Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Feb;26(1):279-290. doi: 10.3758/s13423-018-1486-x.

Limiting motor skill knowledge via incidental training protects against choking under pressure.

Author information

1
Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 530 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. tarazlee@umich.edu.
2
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA. tarazlee@umich.edu.
3
School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA.
4
Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago and Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.
5
Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
6
Department of Neuroscience, Northwestern University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
7
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA.

Abstract

The paradoxical harmful effects of motivation and incentives on skilled performance ("choking under pressure") are observed in a wide variety of motor tasks. Two theories of this phenomenon suggest that choking under pressure occurs due to maladaptive attention and top-down control, either through distraction away from the task or interference via an overreliance on controlled processing of a skilled task. A third theory, overmotivation (or overarousal), suggests that under pressure, "instinctive" or Pavlovian approach/withdrawal responses compete with the desired response. Only the two former theories predict that choking under pressure would be less likely to occur if an individual is unaware of the skill over which to assert top-down control. Here we show that only participants who train and perform with premovement cues that allowed for preparatory movement planning choke under pressure due to large monetary incentives, and that this effect is independent of the level of skill attained. We provide evidence that this might be due to increased movement variability under performance pressure. In contrast, participants trained incidentally to reduce explicit skill knowledge do not modulate performance on the basis of incentives and appear immune to choking. These results are most consistent with distraction theories of choking and suggest that training strategies that limit awareness may lead to skills that are more robust under performance pressure.

KEYWORDS:

Attention and executive control; Cognitive control and automaticity; Implicit vs. explicit memory; Skill acquisition

PMID:
29777527
DOI:
10.3758/s13423-018-1486-x
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center