Choking Under Pressure: Multiple Routes to Skill Failure

Abstract

Choking under pressure has largely been explained by two different classes of theories. Distraction theories propose that pressure-induced failure occurs because attention needed to perform the task at hand is co-opted by task-irrelevant thoughts and worries. Explicit monitoring theories claim essentially the opposite-that pressure prompts individuals to attend closely to skill processes in a manner that disrupts execution. Although both mechanisms of choking have been shown to occur in certain contexts, it is unclear when distraction and/or explicit monitoring will ultimately impact performance. We propose that aspects of the pressure situation itself can lead to distraction and/or explicit monitoring, differentially harming skills that rely more (or less) on working memory and attentional control. Using category learning as a test bed, in three experiments we show that performance-contingent outcome pressures hurt rule-based category learning heavily dependent on attentional control. In contrast, pressure involving monitoring by others impairs information-integration category learning thought to run best without heavy demands on attentional control (Experiments 1-2). In Experiment 3, we leverage our knowledge about how specific types of pressure impact performance to design interventions to eliminate choking. Skill failure (and success) under pressure depends on the type of pressure one is under and the control structures of the task being performed.

Choking under monitoring pressure: being watched by the experimenter reduces executive attention

“…Again, however, the experimenter condition affected only the self-reports of distraction. Thus, when combined with the performance findings, participants' selfreports strengthen our confidence that being watched by an evaluative audience (monitoring pressure, as defined by DeCaro et al, 2011) may lead to choking by shifting a portion of executive attention away from task execution, even in the lack of any worries related to the performance situation.…”

“…However, this integrative approach does not fit with independent research on distraction/conflict theory (Baron, 1986), indicating that being watched by others can create distraction (the consequence of outcome pressures, according to DeCaro et al, 2011), especially when the observers are unpredictable and/or a source of evaluation. When attending to others is incompatible with the task demands, attentional conflict may ensue, a form of response conflict regarding what attentional response one should make (Baron, 1986;Huguet, Barbet, Belletier, Monteil, & Fagot, 2014;Huguet, Dumas, & Monteil, 2004;Huguet, Galvaing, Monteil, & Dumas, 1999;Muller & Butera, 2007;Normand, Bouquet, & Croizet, 2014;Sharma, Booth, Brown, & Huguet, 2010).…”

“…The second process implies just the opposite-that pressure shifts too much executive attention toward the task at hand, which may cause poor performance in routine (non-attention-demanding) tasks relying on skill processes and procedures that normally run best outside of conscious awareness (e.g., Beilock, Bertenthal, McCoy, & Carr, 2004;Beilock, Carr, MacMahon, & Starkes, 2002;Beilock, Jellison, Rydell, McConnell, & Carr, 2006). DeCaro et al (2011) found evidence that the first process (distraction) is most likely in situations associated with Boutcome pressure^-the perspective of an incentive if a certain outcome is achieved-whereas the second process results from being watched by others (Bmonitoring pressure^), particularly when one's performance is being evaluated in some manner (e.g., being watched by a teacher or video camera). By relating reduced executive attention with outcome pressure, and the counterproductive allocation of attention to skill processes with monitoring pressure, DeCaro et al made an Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0804-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.…”

“…Examining the relationship between choking under pressure and individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC), Beilock and Carr (2005) concluded that the individuals who are most likely to fail under pressure are those who, in the absence of pressure, have the highest potential for success (the higher-WMC individuals). DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, and Beilock (2011) suggested two different processes leading to poor performance in high-pressure situations. According to the first process, choking occurs because task-irrelevant thoughts and worries distract executive attention (a key component of WMC; Engle, 2002) away from task execution (e.g., Beilock & Carr, 2005;Beilock & DeCaro, 2007;Gimmig, Huguet, Caverni, & Cury, 2006;Markman, Maddox, & Worthy, 2006), which is problematic in difficult tasks requiring attentional control.…”

Local Navon letter processing affects skilled behavior: A golf-putting experiment

“…DeCaro, Thomas, Albert and Beilock (2011) describe how interference with this highly learnt procedural expertise is responsible for the phenomenon known as choking:…”