A re‐examination of choking in sport

Abstract

The 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 and anxiety literature, and worked extensively with athletes who had performed in highly stressful situations. The experts perceived that the contemporary definitions of choking in sport fail to reflect fully the experiences of ''chokers'', and created a more detailed definition in response. They considered the choking process to consist of a stress response that culminates in a significant drop in performance Á a choke, which psychologically damages the performer. It was also suggested that the choking process and its consequences were moderated by individual differences and type of sport. Accordingly, they recommended interventions that may alleviate choking and, importantly, generated characteristics that can be used to identify a choker. Such findings offer an extended understanding of choking in sport and provide a framework for future ecologically valid research.

Alleviation of Choking Under Pressure in Elite Golf: An Action Research Study

“…The intervention was devised from the findings of Hill et al (2010a) and Hill et al (2009) and thus consisted of various cognitive and behavioral psychological strategies that were designed to enhance the participants' self-confidence, focus, anxiety management and perceived control to alleviate choking. However, the solution-focused approach enabled the athlete to coconstruct and modify the precise nature of these strategies as the season progressed.…”

“…Yet, it remains unclear whether this definition is suitable, as the choke differs from a substandard performance (Gucciardi, Longbottom, Jackson, & Dimmock, 2010;Hill, Hanton, Matthews, & Fleming, 2010b) and appears to be initiated by the athlete's negative interpretation of their anxiety, rather than its elevated levels per se (Gucciardi et al, 2010;Otton, 2009). As such, the definition of choking presented by Hill et al (2009) may provide currently the most fitting framework for researchers and practitioners to work within.Despite on-going debate regarding the definition, it is agreed that choking is the result of attentional disturbances caused by self-focus and/or 'distraction' (see Beilock & Gray, 2007). Self-focus theories suggest that choking occurs as a result of the athlete consciously processing and/or monitoring their well-learned task when they perform under pressure.…”

Thoughts and attention of athletes under pressure: skill-focus or performance worries?

“…Several other studies also remained inconclusive regarding the occurrence of internal distraction or skill-focused attention under pressure (cf. Edwards, Kingston, Hardy, & Gould, 2002;Hill et al, 2009;Smith et al, 2000Smith et al, , 2003. Mesagno et al (2008Mesagno et al ( , 2009) recently investigated choking in choking-susceptible participants in 10-pin bowling (2008) and basketball free-throw shooting (2009).…”

“…Because it is difficult, if not impossible, to directly measure focus of attention in a competitive sports setting, two retrospective methods were employed (cf. Edwards et al, 2002;Gucciardi et al, 2010;Hill et al, 2009). The first method concerned a verbal report questionnaire similar to the Verbal Thought Questionnaire that was used to map the thoughts of individuals during a high-pressure test (Beilock, Kulp, Holt, & Carr, 2004).…”

“…This pressure increases the chances that the player will miss the penalty. Recently, Hill, Hanton, Fleming, and Matthews (2009) provided a contemporary definition of choking on the basis of the opinion of expert applied sport psychologists: ''Choking in sport is a process whereby the individual perceives that their resources are insufficient to meet the demands of the situation, and concludes with a significant drop in performance Á a choke' ' (p. 206;cf. Beilock & Gray, 2007;Gucciardi, Longbottom, Jackson, & Dimmock, 2010;Hill, Hanton, Matthews, & Fleming, 2010).…”