A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the

Degree

BSc Sport Studies

Sport and Exercise, Faculty of Health Sciences

STAFFORDSHIRE UNIVERSITY

Date Friday 17th April 2015

Does pressure affect the susceptibility of choking within university basketball

players?

Ashley Christopher Turner

Acknowledgements I would like to thank a number of people for helping me complete this dissertation.

First of all I would like to express a massive thank you to Charlotte Chandler. She has been an amazing support to my completion of this dissertation. She has provided me with support for both my reading and writing. Charlotte also provided me with general help around my personal life. For all of this help, I am very grateful for the help she provided for the 8 months we worked together to get my ideas down on paper. I was happy with the amount of support and feedback that Charlotte provided me, and without her I think that my research would have ended up a complete wreck. So again, a massive thank you is in order from me. Charlotte was a fantastic supervisor and I am happy that, given the short time knowing each other, she helped me create one a piece of work I am proud of.

Andrew Wood was also a great help with the data analysis part of this study, being such an expert at using SPSS helped, not just me, but everyone who needed his expertise. I’m sure I’m not the only person wanting to thank him.

Along with Andrew there was Matt Slater who also provided some tips for making my dissertation what it is. It was a shame when I was told he had passed my study over to Charlotte, but his initial ideas and insight into my original idea turned it into something that really kept my attention.

I would also like to thank my friends who supported me during the time of doing the dissertation. These people spent time with me proof reading my dissertation and providing me with feedback. They also helped me when things were tough in my personal life. The biggest thank you towards my friends goes towards my best friend Jennie Murray. She has been there for me most of my time at university and I don’t think I’d be handing this dissertation in.

Ed Darby, Jin Jiang, Hannah Jones, and Katie Park deserve a thank you for keeping me company in the computer suites where I completed most of this dissertation.

The Staffordshire University Male Basketball team also deserve a massive thank you for being the participants in my study.

Other thanks go to my family, who were always there for when I needed a break from writing and kept me going when I thought I could write no more. And also my colleagues at work, they always asked how I was getting on with my work, and helped me vent some of my stress by making my job so enjoyable.

Again thank you to everyone who helped during this journey to produce this piece of work.

HES 93100-6 PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Supervisor Name: Charlotte Chandler

Student Name: Ashley Turner

Supervisor: I have seen evidence that the dissertation is the result of work conducted by the student (e.g., raw data, or early drafts

of product)

Signed: ____________________

Date: ______________

Abstract

Basketball games are usually won or lost in the final seconds of a game. In these final

seconds a players’ performance usually has a decrease in overall shot percentage. These

drops in shot accuracy usually happen when a team is losing the game by 1-2 points. The

phenomenon known as choking has been described as the cause of these decreases in shot

performance. Choking is believed to stem from two other theories, these two theories state

that choking comes from the athlete having a distraction on the cognitive processes, and also

when the performer tries to monitor their skill execution. The experiment conducted used free

throws and a high and low pressure condition to determine whether or not choking occurs

during varied amounts of pressure. The experiment conducted was a previously tested

procedure and is clearly documented in past research. The results were analysed using paired

t-tests, looking at the significance of the pressure conditions and performance, as well as the

pressure conditions and the results from the CSAI-2. It is notable from this experiment that

the high pressure conditions caused a decrement in shot performance, and an increase in

cognitive anxiety. It is also notable that the decrements appeared as a slight difference, rather

than a complete drop in performance. Taking that into consideration it is hard to determine

whether that it was actually the choking effect, or just a normal fluctuation in the athletes’

performance.

Section Heading: Page Number:Acknowledgements: iData Collection Form: iiAbstract: iiiList of tables: vList of figures: vIntroduction: 1Literature Review: 1Method: 8Results: 10Discussion: 13Personal Reflection: 18References: 20Appendices: Appendix A 22

Appendix B 25Appendix C 29Appendix D 31Appendix E 33Appendix F 34Appendix G 35

Contents Page

List of Tables

Table 1 Page 28Table 2 Page 28

List of Figures

Figure 1 Page 25Figure 2 Page 25Figure 3 Page 26Figure 4 Page 26Figure 5 Page 27Figure 6 Page 27

Does pressure affect the susceptibility of choking within university basketball players?

Introduction

Shooting a basketball free throw accurately is important (Schücker, Hageman, and

Strauss 2013), free throws can also be the deciding factor in whether or not a team wins or

loses a game. The free throw is an individual part of a full basketball game, the player

approaches the free throw line and all of the attention turns to the lone player taking the shots.

Over the 2013/14 season of the National Basketball Association (NBA) the free throw

percentage for 123 players varied between a maximum of 94% to a minimum of 52%

according to ESPN.com. Cao, Price and Stone (2011) stated that basketball players shoot 5-

10% worse in the final few seconds of the game with data taken from seasons from 2002-

2010. These decrements in the final seconds of a game were found to stand out more when

the team that has the decrement in performance is down 1-2 points. Baumeister (1984) states

that pressure is the result from an athletes’ desire to perform in an optimised way when a high

performance is in demand. Sub-optimal performances is a response to a high pressured

situation and not just a random fluctuation (Beilock & Gray, 2007).

Literature Review

Choking under pressure (hereafter will be termed as “choking”) has become part of

the sporting language, and has a lot of negative connotations, including performance

decrements and the inability to cope with pressure (Mesagno, Marchant and Morris, 2009),

and before this statement Baumeister (1984) stated that choking is the impairment of

performance despite striving for achievement and incentives from improving performances.

Mullen and Hardy (2000) have also termed choking as a ‘paradoxical performance’. The

phenomenon of choking is still not fully understood by researchers, and is feared by skilled

performers across many domains, such as sport and educational situations. The pressure that

causes choking has been termed performance pressure, and this is defined as the anxious

desire to perform well at high levels in any given situation (Hardy, Mullen, & Jones, 1996).

This is an extension to what Baumeister (1984) stated choking is thought to vary as a function

of the personally felt importance of the given situation. In the most basic form, choking is

seen as a poorer performance than expected from an individual’s level of skill, and happens

most when performance pressure is higher than normal. Experimental studies of the choking

phenomenon, deemed the choking effect to be a moderate decrement in performance, where

as Hill, Hatton, Fleming, and Matthews (2009) and Hill, Hatton, Matthews, and Fleming

(2010) have restated this as choking being a large decrement in performance.

Choking is most often seen in sensorimotor or action-based skills, such as basketball

free throws. These skills are used in a variety of sports and the most commonly tested

sensorimotor skills are when the performance requires a steady action towards an outcome,

examples of this are; putting tasks in golf, free throws in basketball, penalty kicks in football.

Within sports colloquial language choking has adopted a variety of names from different

domains, these varied names are often used in the media when an elite performer seems to

choke in their performance.

When it comes to choking under an increase of pressure, there are some performances

that have an opposite effect under pressure; these are known as clutch performances (Otten,

2009). Clutch performances come from performers when the pressure increases but the level

of performance has an increment rather than a decrement. Otten (2009) used the choking

definition from Baumeister (1984) to support the idea of a clutching increment of

performances. Jerry West gained the nickname ‘Mr. Clutch’ during his playing career as a

basketball player in the NBA, as he was able to perform above his standard when the pressure

was increased, the most notable performance that gained him this nick name was his 60-foot

‘buzzer-beater’ in the 1970 NBA finals.

Some professional athlete examples of choking are David Beckham missing a penalty

(Euro 2004), Rory Mcllroy missing a putt (Masters 2011), and Jana Novotna from the 1993

Wimbledon finals dropping a 4-1 lead to lose the final sets 6-2 and 6-0. Beilock and Carr

(2001) and Markman, Maddox, & Worthy (2006) also say that the decrements in choking can

be accounted for from two different theories. One of the theories is the Distraction Theory

(Wine, 1971), or also known as distraction hypothesis (Beilock & Carr, 2005), which

proposes that pressure creates a distracting environment that then shifts attentional focus to

task-irrelevant cues, such as worries about the situation and its consequences. Also from

these theories the levels of anxiety that occurs in the participants has been noted as having an

effect on the participants ability to control working memory resources. The second theory is

the Self-focus Theory, also termed Explicit Monitoring or Execution Focus, (Baumeister,

1984; Lewis & Linder, 1997) proposes that pressure raises self-consciousness and anxiety

about performing correctly, which increases the attention paid to skill processes and their

step-by-step control. From studies around both of these theories, the Self-focus theory has

received the most support with the description of choking effects. Research from Beilock and

Carr (2001); Jackson Ashford and Norsworthy (2006); and Lewis and Linder (1997) have

adopted the self-focus theory (Baumeister, 1984), which explains that choking is caused by

an increase in anxiety and self-awareness about performing correctly. Self-awareness is

essentially self-directed attention as a result of temporary situational variables, reoccurring

mentality, or both (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975).

Distraction is defined as a noun that prevents the person concentrating on a task or

object. It is also further defined as a mass noun as an extreme agitation of the mind

(Dictionary 2002). Taking these definitions into consideration with the aspect of choking, it

could be seen that a simple distraction on a sports persons mind can have a big impact where

they have a decrement in performance, again like Rory Mcllroy (Masters 2011). Young, Lee,

& Regan (2008) also define distraction as a triggering event that induces an attentional shift

away from the task. In the case of basketball free throws, the event that happens could be as

simple as a member of the audience moving too much which causes the players to have this

decrement in performance. Beilock and Carr (2005) did some research around the distraction

theory and how it has an effect of a person’s cognitive working processes for tasks provided

to them.

Beilock and Carr (2005) conducted high and low pressure tasks to Michigan

University students to investigate the distraction theory, in the research they got the

participants to complete different mathematical questions. The aim of this research was to

determine whether or not high or low pressure has an effect on working memory. Even

though the tasks Beilock and Carr were problem solving based tasks, the same aspects of the

difference in pressure can be related to the research question stated at the start. The

distraction theory can connect to the question at hand, with the addition of pressure to free

throws in a basketball setting. In the case of the high pressure situation the participants will

be filmed, so the idea of being filmed could cause the effect of choking on the participants.

As well as a high pressure situation, there will be a low pressure situation where the

participants will be able to have the option to listen to music or just take the shots when they

feel relaxed. The low pressure situation could also cause the choking effect, as the listening to

music could also initiate the choking effect.

The self-focus theory, can be broken down into two ore theories; the conscious

processing hypothesis (CPH: Masters, 1992) and the previously stated explicit monitoring

hypothesis (EMH: Beilock & Carr 2001). Although both of these hypothesises are very

similar in nature, there are distinctive differences implicated with choking (Masters &

Maxwell, 2004). EMH is the act of monitoring a skill, by the step-by-step procedures it

requires, is detrimental to the overall skill performance. It was proposed by Masters (1992)

and Masters and Maxwell (2004) that a performances’ degradation was due to the athlete

attempting to apply explicit rules to the movement they are performing. Mullen and Hardy

(2000) provided research on the CPH, and it has been reported that this hypothesis can cause

a deautomatization of the skill that is being performed. Mullen and Hardy (2000) and Masters

(1992) also state that an increase in state anxiety levels, paired with an explicit knowledge of

the performance task, could impair the autonomous actions the athlete performs, therefore

causing a decrease in performance.

As different as these two theories are, they both can be related to the phenomena

known as choking. As a sole cause of choking it is hard to say that the skill that an athlete

performs is either coming from the working memory, or whether it is a motor movement that

the athlete is well trained in. As the skill that will be performed by the athletes in this study

will be a well-trained closed skill, the distraction theory can still be regarded as cause of the

choking, but the self-focus theory will be more prominent as the cause as previously stated,

the free throw in basketball is a sensorimotor skill.

Beilock and Carr (2001) suggest that the distraction theory and self-focus theory are

competing theories, but it should also be noted that even though they contrasting theories,

they can still complement each other that working exclusively. Because the detraction theory

focuses on performance choking, where the skills primarily required come from the

individuals working memory for decision and action-relevant information. This also means

that the individual performing from working memory information has a higher likelihood of

corruption of the information, or forgetting the required information as needed. As a contrast

to this, the self-focus theory, or explicit monitoring theory, state that choking happens when

the skills required to perform are based on either a mental or motor program that runs

unattended without the use of working memory. These skills are also known as sensorimotor

skills.

Mullen and Hardy (2000) used a sensorimotor skill in the research conducted, this

skill was a putting task that contained golfers with a handicap range of 12-18, as they found

in their pilot studies that golfers with a lower handicap were unaffected by the anxiety

manipulations of the experiment. The manipulations consisted of a task-relevant condition, a

task-irrelevant condition, and a control condition. The task-relevant and task-irrelevant

conditions seemed to adhere to the self-focus theory and it was aimed to increase cognitive

anxiety within the participants.

Choking within basketball players has been tested using multiple research areas,

such as; auditory tones and self-evaluation using a sequence of pictures taking a free-throw

(Wang, Morris and Marchant, 2004) or video recording the free-throws for team selection

and free-throws to music (Mesagno, Marchant, & Morris, 2009). For the research that was

conducted, the use of video recording a session to induce the levels of high pressure, and

the use of music to induce levels of low pressure were used to test the levels choking within

basketball players. Similar studies have been conducted and repeated to get the desired

results, of these the research of Mesagno, Marchant and Morris (2009) was considered to

stand out the most. Their research used 41 screened experienced players, who were

susceptible to choking, and then followed the field experiment with an interview lasting

between 35-75 minutes. The research conducted was similar, but there was no interview

with the participants after the free throws were completed. The data from the research will

be used to determine whether or not pressure levels do affect performance and cause

choking, or whether choking is just a phenomenon.

Using this past research, a similar study has been developed to look at how the

varied levels of pressure affects university basketball players. Similar to Mesagno, Marchant,

and Morris (2009) the experiment that will be conducted will have a high and low pressure

condition, and will assess the levels of anxiety through questionnaires. Different to that

research there will be no post experiment interview. Schücker, Hageman, and Strauss (2013)

used a similar experiment, but that research also consisted of the participants thinking

about where they think they executed the skill and where they heard an audible tone and

matched the tone to the part of the skill the tone was heard near when shown pictures.

That piece of research seemed too complicated to replicate over shorter period of time and

was done with a larger sample of participants. All the previous research done was used and

manipulated to recreate a procedure this project. Taking into account the different theories

that have previously been discussed, using a sensorimotor based skill as opposed to a self-

monitoring skill will make the research project that will be completed more reliable to

assess as it has been tested, repeated, and adapted to make the testing procedure more

streamlined for the researchers in the past. Also by using a sensorimotor skill it will keep the

experiment on track with a real life basketball situation, rather than a manipulated course,

so the feelings of pressure in the conditions will be as close as possible to the pressure the

athlete would feel in that actual situation.

Taking into account the previous research, it seems that choking comes from the

cognitive trait of anxiety. The use of extra cognitive tasks during the relative sensorimotor

skill being completed was a repeated measurement during past research and was found to

have an effect on the susceptibility of choking within the participants used. The research

experiment that used additional cognitive tasks, such as the latest from Schücker, Hageman,

and Strauss (2013), found that the participants did not choke under pressure when given

the additional in a high pressure environment. Wang, Morris and Marchant (2004) found

that when athletes are put under a manipulated high pressure environment showed signs of

choking under that extra pressure, and also stated that under real pressure the choking

effect could be magnified due to the nature of basketball games being won and lost by a few

points rather than huge margins.

The research that has already been conducted has focused on finding causes and

how choking affects a variety of sports people. This research project will be focused on

looking at the susceptibility of university level basketball players. The main goal of this is to

conduct some research on the susceptibility of choking on the mentioned population. The

hypothesises of this research project are as follows:

H1: The high pressure situation will show more susceptibility to choking than the low

pressure situation.

H0: Both pressure situations will show the same levels of susceptibility to choking or the

presence of choking.

Methodology

Participants:

A sample of 5 was used during this research. The participants aged 19-23 (M= 21 years, SD=

±1.58 years) were used from the male basketball teams within the university. Originally

planned this research was supposed to have used around 10 people, but around the time of

testing a number of potential participants made it clear they were no longer interested in

testing and missed sessions, so they were dropped from the experimental phase.

Procedure:

The procedure for the research was as follows: after a sample has been chosen from willing

participants they will be asked to attend one of 3 sessions for the experiment. The 3

sessions were split into a baseline test, a high pressure situation and a low pressure

situation. The high pressure session consisted of video recording the trials and telling the

participant that the coach will use these videos for team selection. The low pressure session

used a song that calms the participant and was played throughout the trials. To lay the

sessions out all groups performed a baseline score, then the other two sessions were

completed alternatively, meaning one group completed the high pressure session first,

while the other group performed the low pressure and vice versa on the final week. The

sessions were slightly altered prior to testing due to time constraints, but all the required

data was collected. Before the sessions start participants were required to complete a

Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2: Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith,

1990). All the sessions were completed in free time for both researcher and participants.

The sessions also matched the end of the basketball season, and the time running up to the

university’s Varsity competition, so for some of the players, pressure was increased, and

others would not be playing the Varsity match. In addition to each session each participant

was allowed 10 free throw shots to ease themselves into the experimental phase of the

session.

Ethics:

All participants will asked to complete a consent form before participating, this will

include all the information about participating and who to contact if they feel like they would

like to withdraw from the study, and if they feel that they at any point feel in danger. A risk

assessment (also attached) has been completed and measures will be taken to reduce the

identified risks as much as possible. With all the data being taken, such as CSAI-2 and post

session interviews (if it felt like it is needed), will all be anonymised so no data can be

tracked to the participant who gave that data. All participants’ data will be kept filed, until the

end of this research project where it will then be disposed of. Up until this point all

participants have the choice to withdraw whenever they want, and all data at that point will

be destroyed under witness of that participant. No other data will be shared with non-

participants or non-researchers as to keep the confidentiality of this data. If requested a

participant may see their data, but only their data. If the short interviews are to be used, if any

quotes or statements from participants are used, a pseudonym will be used so that person is

non-identifiable. To protect the data a password protected folder was created for any

computer based data to be saved in, and either a lockable paper carry case or sealable brown

envelopes for any loose paper data sheets.

Research Design:

The data was collected in two ways; first, the shots were taken down as a score out of

10 per session. Then the CSAI-2 results were worked into their respective sub-scales and the

data was used to find out the anxiety levels of the participants. The CSAI-2 was used as it has

a cognitive and a somatic sub-scale, which according to the previous research are two factors

in the susceptibility of choking. With a performance score and a condition score the results

were analysed using paired sample t-tests in IBM SPSS Statistics Version 22, and the

significance levels for the tests was set to p <.05. Using t-tests was chosen as this experiment

is looking at whether or not there is any significance in performance, condition, and the

scales on the CSAI-2.

Results

After all the data was collected it was compiled into both Microsoft Excel, and IBM

SPSS Statistics. Using both these programs allowed the researcher to find the data that was

required and assess it as needed. Using Microsoft Excel graphs were made to show the

performance scores and CSAI-2 scores for each of the performance conditions. Using IBM

SPSS Statistics allowed the research to find the significance of the conditions to the

performance. The tests conducted in the SPSS program were different to the ones proposed

due to the fact that the data collected showed that there was not a significant relationship

between performance and conditions. The tests used to analyse the data were single and

paired t-tests, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and also a multivariate test.

Looking at the Excel graphs of the shots completed (Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4) it is

noticeable that the amount of shots that were successful over the 3 week testing period

varies from week to week, and also varies in the conditions of the 3 weeks. Also by looking

at these graphs there is also a noticeable difference in the High Pressure (HP), and Low

Pressure (LP) conditions. During the first week of testing the average amount of shots made,

from the participants, was 6.4 at the baseline condition (BL), the HP situation the

participants scored an average of 6.6, and in the final LP condition a score of 9.2 was

recorded. So based on the findings of this week it would be possible to say that adding

pressure onto a free throw situation is likely to make a player miss. The second and third

weeks also followed a similar trend where the baseline score was higher than the HP

situation, but yet lower than the LP situation. In week 2 the average score for the baseline

was 6.8, the HP situation had a score of 6, and the LP situation had a score of 8.4. In the

final week of testing the average score for the baseline was 7, the HP situation had a score

of 6.4, and the LP situation had a score of 8.8. So as previously stated the conditions do have

an immediate effect on performance, but this is not conclusive enough to find out whether

or not the shown decrements are a form choking, or just the players missing their shots.

During the testing sessions each participant completed the CSAI-2 before the HP and

LP conditions. The participants were asked to put themselves in the respective mind set so

that when completing the CSAI-2 their answers would reflect on how the upcoming

condition would affect them. The participants were given the questionnaires prior to testing

so they could get themselves set into a HP situation or a LP situation. All the players used

the same two thoughts to set themselves up for the situations, as these situations were the

same the CSAI-2 scores were identical across the 3 weeks of testing. As the CSAI-2 is split

into three sub-scales (Cognitive, Somatic, and Self-confidence) when being analysed the

results were also put into an Excel graph for both situations across the weeks (Figures 4 and

5). The average scores for the sub-scales were as followed; Cognitive Anxiety (CA) had an

average score of 20.4 in the HP situation and 15 in the LP situation. Somatic Anxiety (SA) had

an average score of 17.2 in the HP situation and 11.8 in the LP situation. And Self-

Confidence (SC) had an average score of 23.6 in the HP situation, and 30 in the LP situation.

From those score it is noticeable that the HP situation has higher anxiety scores and

that the participants feel less confident when compared to the LP situation. So using these

scores with the performance scores it is clear that the participants scored less in the HP

situations compared to the LP situations due to an increase in anxiety levels and a decrease

in self-confidence. And again, this shows that there is definitely a decrement in performance

due to the levels of pressure on the participants which is having an effect on their anxiety

levels.

Once the data was put into SPSS more significant tests were run, to show more

detail about the significance of pressure and levels of performance. First a paired sample t-

test of the conditions was run on the BL-HP, BL-LP, and HP-LP condition groups (Figure 4).

From these pairs it was found that the significance between the pairing of BL-HP was

t(4)=5.74, p=.596, and the significance was t(4)=-1.723, p=.160 for the BL-LP conditions. As

both the p values was greater the then .05 significance cut off point, neither condition can

be deemed as very significant compared to the BL score, but the LP score is more significant

as it has the smaller p value. The third pairing of HP-LP had a result of t(4)=-1.622, p=.180 so

again this paring cannot be deemed significant as it is also over the .05 point. So using the t-

tests to find the significance of the conditions compared to the performance had deemed

the LP condition to be the best factor for the best results.

After the t-tests were conducted on the conditions, t-tests were also conducted on

the levels of anxiety on the conditions. Conducting these tests was used to check the

significance of the pressure conditions at the next level. As the previous tests, paired t-tests

were used to find the significance for each of these relationships of the CSAI-2 sub-scales

(Figure 5). The significance of the CA tests was t(4)=3.038,p=.038, so this test was found to

be significant towards the hypothesis. The SA tests had a value of t(4)=2.250,p=.088, which

is not significant towards the hypothesis. The final scale SC, had a value of t(4)=-

1.744,p=.156 which, similar to the last test, is not significant towards the hypothesis.

Discussion

The aim of this research was to find out if an increase in pressure causes choking

within university level basketball players. This experiment like other similar research

procedures had manipulated a high pressure situation and also a manipulated low pressure

situation. The expected outcomes of the research were to see if the participants perceived

the high pressure situation as a positive or negative experience, and whether or not this

manipulated condition caused the participants to choke. The expected results of the

participants is that they would have decrements in performance in the high pressure was

seen throughout the experiment, where as in the low pressure condition the performance

was similar to the baseline tests and some participants performed better than their

respective baseline score. Similar to previous studies, this study has shown the higher

pressure condition that the participants were put under caused the decrements in

performance, but whether it can be attributed to choking is not as simple as expected.

Taking into consideration the definitions of choking under pressure from Baumeister (1984),

Hardy, Mullen, & Jones, (1996), as Hill et al. (2009) and Hill et al. (2010), the decrements in

the performances were only small, as opposed to the later of the previous research studies

where choking has now been deemed a large decrement.

Using the results taken from this research, the null-hypothesis can be rejected, and

the hypothesis can be accepted, and it is now proven that the HP situation that was given

caused the participants to miss more shots than the LP situation, showing that there is a

form of choking susceptibility within the sample of basketball players used. The CSAI-2

cognitive anxiety sub scale can also be accepted towards the hypothesis, and the other two

sub scales can be rejected from the hypothesis. So overall the hypothesis can be accepted

and the null-hypothesis can be fully rejected. The high pressure situation did in fact show

more of a susceptibility to choking compared to the low pressure situation.

Based on the findings of this study the performance decrements were only small, but

the decrements did happen during the high pressure condition, and performance increased

during the low pressure situation. The findings also show that there is an increase within the

group of both cognitive anxiety (CA) and somatic anxiety (SA) from the CSAI-2 questionnaire,

and a slight decrement in self-confidence. The increase in the CA and SA is more prominent

in the high pressure condition than the low pressure situation, so using these findings the

choking effect can be related back to the self-focus theory and distraction theory. The self-

focus theory is relatable due to the nature of the high pressure task presented to the

participants, which was ‘your performance in this session will be used during team selection’,

so the autonomous actions that happen during the shot being taken would have been

affected by the conscious monitoring of the free throw skill. The effects of the conscious

monitoring of the skill would explain why the shots made during the high pressure

conditions were missed; this may be due to the participants over thinking certain parts of

the skill process which in turn caused the participant to try to alter their shooting style

during the shooting part of the experiment. From the distraction theory, the participants

may have also suffered from an increase of attention to an external source, in this case a

video camera and being told that the performance was going to be used in selection, may

have taken the participants mind of the task that was given (free throws). The low pressure

condition may have also caused a distraction for the participants as they were listening to

music they selected; they could have chosen a song that they found enjoyable, but this may

have also caused them to concentrate on the song more than the task.

Both of the theories within the self-focus theory of choking presented have valid

points to what may have caused the decrements in the performance, but neither really

provides enough evidence to say that that is the sole reason. This could because this project

did not do enough to manipulate the experiment to match either or both theories, but the

procedure of the experiment was enough to detect if there was any sort of performance

decrement, whether it was the choking phenomenon or just a bad performance from the

participant.

After taking the work done by Mesagno, Marchant, and Morris (2009) into

consideration when designing this experiment, it was very similar to the pressure

manipulations so the reliability of replicating that research experiment is very high as the

procedure is very clearly documented. As previously stated that research was the main

source for information regarding the experimental phase of this research project. It

provided a lot of basic information towards how to set this experiment up and what was the

correct measurements for each part of the experiment, and what tests can be used. Also

similar research from Beilock and Carr (2005) was also very influential to this research

experiment, that also explored similar pressure induced situations to highly skilled

mathematicians and how they performed under pressure.

This study was limited by a number of parameters. The biggest limitation was the

sample size that was used, if a larger sample size was used there would have been plenty of

data to use, but the data collection would have taken longer, and the data input for analysis

would have taken longer to input and do all the relevant tests. The results from the extra

data would have better than using data from just 5 people, as there would be more data to

include and the amount of tests that can be done and the results that would then be found

would have a greater meaning and possibly show more of a significant value compared to

the results as they are now, also with more results the total amount of shots taken would be

better to compare to each condition to the baseline. With such a small sample size the

results are not going to be as significant as what would be intended, but as previously stated

the sample size was originally larger, but due to participants dropping out and not arriving

to sessions, it was difficult to acquire more participants on a short time scale.

That point leads on to the next limitation, the time scale for getting the data. The

times originally planned did not take into consideration the basketball teams training and

match schedule, so this meant the research had to be conducted during a busy period for

the players. This busier time period may have also acted against the results as it may have

added more pressure to the participants and the amount of added pressure may have had

an extra cognitive effect on the players. The extra pressure would have been noted, but

when replicating this study that pressure will be required to add the reliability to this

experiment.

Other limitations of this study include the use of the questionnaires handed out to

the participants, the CSAI-2 only measures the level of anxiety, whereas using the CSAI-2(d)

would have been better. The CSAI-2(d) has developed the anxiety sub-scales to show a

direction of anxiety rather than just a level. The CSAI-2(d) was used in Jones and Uphill

(2004) study, where the authors used the CSAI-2(d) to assess the anxiety and excitability

levels of sports people within university sports teams. The use of the CSAI-2(d) would make

organising the players into an anxious and excited group depending on the answers

provided, this would also open up more testing options to the study. Making the

participants take this questionnaire as opposed to the non-extended one would also help to

see if the participants with higher anxiety then fell into an anxious or excited group. With

this extra grouping the tests to find out how significant pressure is to the conditions, as well

as the participants extra grouping.

As an extra addition to the extra questionnaires, the participants could also be

interviewed after the experiment to discuss how they felt during the testing phase. The

interviews could then be used to document the knowledge of choking that the participants

had and whether or not they felt like they were choking during the test. The interviews

would have also provided an extra insight to what the participants see as choking and

whether or not they have felt choking in the past.

For future considerations this study can be repeated using the experimental design

from Mesagno, Marchant and Morris (2009) as their clarification of the different session

types was clearly stated and the aims of both of these studies were met through the testing

of basketball shots and anxiety questionnaires. The amount of shots completed was

comparable to the amount of shots used from other research, so there would be no reason

to increase the shots per participant, unless the sample size is too small. As this study only

ended up with the data sets from 5 participants as opposed to the 10 originally planned, the

shot total from each participant could have been increased to make the usable data larger

and further increase the values of significance, or even provide a clearer outcome to the

study design as to whether pressure does cause choking.

Another consideration is also to talk to the participants after the experimental

phase, whether this is an interview or as a focus group, it would give the future researcher

an extra insight on how the participants felt during each condition. The interviews or focus

groups would help as an extra measure just so the understanding of the choking effect was

the main aim of the study. It would also make sure the effect of choking was clearly

explained to the participants before the experiment started. With a better understanding of

choking participants may realise when they performing if they are choking and not just

having an ‘off day’. It would also help as telling someone they are choking, when they do not

feel like it may cause further unexplained decrements in performances.

The final consideration that can be taken into account would be to use a set song for

all participants rather than letting them choose the songs themselves, as previously stated

the participants choosing their own songs may have been a factor to the low pressure

decrements in performance as the songs may have cause a distraction in the cognitive

process of the free throw skill. This can relate back to the distraction hypothesis (Beilock &

Carr, 2001), where the mind will be using the working process memory to take that shots as

it such a basic skill, the music they choose may take a larger size of the working memory

from the shot taking process, and as an effect this would cause a decrease in overall

performance.

Personal Reflection

On a personal note about this research, I feel that I have completed what I originally

set out to do, which was to see if there was an indication of choking under pressure within

the basketball team. As an individual I feel as if this research project has helped me grow as

a person who is ready to move onto bigger projects in the future. I also feel as if doing the

research that I did opened my eyes to a whole new world around the sporting world, and

around Sports Psychology as a whole. Over the past 18 months I have achieved something I

am really proud of. At first the topic came to me and I saw it an interesting opportunity to

broaden my knowledge around the ability to perform and cope under pressure. Having such

an interesting topic lead me to some really insightful journals and other research projects

around the same area. Having the ability to say I am more knowledgeable about this topic

makes me feel like a more interesting person.

If I had to do another piece of research again in the future, I would do this

experiment again. After reading numerous journals, and news articles on people, not just

sports performers, choking under higher pressure than what they are used to I have become

a lot more interested in what makes a good performance. As I would like to progress my

working career into a sports coaching role, I feel that understanding the concept of choking

sooner rather than later may give me an edge in coaching teams, or even individuals, to

perform to their best under any amount of pressure. Understanding the cause of choking,

and how to set coping strategies for the performer will make them better, and let me put

this knowledge into practice.

As a contrast to the positive experiences of this study, I also had negative

experiences during my time on this project. One such experience was the fact that I lost a

number of participants and did not have much time to rectify the issue and I was very

disheartened and like I still had a mountain to climb just to get through some of the easier

sections. Using programs I had an understanding with made the data analysis easier, but

having to use SPSS made me question myself and I thought I had done all my analysis

wrong, so it would have had to be redone just to get my desired results.

Regardless of the positive and negative experiences, I feel as if my skill set has grown

from this dissertation. My critical analysis of other work has increased and I will not be

looking articles and news clips thinking that it can all be used and everything is correct, I

have learnt that I can question other people and their research, regardless of how well it

was done. Time management is another key skill I think that I have worked on over the past

18 months.

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, 610-620.

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.

Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail working memory and “choking under pressure” in math. Psychological Science, 16(2), 101-105.

Cao, Z., Price, J., & Stone, D. F. (2011). Performance under pressure in the NBA. Journal of Sports Economics, 12(3), 231-252.

Dictionary, O. E. (2002). Concise Oxford English Dictionary.

ESPN: http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/free-throws/sort/freeThrowPct/year/2014 Data accessed 23rd March 2015.

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522–527.

Hill, D. M., Hanton, S., Fleming, S., & Matthews, N. (2009). A re-examination of choking in sport. European Journal of Sport Science, 9(4), 203-212.

Hill, D. M., Hanton, S., Matthews, N., & Fleming, S. (2010). Choking in sport: A review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3(1), 24-39.

Jackson, R. C., Ashford, K. J., & Norsworthy, G. (2006). Attentional focus, dispositional reinvestment, and skilled motor performance under pressure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28, 49–68.

Jones, G., & Swain, A. B. J. (1992). Intensity and direction dimensions of competitive state anxiety and relationships with competitiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 467–472.

Jones, M. V., & Uphill, M. (2004). Responses to the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (d) by athletes in anxious and excited scenarios. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5(2), 201-212.

Lewis, B., & Linder, D. (1997). Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 937-944.

Markman, A. B., Maddox, W. T., & Worthy, D. A. (2006). Choking and excelling under pressure. Psychological Science, 17(11), 944-948.

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.

Mullen, R., & Hardy, L. (2000). State anxiety and motor performance: Testing the conscious processing hypothesis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18(10), 785-799.

Mesagno, C., Marchant, D., & Morris, T. (2009). Alleviating choking: The sounds of distraction. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(2), 131-147.

Otten, M. P. (2007). Choking vs. clutch performance: A study of sport performance under pressure. ProQuest.

Schücker, L., Hagemann, N., & Strauss, B. (2013). Attentional processes and choking under pressure 1, 2. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 116(2), 671-689.

Wang, J., Morris, T., & Marchant, D. (2004). Coping Style and Susceptibility to Choking. Journal of Sport Behavior, 27(1).

Wicklund, R. A. (1975). Objective self-awareness. Advances in experimental social psychology, 8, 233-275.

Wine, J. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 92–104.

Young, K., Lee, J. D., & Regan, M. A. (Eds.). (2008). Driver distraction: Theory, effects, and mitigation. CRC Press.

Appendices

Appendix A: Risk Assessment

Title of Activity: Does high and low pressure situations have an effect on susceptibility to choking within university basketball players?

Brief Description of Activity: Subjects (Aged 18+) will enter the sports hall and take 10 free throws, repeated 3 times a session over 3 weeks. Each session will consist of a warm up and cool down. As the sessions will be taking place in the sports centre a first aider will be available. Blood pressure will not be recorded as is not part of the area of interest for this research. Before the sessions will take place each participant will be given a pre-test questionnaire to determine whether or not the participant is fit enough to do the research project. As there will be a session that is recorded using a video camera or laptop and a webcam, the recording equipment will be to one side and kept a good distance away from the participants taking the shots.

Faculty/School/ Service: School of Health Building: Sir Stanley Matthews Sports Centre Location: Sports Hall

Date: 30/10/2014 Review Date:

Assessed By: Ashley Turner Supervisor: Charlotte ChandlerApproved By:

Supervision Required: Yes / No

Activity/Process/Machines

Hazard Persons in

Sever Likelih Risk

Measures/ Res

Danger ity

1-5

ood

1-5

Rate

Comments ult

1 Free Throws Slip/Trip

Hazards

Participant

Researcher

2 1 2 Make sure the floor in clear of any debris, and

clear any wires, cables

and other equipment.

Make sure all wires in use are taped

down securely.

T

2 Free Throws Being hit a ball

Participant

Researcher

2 1 2 Make sure all participants

are stood behind the participants

are stood behind the one taking a shot.

T

3 Free Throws Muscle joint

injury

Participant

2 1 2 Make sure all participants

warm up and cool down before and

after activity. Any

participants that have

injury in recent weeks to

testing will be excluded. Any injuries that occur during testing will cause that

session to end and will seek attention for the injured

T

participant.

5 Free Throws Performing in front of

an audienc

e

Participant

1 1 1 During screening the participants

will be asked if they are okay performing in front of other people, and if they say they are not okay

they can either be removed

from the research or

participate on their own.

T

7 Free Throws Physically and mentally able

to particip

ate

Participant

and/or researc

her

2 2 4 During a screening

session ask all potential

participants to complete a

physical activity

readiness questionnaire. If someone is

not fit physically for

testing remove them from the

research. If somebody

suffers from anxiety, ask

them how bad it is. If it is deemed to

severe, remove them as not to make it worse.

After testing has been done

T

ALL participants

will be debriefed and told they can

talk to the researcher or

their supervisor for support if they feel they need

it.

Key to Result: Hazards with risk ratings 1-4 can be considered Trivial Risk (T), 5-9 Adequately Controlled (A), 10-14 Not Adequately Controlled (N) (Further control

measures will be required) and 15-25 Stop the Activity Immediately (S)

NB: THE SEVERITY X LIKELIHOOD RATINGS ARE CALCULATED AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT EXISTING PRECAUTIONS.

Appendix B: Results Graphs and Tables

Figure 1: Week 1 Shots including means and standard deviations.

Figure 2: Week 2 Shots including means and standard deviations.

Figure 3: Week 3 Shots including means and standard deviations.

Figure 4:Graph showing overall shot performance with averages and standard deviations.

Figure 5: CSAI-2 Mean scores and standard deviations

Figure 6: CSAI-2 Mean scores with standard deviations.

Table 1: The statistical values of the paired t-tests for ConditionPaired differences

Mean Standard Deviation

Standard Error Mean

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

t Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Lower UpperAverage_BL - Average_HP

.26667 1.03816 .46428 -1.02238

1.55571

.574 4 .596

Average_BL - Average_LP

-.46667 .60553 .27080 -1.21853

.28520 -1.726

4 .160

Average_HP - Average_LP

-.73333 1.01105 .45216 -1.98872

.52205 -1.622

4 .180

Table 2: The statistical values of the paired t-tests for Anxiety typesPaired differences

Mean Standard Deviation

Standard Error Mean

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

t Df Sig. (2-tailed)

Lower UpperCA_HP - CA_LP

5.40000 3.97492 1.77764 .46448 10.33552

3.038 4 .038

SA_HP - SA_LP

5.40000 5.36656 2.40000 -1.26347 12.06347

2.250 4 .088

SC_HP - SC_LP

-6.40000

8.20366 3.66879 -16.58619

3.78619 -1.744

4 .156

Appendix C: Consent Form

Does pressure have an effect on susceptibility on choking in

university level basketball players?

Dear student,

I am a Level 6 BSc Sports Studies student under the direction of Charlotte Chandler in the

Faculty of Health Sciences at Staffordshire University. I am conducting a research study to

look at the susceptibility of choking in basketball players under different stressors. Your

participation in this study will involve taking free throws in a controlled environment over 3

weeks. These sessions will also consist of taking questionnaires. The sessions will consist of a

base test where you will be required to take free throws, one session will be set up to be

high stress, and the other session will be low stress.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. You are free to refuse to commence the testing

or withdraw at any time in the proceedings. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw

from the study at any time, all data taken will be removed from the data collection and not

involved in the publishing. The results of the research study may be published, but your

name will not be used and no individual identifying information will be provided. Although

there may be no direct benefit to you by participating in the study, the possible benefit of

your participation is being you will be able to see if there is a chance that you can find out

how susceptible you are to choking under pressure.

If you have any questions concerning the research or your participation in this study, please

call/text me on 07975811189 or e-mail me at t011955b@student.staffs.ac.uk or email

Charlotte Chandler at Charlotte.Chandler@staffs.ac.uk.

Sincerely,

Ashley Turner (BSc Sports Studies)

I have read the above informed consent. The nature, demands, risk, and benefits of the

dissertation have been explained to me. I am aware of the risks of participation and

understand that I may withdraw my consent and discontinue participation at any time

without penalty or loss of benefit to myself. I would also like all data taken about me

removed from this study if I were to discontinue my participation.

Subject’s signature .................................................Date............................

If you have any questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you

feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Ethics Chair or Charlotte. I certify that

I have explained to the above individual the nature and purpose, the potential benefits and

possible risks associated with participation in this research study. I have answered any

questions that have been raised, and have witnessed the above.

Researcher’s signature............................................Date............................

Appendix D: Information Sheet

Research Project Information Sheet

Does pressure affect the susceptibility of choking within university basketball players?

Purpose of this study

I am a Level 6 student based in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Staffordshire University. I am conducting a research project to examine the susceptibility of choking in basketball players, and I am looking for volunteers to take part in this study.

What is involved if I take part in this study?

Firstly you will be asked if you agree with a statement about choking, and if you feel you have ever felt this happen to you at any point in either your basketball career or general sporting career. The testing will be split into 3 weeks and each week will consist of taking a total of 30 free throws, so after all the testing has been done you will have completed 90 shots. As well as, agreeing or disagreeing with the definition of choking you will be asked to complete a modified version of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (d), also known as CSAI-2(d). Completing this questionnaire should take no longer than 30 minutes, upon where you will be asked if you wish to carry on participation. If you say ‘yes’ you will be

added to the sample for random selection. If you answer ‘no’ all data taken at this point will be removed and destroyed.

The testing will be able to allow you to see if you are susceptible to choking, or it is as the media states a ‘phenomenon’. Your participation should last around 6 hours in total; this would be over the 3 weeks of testing. By allowing yourself to be part of this study by agreeing and signing the consent form you will have the chance of being randomly selected. You will be free at any point to withdraw yourself from the data, and all data collected from you so far will be destroyed. The sessions you will participate in will be based around what other researchers consider the ‘cause of choking’, so sessions will be constructed around high and low pressure situations, for this research basketball be the main sport. The results will be published, either in a journal or conference, but no identifiable information will be published. Anything that requires information from you will be put under a pseudonym. If you do not wish your results to be included after you have participated that is also acceptable, but please note if this decision is made too late then your data may not be removed.

When and where will this take place?

Initial data collection will hopefully begin in March 2015. All the sessions will take place in the Sir Stanley Matthews Sports Centre.

WILL THE INFORMATION IN THE STUDY BE CONFIDENTIAL?

The data received will be kept confidential throughout and will not be divulged to anyone other than the researcher (name) and the project supervisor (name). The results of the research study may be published, but your name will not be used and no individual identifying information will be provided.

CAN I ASK FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STUDY?

If you have any queries regarding the study or require clarity on the involved procedures please contact me on 07975811189 or the project supervisor Charlotte Chandler on.

CAN I WITHDRAW FROM THE STUDY?

You are of course free to refuse to commence the testing or withdraw at any time during the proceedings.

WHAT IF I WISH TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE WAY IN WHICH THE STUDY HAS BEEN CONDUCTED?

If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact me on 07975811189.

Appendix E: Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire

Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire

Name:

Date of Birth:

Age:

Gender:

Please answer all questions, unless stated otherwise. (Circle as appropriate)

1. Do you have any current injuries that may stop you participating in this project?

Yes/No

2. Have you had any muscle/joint pain in the last 6 weeks? Yes/No

3. Do you ever feel any pain in your chest when you participate in physical activity?

Yes/No

4. Have you ever felt pain while NOT doing physical activity? Yes/No

5. DO you have spells of dizziness or feeling faint? Yes/No

6. Have you ever been told you have a high blood pressure? Yes/No

7. Are you currently on any medication? Yes/No

a. If Yes, what for?

8. Are you pregnant, or have given birth in the last 6 months? Yes/No

9. Have you ever been advised by a doctor you should participate in physical activity

only once recommended by a doctor due to anxiety problems? Yes/No

a. If yes, will you need a doctors consent to participate (if this is the case please

provide a doctor’s note)? Yes/No

10. Is there anything else that may stop you from participating? Yes/No

a. If yes, what?

Participant Signature…………………….

Researcher Signature…………………….

Appendix F: Results sheet

Participant:

Baseline High Pressure Low Pressure

Shot 1

Shot 2

Shot 3

Shot 4

Shot 5

Shot 6

Shot 7

Shot 8

Shot 9

Shot 10

Appendix G: Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2

Illinois Competition Test

Instructions: Complete the following scale on two separate occasions: during a quiet time before practice when you are fairly relaxed, and during a competitive situation that you feel is highly stressful. If you are not currently active in competition, recall such situations as clearly as possible and record your responses. The following are several statements that athletes use to describe their feelings before competition. Read each statement and circle the appropriate number to indicate how you feel right now, at this moment. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement.

Not at all Somewhat Moderately So Very much So1 2 3 4

I am concerned about this competition.

1 2 3 4

I feel nervous.

1 2 3 4

I feel at ease.

1 2 3 4

I have self-doubts.

1 2 3 4

I feel jittery.

1 2 3 4

I feel comfortable.

1 2 3 4

I am concerned I may not do as well in this competition as I could.

1 2 3 4

My body feels tense.

1 2 3 4

I feel self-confident.

1 2 3 4

I am concerned about losing.

1 2 3 4

I feel tense in my stomach.

1 2 3 4

I feel secure.

1 2 3 4

I am concerned about losing.

1 2 3 4

My body feels relaxed.

1 2 3 4

I'm confident I can meet the challenge.

1 2 3 4

I'm concerned about performing poorly.

1 2 3 4

My heart is racing.

1 2 3 4

I'm confident about performing well.

1 2 3 4

I'm worried about reaching my goal.

1 2 3 4

I feel my stomach sinking.

1 2 3 4

I feel mentally relaxed.

1 2 3 4

I'm concerned that others will be disappointed with my performance.

1 2 3 4

My hands are clammy.

1 2 3 4

I'm confident because I mentally picture myself reaching my goal.

1 2 3 4

I'm concerned I won't be able to concentrate.

1 2 3 4

My body feels tight.

1 2 3 4

I'm confident of coming through under pressure.

1 2 3 4

Scoring: This scale is called the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2), a sport specific state anxiety scale developed by Martens, Vealey, and Burton (1990). The scale divides anxiety into three components: cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and a related component-self-confidence. Self-confidence tends to be the opposite of cognitive anxiety and is another important factor in managing stress. To score the CSAI-2, take all the scores for each item at face value with the exception of item 14, where you "reverse" the score. For example, if you circled 3, count that as 2 points (1 = 4; 2 = 3; 3 = 2; 4 = 1).

Total your scores in the following manner:

___ Cognitive state anxiety: Sum items 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, 22, and 25.

___ Somatic state anxiety: Sum items 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, and 26.

___ Self-confidence: Sum items 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, and 27.

Your scores for each will range from 9 to 36, with 9 indicating low anxiety (confidence) and 36 indicating high anxiety confidence.