate reflection of choking in sport. The

definition gained consensus from all participants and

states:

. Choking in sport is a process whereby theindividual perceives that their resources are

insufficient to meet the demands of the situa-

tion, and concludes with a significant drop in

performance a choke.

The choking process

The participants suggested that the choking process

consists of a stress response, whereby the athlete

appraises the demands of a pressurized situation as

beyond their capability to cope. One of the psychol-

ogists noted:

Choking [in sport] is where it all goes completely

wrong, because you perceive that you cannot cope

at all with whats going on . . . they suddenly getthis realization that . . . I may not be able tohandle this so [the] inability to cope . . . is theprocess of choking . . . and will cause the choke.

It was agreed by all participants that the choking

process only occurs when the athlete is striving for

success within a situation that they deem to be

important. For example:

The event must be important to the person. I

think if it is not of high importance to them, they

dont really care about it; therefore, they are never

going to get themselves into the state where they

are concerned that they cant cope.

It was recognized, however, that event importance is

dependent on the athletes perceptions and therefore

what is considered a critical point for the coach or

observer may not be a critical point for the person

involved.


Downlo

aded

At:

16:

02 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

10

The results indicated that the choking process will

normally cause the athlete to experience high state

anxiety, elevated physiological arousal, and ulti-

mately expectations of failure. It was stated that,

the performer can go in with high expectations,

then that realization comes to them that actually . . .Its all too much for me. I cannot cope with it and

this becomes an expectation of failure. Importantly,

it was emphasized that this choking process will

always end in a significant or catastrophic drop in

performance rather than a mere decline. This was

expanded upon by one of the psychologists:

If you look at competitive anxiety and competitive

stress . . . you get very nervous and anxious;perceived demands of the situation are exceeding

the available resources. It doesnt make any

assumptions about how its going to affect the

performance. The difference is that it [the choking

process] is inherently linked with your perfor-

mance dropping off significantly at the end.

The consequence of choking in sport

It was perceived by all participants that the conse-

quence of choking in sport is a considerable drop in

performance compared with expected standards,

which has a psychologically damaging effect on the

performer. The decline in performance was labeled

the choke, and was suggested to be a crucial

aspect of choking in sport:

Thats the one big thing . . . the fact that it [achoke] is a significant or catastrophic drop in

performance, against the current literature and

research which suggests any drop . . . we talkedabout catastrophe theory and performance decre-

ment and things like that, and it [a choke] was the

extreme end of that.

It was also argued that the choke could only occur

during the task execution, or during the moment

that the task should have been executed. This

finding was elaborated further:

If you take an athlete who is in the toilet cubicles

throwing up before a race because of nerves . . . wecarry him out, put him on the line, [the gun goes]

he trips over his feet. Now you can say he has

choked, because at the time he was meant to be

performing, he has failed . . . if we dont get himout on to the track, you can still only say he has

choked, at the moment the gun goes.

The participants ascertained that the choking pro-

cess will normally lead to a discrete singular choke,

but if the athlete continued to perceive that the

demands of the situation exceeded their capability

over an extended period of time, then the choking

process remains continuous and, you might see half

a dozen incidents of . . . a choke.The results indicated that the negative psycholo-

gical effect that an athlete is likely to experience after

a choke includes lowered self-confidence and dys-

functional thinking (e.g. disrupted concentration

and negative thoughts), and it was expected that

such effects would detrimentally influence perfor-

mance standards in both the short and long term.

Consequently, the participants agreed that once an

athlete has choked, they are unlikely to regain their

expected high performance levels during that parti-

cular performance: If you screw up . . . and have acomplete disaster, how could three minutes rest,

with a towel over your head, make you come back

from that? It was accepted, however, that the extent

of the psychological damage and the possibility of

performance retrieval for that current game or match

were both highly dependent upon the athletes

coping resources and the temporal nature of the

sport being played. For example:

Probably nine times out of ten . . . it [the choke] isextremely difficult to deal with and hence, nine

times out of ten, performance will stay bad and

they will be annihilated . . . they wont regainperformance . . . however, I think there are someindividual differences and mental toughness issues

going on, when some people can regain their

performance.

Similarly, sports of longer duration (e.g. tennis and

golf) were considered to offer more opportunity for

recovery of overall performance. This aspect was

expanded upon by one participant:

[if] you choke in a swimming final, you dont get a

second chance, . . . it will be irretrievable becauseyou have been left behind . . . In a tennis game, youcan choke in one set, have a rest and then come

back and win the next three sets.

Finally, the participants perceived that when an

athlete chokes on one element of a game (e.g. rugby

kick, golf putt), the psychological damage caused by

the choke is likely to affect the performance stan-

dards of the remaining elements within that game

(e.g. tackling and passing, driving and chipping

respectively). But, it was noted that the detrimental

effect on the other elements are likely to be moderate

so that, you choke on kicking goals, . . . it will havean effect on your game, whereby you dont play as

well . . . but . . . you can still play these other skills.


Downlo

aded

At:

16:

02 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

10

Possible moderators of choking in sport

The study revealed that individual differences and

type of sport could potentially moderate choking in

sport. It was suggested by the participants that low

levels of mental toughness, self-confidence, and

functional thinking were the key individual differ-

ence characteristics that may encourage choking

under pressure. As one participant stated, Is some-

one predisposed to choke? Yes . . . because they arelacking in some of these [mental toughness, self-

confidence, and functional thinking] key variables.

It was also agreed that without such psychological

characteristics, the athlete is also more likely to suffer

further reductions in their mental toughness, self-

confidence, and functional thinking after the choke

has occurred. This point was further explained by

one participant:

thats a characteristic of these people . . . they canfail or have knocks . . . and then carry this asbaggage with them. It will then have a further

knock on effect on them . . . their confidence andthe way that they think about the game, and its a

downward spiral from there.

As a result, it was suggested that this athlete would

be more likely to allow a choke on one element of

their game (e.g. putting) to negatively affect the

remaining aspects of their game (e.g. driving, chip-

ping).

Finally, it was noted by one participant that a

balanced life/sport perspective may also act as an

individual difference moderator of choking in sport.

He argued that, these people who have perspective

and say . . . I dont really care, [can] shrug off thingsreally well. I think this is a characteristic of mental

toughness . . . and I think its a big thing [missing] inchoking.

The sport type performed during the choking

process was considered by the participants to be a

potential moderator of choking in sport, by influen-

cing irretrievability and transferability. As noted

earlier, the retrieval of a performance after a choke

has occurred is considered challenging, but it is

more likely to occur within a sport that extends over

a period of time, and has intervals away from the task

(e.g. golf, tennis, and snooker). With regards to

transferability, it was suggested that once a choke

had occurred on one particular aspect of the game, it

is unlikely for other elements of the performance to

be affected detrimentally if the psychological de-

mands of each element are different. One participant

explained:

When you have to make a tackle, or . . . when youhave got to kick the ball . . . the skills you require

mentally as an athlete to meet those two demands

are different . . . so you can choke in one scenarioand not in the other.

Potential interventions to alleviate choking in sport

Using their experience of working with elite athletes

who have choked under pressure, the participants

suggested that an individually tailored multi-modal

psychological programme may be offered to alleviate

choking in sport. They stated that the programme

should consist of strategies aimed at encouraging a

positive appraisal of the situational demands and

personal capabilities. One participant clarified the

importance of this approach by explaining that, at

the end of the day, it comes down to appraisal

mechanisms. These guys are appraising these situa-

tions as too much and they ultimately have to change

this. As a result, it was stated that the priority of a

practitioner working with chokers is to increase

their self-confidence so that they appraise available

personal resources as sufficient to deal with the

demands. Then . . . you avoid the choke.Particular techniques suggested to increase ath-

letes confidence were self-talk, imagery, attentional

training, attribution re-training, and especially goal

setting. It was argued that they should be encour-

aged to focus on less challenging, intermediate goals

that facilitate performance accomplishments, as

choking is caused by high expectations that cant

be realized, which undermines their self-confidence

and coping resources. Finally, it was recommended

that the choking athlete should attempt to gain a

balanced sport/life perspective, and that this per-

spective should be reinforced by their coach and

significant others. It was stated that:

if we are talking about people who consistently

choke . . . a big thing is perspective. You gettaught, youve got to care about this [sport] so

much, its the most important thing to me in my

life, [they] are the ones that the moment they fail,

they just crumble; and you can see it.

The identifiable characteristics of choking in sport

Through the re-examination of choking in sport, the

psychologists generated several characteristics that

they suggested could be used to identify an athlete

who has choked. The characteristics are presented

and described in Table I. The participants argued

that the choke can be discriminated from other

performance failures under pressure by being sig-

nificantly below expected standards. It was this

characteristic that was suggested by all participants


Downlo

aded

At:

16:

02 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

10

to be the primary indicator of choking. They also

suggested four other secondary and less visible

indicators, which could be used to confirm whether

choking had occurred. The first is that the athlete

will only choke at a critical moment and therefore

the athlete would have been trying to achieve an

important goal. Second, the athlete will have per-

ceived that the demands of the situation were

exceeding their coping capabilities. Third, the ath-

lete is likely to have low mental toughness, self-

confidence, and functional thinking at the time of

the choke. Finally, it is expected that the athlete will

be affected detrimentally in the short and long term

by the choke. It was stressed by the participants that

the secondary characteristics of choking were not in

themselves an indication of choking, but would

accompany a significant drop in performance if a

choke had occurred.

Discussion

This grounded theory study has confirmed that the

current definitions used within contemporary chok-

ing literature may not fully reflect the experience of a

choking athlete. As definitions determine the nature

and direction of future research (Cooper, Dewe, &

ODriscoll, 2001), it was necessary to answer the call

within recent choking literature to generate an

enhanced definition of choking in sport (Gucciardi

& Dimmock, 2008). The definition presented within

the Results section attempts to provide a more

detailed operational framework for future choking

researchers and practitioners.

This study revealed that the choking process is

considered to consist of a stress response. According

to Lazarus (1999), a stress response is transactional

in nature and thus the athlete will transact with their

environment and appraise continually their capabil-

ity to meet any demands placed upon them. In this

case, the chokers will perceive themselves as being

unable to cope with the demands of the situation and

will experience negative emotional reactions as a

result. Importantly, it is recognized within the

literature that performance standards can be main-

tained when an athlete perceives the situational

demands as beyond their capabilities, if they appraise

their emotional reactions to this situation as pleasant

and/or optimizing (Fletcher, Hanton, & Mellalieu,

2006). However, as the choking athlete suffers from

such a catastrophic performance failure, it is possible

that they negatively appraise both their ability to

cope with the demands and their emotional response

to such demands. Clearly, it is necessary to examine

this proposition further, for it may be necessary to

design interventions that encourage the choking

athlete to appraise positively their personal capabil-

ities, as well as their emotional reaction to perceived

pressure, in order to be effective.

It has been recognized within this study that the

choking process will lead to a choke, and thus it is

necessary to understand how a stress response can

lead to such a significant decline in performance. It

has been suggested that the catastrophe model

(Hardy, 1990) may provide an insight, for it illus-

trates that an athlete with high cognitive anxiety and

rising physiological arousal can experience a signifi-

cant drop in performance, from which it is difficult

to recover. This psychological state and catastrophic

performance outcome reflects that associated with

choking in sport, and therefore the model may

account for its occurrence (Beilock & Gray, 2007).

However, recent research has indicated that while

some athletes choke when experiencing high cogni-

tive anxiety and physiological arousal, others do not

(see Vickers & Williams, 2007). Consequently, the

tenets of the catastrophe model may not be able to

predict the conditions responsible for all cases of

choking.

Of the psychological theories attempting to explain

the significant performance decline associated with

choking, the findings of this study lend themselves to

both the distraction (Carver & Scheier, 1981) and

self-focus theories (Baumeister, 1984). The proces-

sing efficiency theory (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992)

represents the most dominant distraction theory

within the literature, and states that pressure-induced

anxiety causes an athlete to process task-relevant

information inefficiently, unless they engage in com-

pensatory effortful strategies. It also indicates that

regardless of effort, an athlete suffering from very high

levels of anxiety will be unable to overcome such

inefficiency and their performance will decline as a

result (Smith, Bellamy, Collins, & Newell, 2001;

Table I. Criteria for the identification of a choker

Choking in sport criteria Description

Primary indicator

Significant/catastrophic

drop in performance

The level of performance will decline

dramatically from expected/normal

standards. A moderate

under-performance is not considered

a choke

Secondary indicator

Critical moment The choke will occur within a situation

deemed important by the athlete, and

where they are striving for success

Stress response The athlete feels unable to cope with

the pressure situation

Individual characteristics The athlete will lack mental toughness

attributes, self-confidence, functional

thinking, and a lack of sport/life

perspective

Future consequences The athlete is likely to experience

short-term and long-term negative

psychological affects from the choke


Downlo

aded

At:

16:

02 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

10

Wilson et al., 2007). It has been established within

this study that the choking athlete strives to achieve

their goal, so does exert effort under pressure. Yet

their identified high state anxiety may prevent the

effort counteracting their processing inefficiency, and

a choke may ensue. Conversely, it can also be

suggested that their increased effort under pressure

may encourage choking in sport through self-focus. It

is accepted that raised effort can cause the athlete to

explicitly control a skill that will subsequently break

down if it is normally executed automatically (Jackson

et al., 2006).

Accordingly, this grounded theory is able to present

attentional disturbance as the mechanism of choking

in sport, but to verify whether distraction, self-focus

or both are responsible, it is essential that the choking

process is examined directly from those who have

experienced it. Therefore, the primary and secondary

identifying characteristics of a choker that have been

generated within this study can be used to select such

participants for use within future research.

By finding that the choking athlete exerts effort

while under pressure, this study supports the work of

Baumeister and Showers (1986) and Baumeister

(1997). They indicated that choking is a paradoxical

occurrence that will only take place if the athlete is

striving for success in an event where the outcome

is perceived important enough to affect their ego.

This study therefore provides further evidence for

Baumeister and Showers suggestion that choking is

not a result of a lack motivation.

This study has offered sport type and individual

difference as the key potential moderators of choking

in sport. With regards to sport type, it is acknowl-

edged that a sport that extends over a period of time

and/or contains intervals can moderate the impact of

the choke. Similarly, a choke will have differing

effects on performance, depending on whether the

sport contains elements that are similar or dissimilar

in their psychological demands. Therefore, it will be

necessary for the practitioner to take into account

the temporal structure and multi-skilled nature of

the task when devising appropriate interventions.

The individual differences considered by the

participants to increase susceptibility to choking in

sport were low self-confidence, dysfunctional think-

ing, a lack of a balanced sport/life perspective, and

low mental toughness. Contemporary choking re-

search has already identified low self-confidence and

dysfunctional thinking as moderating factors, for

they are considered to provoke distraction and self-

focus attentional disturbances (see Beilock & Carr,

2001). This is the first study, however, to recognize a

balanced sport/life perspective and mental toughness

as potential moderators, although these finding

can be supported by research from outside the

choking literature. For example, Jones, Hanton and

Connaughton (2002). Jones et al. (2007) found that

those who excel under pressure are able to maintain

a balanced sport/life perspective, despite being

intensely committed to their sport; and Fletcher

et al. (2006) established that a lack of mental

toughness will encourage an athlete to perceive the

situational demands as beyond their capability aprocess reflected within choking.

It is interesting to note that mental toughness

consists of several attributes, including an unshake-

able belief, an ability to remain fully focused, and a

capacity to switch sport focus on and off (Jones et al.,

2002, 2007), which mirror all of the individual

differences identified within this study as moderators

of choking. This presents a clear priority for the

practitioner, as increasing an athletes mental tough-

ness should reduce the possibility of choking in

sport. In addition, the study has established that the

choke will have a psychologically damaging effect on

the performer, and therefore can negatively affect

current and future performances, unless the athlete

possesses mental toughness. Therefore, by prioritiz-

ing the enhancement of mental toughness, the

practitioner is not only reducing the athletes sus-

ceptibility to choke, but increasing their potential of

performance retrieval if the choke does occur.

Therefore, this grounded theory has generated a

range of interventions that have the potential to

alleviate choking, which accordingly can be sub-

sumed within a mental skills package designed to

increase mental toughness. However, further applied

research is required to establish the most effective

method of increasing mental toughness within the

choking population.

By re-examining choking in sport, this study has

provided a grounded theory of the phenomenon and

offered an extended understanding of the experi-

ence. However, it is essential that further research is

conducted on varied samples of information-rich

cases, including performers who have experienced

choking first hand. Nevertheless, by generating an

operational definition of choking in sport and

identifying the characteristics of a choker, this study

has offered a foundation for future choking research.

References

Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-con-

sciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skilful

performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,

610620.Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Esteem threat, self-regulatory break-

down, and emotional distress as factors in self defeating

behaviour. Review of General Psychology, 1, 145174.Baumeister, R. F., Hamilton, J. C., & Tice, D. M. (1985). Public

versus private expectancy of success: Confidence booster or

performance pressure? Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 48, 14471457.


Downlo

aded

At:

16:

02 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

10

Baumeister, R. F., & Showers, C. J. (1986). A review of

paradoxical performance effects: Choking under pressure in

sports and mental tests. European Journal of Social Psychology,

16, 361383.Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled

performance: What governs choking under pressure. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 130, 701725.Beilock, S. L., & Gray, R. (2007). Why do athletes choke under

pressure? In G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook

of sports psychology (3rd edn.), (pp. 425444). Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.

Beilock, S. L., Holt, L. E., Kulp, C. A., & Carr, T. H. (2004).

More on the fragility of choking under pressure in mathema-

tical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 133,

584600.Bigus, O. E., Hadden, S. C., & Glaser, B. G. (1994). The study of

basic social processes. In B. G. Glaser (Ed.), More grounded

theory methodology: A reader (pp. 3864). Mill Valley, CA:Sociology Press.

Bringer, J., Brackenridge, C. H., & Johnston, L. H. (2006).

Swimming coaches perceptions of sexual exploitation in sport:

A preliminary model of role conflict and role ambiguity. The

Sport Psychologist, 20, 465479.Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-

regulation. New York: Springer.

Chalabaev, A. S., Sarrazin, P., Stone, P., & Cury, J. (2008). Do

achievement goals mediate stereotype threat? An investigation

on females soccer performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise

Psychology, 30, 143158.Charmaz, K. (2000). Constructivist and objectivist grounded

theory. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of

qualitative research (pp. 509535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Charmaz, K. (2002). Grounded theory: Methodology and theory

construction. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), Interna-

tional encyclopaedia of the social and behavioural sciences (pp.

63966399). Amsterdam: Pergamon.Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide

through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clark, A. E. (2003). Situational analysis: Grounded theory

mapping after the post-modern turn. Symbolic Interaction, 26,

553576.Clark, R. D. (2002). Evaluating the phenomenon of choking in

professional golfers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 12871294.Clark, T. P., Tofler, I. R., & Lardon, M. T. (2005). The sport

psychiatrist and golf. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 24, 959971.Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & O Driscoll, M. (2001). Stress and

work organizations: A review and critique of theory, research and

applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and perfor-

mance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion,

6, 409434.Fletcher, D., Hanton, S., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2006). An

organizational stress review: Conceptual and theoretical issues

in competitive sport. In S. Hanton & S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.),

Literature reviews in sport psychology (pp. 321373). Hauppauge,NY: Nova Science.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic

Books.

Giacobbi, P. R., Hausenblas, H. A., Fallon, E. A., & Hall, C. A.

(2003). Even more about exercise imagery: A grounded theory

of exercise imagery. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15,

160175.Gladwell, M. (2000). The art of failure. The New Yorker, 21,

8492.Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.

Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Gray, R. (2004). Attending to the execution of complex sensor-

imotor skill: Expertise differences, choking and slumps. Journal

of Experimental Psychology, 10, 4254.Gucciardi, D. F., & Dimmock, J. A. (2008). Choking under

pressure in sensorimotor skills: Conscious processing or de-

pleted attentional resources? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9,

4559.Hanton, S., Fletcher, D., & Coughlan, G. (2005). Stress in elite

performers: A comparative study of competitive and organiza-

tional stressors. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 11291141.Hardy, L. (1990). A catastrophe model of anxiety and perfor-

mance. In G. Jones & L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and performance in

sport (pp. 81106). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Hardy, L., Mullen, R., & Martin, N. (2001). Effect of task-

relevant cues and state anxiety on motor performance. Percep-

tual and Motor Skills, 92, 943946.Holt, N. L., & Dunn, J. G. H. (2004). Towards a grounded theory

of the psychosocial competencies and environmental conditions

associated with soccer success. Journal of Applied Sport Psychol-

ogy, 16, 199219.Holt, N. L., & Mitchell, T. (2006). Talent development in English

professional soccer. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 37,

7798.Jackson, R. C., Ashford, J. J., & Norsworthy, G. (2006).

Attentional focus, dispositional reinvestment and skilled per-

formance under pressure. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychol-

ogy, 28, 4968.Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). What is this

thing called mental toughness? An investigation of elite sport

performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 205218.Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2007). A framework

of mental toughness in the worlds best performers. The Sport

Psychologist, 21, 243264.Lazarus, R. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York:

Springer.

Lewis, B. P., & Linder, D. E. (1997). Thinking about choking?

Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 937944.Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.

Masters, R. S. W. (1992). Knowledge, knerves and know-how.

British Journal of Psychology, 83, 343358.Masters, R. S. W., Polman, R. C. J., & Hammond, N. V. (1993).

Reinvestment: A dimension of personality implicated in skill

breakdown under pressure. Personality and Individual Differ-

ences, 14, 655666.Mesagno, C., Marchant, D., & Morris, T. (2008). A pre-

performance routine to alleviate choking in choking suscep-

tible athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 439457.Mullen, R., Hardy, L., & Tattersall, A. (2005). State anxiety and

motor performance: Testing the conscious processing hypoth-

esis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 785799.Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods

(3rd edn). London: Sage.

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, 321332.Sparkes, A. C. (1998). Validity in qualitative inquiry and the

problem of criteria: Implications for sport psychology. The Sport

Psychologist, 12, 363386.Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research:

Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd edn). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Thelwell, R. C., Weston, N. J. V., Greenlees, I. A., & Hutchings,

N. V. (2008). A qualitative exploration of psychological-skills

use in coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 3853.Thomas, O., Hanton, S., & Maynard, I. (2007). A qualitative

investigation of the temporal patterning of athletes


Downlo

aded

At:

16:

02 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

10

pre-competitive symptoms and their use of pre-performance

strategies: The role of facilitative and debilitative anxiety.

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 379397.Vickers, J., & Williams, M. (2007). Performing under pressure:

The effects of physiological arousal, cognitive anxiety and gaze

control in biathlon. Journal of Motor Behavior, 39, 381394.Wallace, H. M., Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2005).

Audience support and choking under pressure: A home

advantage. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 429438.

Wang, J., Marchant, D. B., Morris, T., & Gibbs, P. (2004). Coping

style and susceptibility to choking. Journal of Sport Behavior, 27,

7592.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, 439456.


Downlo

aded

At:

16:

02 1

8 Ja

nuar

y 20

10

Choking

Documents

Transcript of Choking