§ . . ... f... .
”Vufififmqaféhmmmfis— . a» mmnwvh...¥mi:

w .éfifi.

.. a:
i .t . ...

I 1
Jags

) 9
t .99....

 

 

.

can?

... . 1.
{2.91%.
. .

 

 

Eewmmw .
, uwwmgm

II
.- IOU Wu
fizeflddniw

I)

.3. w...
m ”RIF:
. a. : ”a...

flab»...

4‘siufim .

.Ix ‘. , x
zwvefium
gt... 5.

M.. .

 

9

 

553.... 2.6.1.,
aumwwmfi.
aging.y.m$a3w “3 5k _

1?“???

200 \

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

GOOD INTENTIONS GONE BAD: EXPLORING
IRONIC EFFECTS IN SPORT

presented by
James A. Afremow
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Ph.D. degreein Kinesiology

 

 

3M2; lg

ajor professor

Date I‘l—Q 8' ‘00

 

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

University

LIBRARY
M'cmsan State

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 C’JCIRC/DateDuopfib-pJS

 

GOOD INTENTIONS GONE BAD: EXPLORING IRONIC EFFECTS IN SPORT
By

James A Afremow

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Kinesiology

2001

ABSTRACT
GOOD INTENTIONS GONE BAD: EXPLORING IRONIC EFFECTS IN SPORT
By

James A. Afremow

The purpose of this dissertation was to examine Wegner’s (1994) theory of ironic
processes of mental control with respect to failures in self-regulation during motor skill
performance. In order to investigate the implications of this theory in the contexts of
“choking” and “relaxing,” billiards students (N = 96) were randomly assigned to a “try
not to choke” group, a “try to relax” group, or to a control group. All participants took
three blocks of 15 attempts toward a target on a billiards table. In addition, half of the
participants from each group received a mental load manipulation (i.e., counting
backwards) during the second trial block, while all participants received the same mental
load during the third trial block. Results showed that relative to pretest performance, the
control group’s shooting accuracy improved during the second block. However, the
shooting accuracy of the two experimental groups remained constant. Although the
mental control instructions did not decrease performance, these findings are supportive of
ironic process theory. Mental load did not moderate the relationship between mental
control instructions and shooting accuracy. Results did not support the expectation that
releasing mental control would be effective as an intervention strategy to interrupt ironic

processes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. Deborah Feltz, for all her assistance and support
during this project I have greedy appreciated your guidance and availability. You have
contributed much to my understanding of both sport psychology and how to conduct
research

I would also like to thank the other members serving on my committee, Dr. John
Haubenstricker, Dr. Leslee Fisher, and Dr. Lynnette Overby. I enjoyed our meetings and
all of your suggestions were very helpful and translated to better quality work

I want to extend thanks to all my colleagues and friends, who provided support and
encouragement during my stay at Michigan State. I especially want to mention Anthony
Kontos and Mick Collins for many great times on and off the golf course.

I am blessed to have a very special family, and want to thank my father, Arthur, and
my sister, Nancy, for making all of this possible and worthwhile. I must also mention my
late mother, Eva, and say that you will always be close to me. You are my inspiration

Finally, a very special thank you goes to Anne Mauricio. Your help and support

throughout this project was invaluable. You are many standard deviations above what I

thought possible in a partner.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LISTOFTABLES............ . .. .. .

 

Statement of the Problem”

Nature of the Problem...
Mental control and choking
Mental control and relaxation

Hypotheses... .
Limitations and Delnmtations

l3
13
l4
l4

. l4

Ironic Process Theory...
Definition of mental centre]
The operating process“
The monitoring process
Mental load"

EvidenceoflronicEffects..................
Ironiesofmovement.......................
Ironiesinimagesuppression.................................
Ironiesinthoughtsuppreesion..........................................
Ironiesofmoodcontrol.................
Ironiesofintentionalrelaxmion.........................................

22
23
24
24
...26

Ironies of pain control”
Ironies of concentration..

Limitations of Research Using Ironic Process Theory

Interrupting Ironic Processes"
Critique of Ironic Process Theory

Implications for Sport Psychology ......II'IILIII 'IfIf:III.fiflflffifff...

iv

hnerruptingironicprocesses.....m . ..

vii

#

hit-Aid
u—v-‘OQO‘AN—t

13

15
15
17
19
20
21

28

........29
.....30

Task"
Rationale fer Billiards TaSk

Procedure........ ........................'.'.'."IffIfI."'ffifffffififfff."fffffiff..."

Shooting Accuracy... ..
Post—experimental Questionnaire

Mental Control and Shooting Accuracy
47
48
50
...50

Mental Load and Shooting Accuracy...
Mental Release and Shooting Accuracy
Conclusion" .. .. .. .
Suggestions fOr Future ReseaTCh

. University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects

. Table Diagram...

Consent Form"

. Performance Recording Sheet
Post-experimental Questionnaire
Debriefing Script

QWWUOW 3’

.. 56

58

. ANOVA SmnIIIaryTables.

29

29

30

34

34
.. 38

52

54

......i. 62
......69
.. 71

74

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1. MeanDistance fromtheTarget (cm)byGroup

..35

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE
1. Dual-ProcessModelofMentalControl............................................... 3
2. Mean Distance from the Target (cm) across Trials as aFunction ofGroup 36

3. Mean Distance from the Target (cm)m across Trials as a Function of Group
(noload)... .. ... . . . .......38

vii

CHAPTERI

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

There are numerous times when athletes are confronted with distracting thoughts,
unsettling emotions, or a strong desire to avoid certain types of performance mistakes.
During these times, an attempt is often made to exert control over these thoughts,
feelings, and behaviors. However, despite good intentions, efforts at mental control
occasionally backfire - producing the opposite effect of that which is wanted Moreover,
this seems to occur during inopportune moments, such as when the level of stress is high.

In an attempt to account for such paradoxical or calmer-intentional effects, Wegner
(1994a) proposed the theory of ironic processes of mental control. Several empirical studies
have provided evidence to support Wegner’s theory across many domains, such as thought
suppression (Wegner, Schneider, Carter, & White, 1987), concentration (Wegner & Erber,
1992), and pain control (Cioffi & Holloway, 1993). Although Wegner’s theory has much
potential to contribute to the field of sport psychology, few studies have been conducted to
investigate ironic mental processes in a sport context (Janelle, 1999).

The purpose of this dissertation was to further apply Wegner’s theory of ironic
processes to sport Specifically, this study explored the relationship between ironic
effects of mental control and sport performance in two areas — “trying not to choke” and
“trying to relax.” Three major questions arose from these two areas. The first question

this study addressed was whether “trying not to choke” and/or “trying to relax” could

backfire and produce performance decrements. The second question was whether mental
load would increase these ironic effects. The third question was whether releasing

mental control would interrupt these ironic processes from transpiring.

Nature of the Problem
Mental control is necessary for regulating thoughts, emotions, and behaviors.

According to Wegner (1994a), two complimentary processes are initiated during mental
control — an intentional operating process and an ironic monitoring process (see Figure
1). Specifically, the role of the operating process is to create the desired mental state,
while the role of the monitoring process is to find evidence of any mental contents
inconsistent with the desired state and to notify the Operating process of the need for
action The operating process is more demanding of mental effort and can break down
under mental load or stress. When the operating process is compromised, the monitoring
process becomes more influential as the contents for which it is searching become more
accessible. Thus, the mental control we usually enjoy can turn against us when we need
it most.

Consider, for instance, the case of an athlete trying not to make a particular error in
performance. Generally, performance unfolds according to plan when the athlete thinks,
feels, and behaves in the intended manner. However, when the athlete is under load,
such as extreme fatigue, the ironic monitoring process becomes more influential and may
promote the undesired state of mind that inadvertently contributes to the manifestation of

what was to-be-avoided.

 

Mechanism of Mental Control

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating Process Monitoring Process
(controlled) (automatic)
Searches for
unwanted thoughts
Replaces unwanted
thoughts with distracters
j .
Detects unwanted thoughts

(i.e., “choking,” “tension”)

 

Figge 1. Illustration based on Wegner’s dual-process theory of mental control.

Wegner, Ansfield, and Pillofl‘ (1998) performed two experiments providing support
for ironic efi‘ects in the mental control of movement that has relevance to sport
performance. In the first experiment, participants instructed not to overshoot a target
spot in a golf-putting task were more likely to err in this unwanted manner when under
mental load In the second experiment, participants instructed not to swing a handheld
pendulum in an unwanted direction were more likely to do so under both mental and
physical load conditions. However, three subsequent studies failed to fully replicate
these findings (Beilock, Afremow, Rabe, & Carr, 2000; Braffman, Kirsch, Milling, &
Burgess, 1997; Janelle, Murray, de la Pena, & Bouchard, 1999).

Mental control and choking. Begel (2000) identified choking as one of five types of
performance problems in sport. Although choking has no universal definition, in the
sport psychology literature it is generally understood as a decline in performance under
situations that increase the desirability for a positive outcome (Baumeister, 1984). Thus,
“choking under pressure” is often used to describe this paradoxical performance effect

Several theories and hypotheses have been proposed or applied in an attempt to
explain the causes of choking. These include drive theory (Hull, 1943; Spence &
Spence, 1966); inverted-U hypothesis (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908); zone of optimal
functioning (Hanin, 1980); cusp catastrophe model (Hardy & Fazey, 1987); cue-
utilization theory (Easterbrook, 1959); and self-focus hypothesis of choking (Baumeister,
1984).

Baumeister (1984) argued that choking is the result of attention turned inward
Specifically,hefom1devidencesuggestingthatpressmetoperfonnwell shifisattentionto

the process of performance, thereby disrupting the automaticity of the skilled response. For

example, individuals low in dispositional self-consciousness were more likely to choke tmder
pressure than those accustomed to high self-consciousness.

Recently, LewisandLinder(l997) investigatedtwoattentiomlprocessespostulatedto
account for the phenomenon of choking: the self-focus hypothesis and the distraction
hypothesis. In contrast to Baumeister’s self-focus hypothesis outlined above, the distraction
hypothesis postulates that pressure shifts attention toward task-irrelevant information
resulting in performance decrementa However, results supported the self-focus hypothesis
in that choking under pressure occurred for participants not adapted to self-awareness, while
thisefi'ectwasattenuatedmtderincreasedcognitiveload, whichservedasadistracter.

Leith (1988) sought to explore coaching behaviors that contribute to the choking response.
Specifically, he explored the effects of discussing choking on performance. Interestingly,
participants in the experimental condition experienced a choking response as performance
declined Leith’s findings indicated that simply talking about choking leads to its occurrence.
However, Leith provided no explanation for this curious result.

The idea tint athletes experience performance problems under self- or other- instruction
not to make an unwanted action is not a new concept. For example, Suinn (1980) noted that
itisimportant forinstructorstoemphasizethoughts, emofionsandbehaviorsregardingwhat
to do, rather than what to avoid Additionally, Janelle (1999) provided common sport
exammesoftirisconcemaswhenagolferthinksnottohittheball inthewaterandthen
proceeds to hit this unwanted shot

While some plausible explanations for choking are provided above (eg, Lewis & Linder,

1997), Leith’s (1988) finding that simply talking about the choke leads to its occurrence is

notdirectlyaccormtedforbythesetheories However,thereareseveral indicatorsthatmay
provide an appropriate conceptual framework for interpreting choking in Leith’s experiment.

Athletesarewell aware ofthe stigmasurroundingchokingandoitenattempttoavoidthis
unwanted response from luppening For example, Lewis and Linder (1997) reported that
participants in the pressure condition made spontaneous verbalizations including, ‘Do__n’t
choke!” In fact, in the study by Leith (1988), participants were told following the discussion
about choking, “Don’t let that botha'you.” Thus, it is plausrble that efl‘orts to avoid choking
may have contributed to the choking response (i.e., decreased performance).

ThisstudyappfiedWegner’sflreoryochprocessesofmentalconuoltothe
phenomenon of choking in sport Specifically, it investigated whether trying not to choke
couldproduce ironic efi‘ectsthathinderperfonnance, andwhetherthemanifestationofsuch
efi‘ectswouldbe increasedbythepresenceofmental load Nemtheissueofironic
processes and relaxation will be considered

Mental control and relmtion, The arousal-performance relationship is one of the
most extensively studied concepts in the sport psychology literature. Many of the
theories presented above for explaining the phenomenon of choking under pressure (e.g.,
inverted-U hypothesis; Yerkes & Dodson, 1908) were developed to explain the more
general relationship between arousal and performance. Regardless of the particular
theory, it is generally accepted that there exists an optimal level of arousal depending on
the athlete and task (Gould & Krane, 1992).

A concept related to arousal level is muscular tension. For example, excessive
muscular tension can be detrimental to athletic performance (e.g., Williams & Harris,

1998). Consequently, sport psychologists frequently employ relaxation techniques and

exercises in their work with athletes to decrease arousal levels and to reduce muscular
tension when it is too high. In fact, a common refrain in sport is to “relax” when an
athlete appears to be tight or is in a pressure situation

However, the attempt to relax can sometimes backfire, producing greater levels of
arousal or muscle tension (Heide & Borkovec, 1983). For example, Wegner, Broome,
and Blumberg (1997) found evidence of ironic effects for participants trying to relax
under stress. Specifically, participants employing progressive muscle relaxation under
mental load experienced increased arousal as measured by their skin conductance level.
However, the effect on athletic performance of trying to relax under mental load has not
yet been investigated.

Therefore, in addition to exploring the issue of choking, this dissertation also applied
Wegner’stheory ofironic processes ofmental control totryingto relax with respectto
athletic performance. Specifically, it examined whether trying to relax would produce ironic
effects of added tension hindering perfom'rance, and whether the manifestation of such
efi‘ectswouldbeincreasedbythepresenceofmental load Nentheissueofintervention
strategies to interrupt ironic processes will be considered

W The evidence for ironic effects across several domains
of mental control suggests that the attempt to make things better sometimes makes them
worse. In Wegner terminology, the antidote becomes the poison (W egner, 1997).
However, understanding the etiology and mental architecture of ironic processes is an
important first step toward developing interventions to interrupt ironic processes.

Wegner (1989) noted that direct or “naked” suppression is not possible. In other

words, people lack the ability to empty their head and simply wish away an unwanted

thought, never to be bothered by it again Thus, following failed attempts to suppress a
thought, people will often engage in self-distraction (i.e., think of “B” or “C” instead of
“A”).

For example, participants instructed to suppress thoughts of a white bear reported
attempts to think about anything other than a white bear (Wegner et al., 1987). However,
thoughts of a white bear repeatedly returned, thus renewing the process of self-
distraction. In fact, participants in this group were unable to completely avoid thinking
about a white bear, and exhibited a later preoccupation with the to-be-avoided thought.

In a second experiment, participants were provided with a single distracter (e.g., red
Volkswagen) for use during suppression. This strategy of focused self-distraction was
shown to be more effective than the unfocused self-distraction typically employed by
participants not receiving any instruction. According to Wegner et a1. (1987), with only
one replacement thought (i.e., red Volkswagen), fewer associations are made limiting a
rebound of the to-be-avoided thought.

Although focused self-distraction can provide temporary relief from unwanted
thoughts, Wegner (1989) cautioned against the habitual use of this strategy to ward off
thinking about that which is unwanted Specifically, it was argued that self-distraction

can become nothing more than self-avoidance, limiting personal growth

Consequently, Wegner (1989) proposed that it might be important to “stop stoppin ”
(p. 174) and confront the unwanted thought. It follows that if mental control is not
initiated then neither will be the ironic monitoring process. Thus, stopping attempts at
suppression might end the cycle of creating an obsession. As Wegner (pp. 179-180)
wrote:

Whenwetrynottothinkofawhitebear,afierall, itseemswearejustplayinga
simple game. This thought is surely something we can stop in a moment, we think to
ourselves, and so we give it a u'y. All too soon we find, though, that it won’t go away
so easily. We try again. And it comes back again. If only we could realize that it will
go away only when we welcome it back. It is onlythen that, like any child with a toy,
we will soon tire of dragging it around with us and lose track of it quite naturally.

In support of this notion, Wegner (1989) reviewed therapeutic approaches that
successfully employed similar methods in the treatment of emotional disturbance. For
example, anxious patients provided with a half-hour worry period at the same time and
place each day, in which to focus on their unwanted thoughts, showed a marked decrease
in anxiety symptoms compared to a control group at the end of a 4-week treatment
program (Borkovec, Wilkinson, Folensbee, & Lerman, 1983).

Thus, in addition to searching for ironic effects in the mental control of trying not to
choke and trying to relax, this dissertation investigated the efficacy ofreleasing mental
control (i.e., stop stopping) as an intervention strategy. Specifically, it examined whether
releasing mental control would successfully reduce ironic effects fiorn transpiring under

conditions of mental load.

Broadcast

Two common expressions in sport are “don’t choke” and “try to relax” This

dissertation employed Wegner’s theory to explore the potential for ironic effects resulting

from efforts at mental control following these well-intended self- or other-instructions.

In addition, this dissertation explored whether releasing mental control could interrupt

these ironic processes. The model that guides this dissertation is illustrated in Figure 1.

Specifically, the following hypotheses were tested:

1.

Participants in the “don’t choke” group would experience a significant decrease in
shooting accuracy from pretest to posttest l, as compared to the control group.
Participants'in the “relax” group would experience a significant decrease in
shooting accuracy from pretest to posttest l, as compared to the control group.
Participants in the “don’t choke” group experiencing mental load would
experience a significant decrease in shooting accuracy from pretest to posttest l,
as compared to participants not experiencing mental load

Participants in the “relax” group experiencing mental load would experience a
significant decrease in shooting accuracy from pre- to posttest 1, as compared to
participants not experiencing mental load

Participants in the “don’t choke” group would experience a significant increase in
shooting accuracy from posttest 1 to posttest 2, compared to the control group.
Participants in the “relax” group would experience a significant increase in

shooting accuracy from posttest 1 to posttest 2, compared to the control group.

10

Lim’tag‘ons and Delimigtjgns
Participants in this study were students enrolled in a billiards class at Michigan State

University, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings. Although the class was
titled “Beginning Billiards,” there existed a wide range of participants in terms of playing
ability. This was due to the fact that no intermediate or advanced level billiards classes
were available. Results of this study may not generalize to elite or completely novice
players. Further, the results of this study may not generalize to open motor skills or
strength tasks. It is also important to note that the performance task in the present study
did not directly correspond to an actual shot that might be played during a billiards game.
Rather, the shot was similar to the act of “lagging for break,” performed prior to a series
of games. However, being able to hit the cue ball accurately to the intended target (i.e.,
object ball) is naturally a vital aspect of play. Furthermore, the experiment was
conducted in a “natural” setting on standard tables in an authentic billiards room.
minim

Mg, Choking, in a sport context, refers to performance decrements despite an
increase in the desirability for optimal skill execution (Baumeister, 1984).

Closed motor skill. A closed motor skill is self-paced and performed in a relatively
predictable and stable environment (Singer, 1980). The task employed in the present
dissertation, which involves shooting a cue ball to a target, is an example of a closed

motor skill.

11

W Ironic processes refer to paradoxical or counter-intentional effects
arising during efforts at mental control (Wegner, 1994a).

Mental control. Mental control refers to the deliberate attempt by an individual to
regulate a mental state (Wegner, 1994a).

Mental lo_a_¢ Mental load refers to any load or stress requiring attentional resources,
and, as such, compromises the operating process (W egner, 1994a).

W A hypothetical construct thought to responsible for detecting
signs inconsistent with the desired mental state during efforts at mental control (W egner,
1994a).

an motor skills An open motor skill involves reacting to events in a relatively
unpredictable and unstable environment (Singer, 1980). A defensive player in baseball
or softball reacting to a hit by the batter is an example of an Open motor skill.

W A hypothetical construct thought to be responsible for creating the

desired mental state during efforts at mental control (Wegner, 1994a).

12

CHAPTER 11
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Ironic process theory was develOped by Wegner (1994a) to account for the intentional
and counterintentional effects that transpire from efforts at mental control. To date, there
have only been a limited number of empirical investigations that have examined the
relationship between ironic processes and sport performance, despite the potential of this
theory to contribute in a variety of ways to the field of sport psychology (Janelle, 1999).

This chapter begins with an outline of Wegner’s dual-process model of mental control
and theory of ironic processes. Evidence of ironic effects across several domains of
mental control relevant to sport performance is provided and several methods of
interrupting ironic effects are considered. A subsequent section provides a critique of
ironic process theory, and presents some of the limitations in the extension of ironic
process theory to sport The chapter concludes by offering implications of ironic process
theory for sport psychology.
Irom'g Process Theory

The ironic process theory states that when mental control is initiated, processes that
thwart self-regulation are a built-in component of such control (Wegner, 1994a). In this
section, the dual-process model of mental control is outlined

ngmition of mem control. Mental control is initiated during attempts to regulate
thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. According to Wegner (1994a), two processes are
involved in mental control - an intentional operating process and an ironic monitoring

process. Specifically, the operating process consciously attempts to create the desired

13

state (i.e., cognitive, emotive, or behavioral), while the monitoring process unconsciously
searches for evidence of mental contents inconsistent with the desired state.

The gym mocess. According to Wegner’s theory, the operating process takes
place in consciousness as the individual engages in mental control. Specifically, the
operating process is initiated in an attempt to guide attention to the most desirable mental
state, rather than avoiding or removing unwanted items from consciousness. For
example, in the case of thought suppression, the operating process searches for desirable
thoughts rather than attempting to directly block out unwanted thoughts. Because the
operating process requires effort and is a resom‘ce-dependent cognitive process, it is
subject to interference when the attentional requirements of the task are too high or there
are competing attentional demands such as distractions.

The monitoring pm, According to Wegner’s theory, the monitoring process
activates the operating process when evidence is found indicating that the desired state
has not been achieved. For emple, the monitoring process searches continually for any
unwanted item during thought suppression The monitoring process operates in parallel
with the operating process during mental control. However, the monitoring process
functions outside of conscious awareness and is effortless, not requiring attentional
resources. Consequently, it is not susceptible to disruption by attentional demands.

Mental load According to Wegner’s theory, the ironic aspect of this mental
architecture arises when load or stress disables the operating process and the contents of
the monitoring process are then made available to consciousness, making the individual
more susceptible to the unwanted state. Consequently, the act of mental control under

load can become “the seed of our undoing” (Wegner, 1999, p.10). In sport, examples of

14

mental load may include anxiety, time constraints, distractions, fatigue, and memory
loading (see Janelle, 1999). Consider the case of an athlete who has become overly
anxious prior to the “big” game. In an attempt to stave off anxiety, the athlete may
deliberately attempt to suppress thinking about this emotional response and inadvertently
increase the level ofanxiety as a result The operating process has become less
influential due to the anxiety and the monitoring process has made the athlete more
aware of the unwanted physiological state. As the operating process becomes
increasingly less effective, an “exacerbation cycle” may develop which keeps this ironic
process going (Shoham & Rohrbaugh, 1997, p. 151).

Evidence of Ironic Eflects

An increasing amount of research has provided evidence of ironic effects in mental
control (see Wegner, 1994a). Specifically, these studies have explored ironic effects
across several domains of mental control under load and no load conditions. Evidence
has been provided to support Wegner’s theory across a wide range of non-sport related
domains, such as substance cravings (cg, Salkovskis & Reynolds, 1994), memory (e.g.,
Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, &. Wheeler, 1996), and stereotyping and prejudice (e.g.,
Monteith, Sherman, & Devine, 1998).

What follows is a brief discussion of evidence of ironic effects for those domains of
mental control relevant to sport. Specifically, these are movement, image suppression,
thought suppression, mood control, intentional relaxation, pain control, and
concentration.

Ironies in movement. As noted by Janelle (1999), anecdotal reports of ironic effects

in sport are “virtually endless” (p.208). In fact, mistakes in performance seem to occur

15

more often the harder we try to avoid them. However, only a few studies to date have
examined ironic processes relative to movement and sport performance. Wegner et al.
(1998) performed two experiments providing support for ironic processes in the mental
control of action In the first experiment, participants who were instructed to avoid
overshooting the target spot in a golf-putting task were more likely to err in this
unwanted manner under mental load Specifically, the mental load condition involved
keeping a six-digit number in mind In the second experiment, participants who were
instructed not to swing a handheld pendulum in an unwanted direction were more likely
to do so under both mental and physical load conditions. Specifically, the mental load
condition involved counting backward from 1,000 by 3s. The physical load condition
involved holding a brick with the outstretched arm not involved with the pendulum. This
manipulation was intended to simulate load found in physical activities such as work and
sport. However, it is uncertain whether a more sport specific mental or physical load
(cg, physical exertion) would have produced different results.

In a second study, Braffman et al. (1997) evaluated, in part, Wegner’s (1994) theory of
ironic processes of mental control as a possible explanation for the Chevreul pendulum
illusion (i.e., an ideomotor suggestion related to hypnosis). Participants imaged the
pendulum moving in a wanted direction or tried to prevent it from moving in an
unwanted direction under conditions of low and high load Specifically, mental load
involved counting backward by 33. The authors stated that the findings failed to show
that the pendulum movement resulted from ironic processes. However, no explanation

for this interpretation was provided.

16

In a third study, Janelle et al. (1999), employed a golf-putting task to further explore
Wegner’s theory. They assigned participants to different types of load: cognitive, visual,
auditory, and anxiety. Participants in the first experiment were instructed not to putt the
ball short of the target, while participants in the second experiment were instructed not to
putt the ball past the target. In contrast to the findings by Wegner et al. (1998) supporting
ironic processes, overall results of this study indicated that participants, regardless of
load type, did not leave their putts in the unwanted direction. In fact, participants were
more likely to leave their putts short or long in accordance with the instructions. The
authors argued that the participants, in their attempt to follow instructions,
“overcompensated” by putting short or long. The authors did not discuss the nature of
the different types of load and whether they were specific to sport

While Wegner et al.’s (1998) findings indicated that ironic effects might be
instrumental in understanding decrements in sport performance, Janelle et al.’s findings
suggest that the relationship between ironic processes and sport performance might be
more complex. Although participants in Janelle et al.’s study overcompensated with
respect to their putting direction, this still may be interpreted as a performance
decrement. Also, it is possible that participants overcompensated in an effort to avoid
what would be considered ironic effects.

Ironies of image suppression. The use of mental imagery as a tool to enhance the
learning and performance of sport skills has been a topic of much interest to sport
psychologists, coaches, and athletes. Imagery is routinely used by non-elite and elite
athletes in both individual and team sports at various levels of competition (Orlick &

Partington, 1988). Both empirical and anecdotal evidence have shown that mental

l7

imagery can facilitate motor skill performance (Driskell, Copper, & Moran, 1994; Feltz
& Landers, 1983).

In contrast to the beneficial effects of positive imagery, empirical evidence shows that
negative imagery (i.e., imaging failure) can hinder performance (Powell, 1973; Woolfolk,
Murphy, Gottesfeld, & Aitken, 1985; Woolfolk, Parish, & Murphy, 1985). Although
negative imagery may not be commonly experienced, especially by expert performers,
these potentially disruptive images can and do occur (e.g., Barr & Hall, 1992; Hall,
Rodgers, & Barr, 1990). Consequently, athletes may attempt to suppress negative images
whenever they arise.

Beilock, Afremow, Rabe, and Carr (2000) examined Wegner’s (1994a) ironic process
theory in the context of mental imagery and the sensorimotor task of golf putting. The
participants were novice golfers and the authors varied type of imagery instruction (i.e.,
positive, suppression, suppression-replacement) and frequency of imagery rehearsal (i.e.,
every putt, every 3rd putt). Results showed that relative to pretest performance, the
positive imagery group’s accuracy improved across imaging blocks regardless of Magery
fiequency. However, the accuracy of the suppression and suppression-replacement
groups was moderated by imagery frequency. Specifically, there was a decline in
performance when imaging before every putt, while there was an improvement in
performance when imaging before every 3"d putt This pattern of results suggests that
frequency of use of suppressive imagery is related to performance. In contrast to
predictions from ironic process theory, ball destinations were more likely to be
overcompensations rather than instances of the to-be-avoided outcome. For example,

participants instructed to not image overshooting the target resulted in putts lefi short of

18

the target. The authors noted that this pattern of results is similar to Janelle et al.’s
(1999) finding that individuals overcompensate in overt performance when instructed to
avoid a particular outcome. However, when Beilock et al. limited their analysis of ball
destinations to the first putt taken afier imagery instructions (as was the analysis in
Wegner et al.’s (1998) study), participants receiving suppression imagery instructions
were more likely to err in leaving the putt in the direction of the to-be-suppressed image.
Based on their results, the authors suggested that ironic effects with respect to mental
imagery might be temporary in nature, soon replaced by an overcompensation strategy
during repeated trials. The intervention of replacing to-be-suppressed images with a
positive image was not found to be successful in reducing decrements in performance. In
contrast, Wegner et al. (1987) found that providing participants with a distracter thought
during suppression was helpful in preventing a subsequent rebound effect of the to-be-
suppressed thought.

Irom'es of thoggm sumion. Negative and distracting thoughts are considered
detrimental to proper execution in sport performance (see Zinsser, Bunker, & Williams,
1998). Van Raalte, Brewer, Rivera, and Petitpas (1994, as cited by Hall, Hardy, and
Gammage, 1999) fomd that approximately 90% of the junior competitive tennis players
they surveyed experienced negative self-talk 13 or more times per match However,
Wegner (1989) suggested that attempting to refrain from thinking an unwanted thought
can result in a preoccupation with the to-be-suppressed thought As noted earlier,
participants who were instructed to “not think about a white bear” were unable to
successfully suppress this thought (Wegner et al., 1987). Later, when participants were

provided with an opportunity to think about a white bear they thought more about this

19

target thought than participants who were instructed to think about a white bear from the
beginning Wegner et al. referred to this later preoccupation as a postsuppression
rebound effect. In a follow-up experiment, participants were provided with a single
distracter (cg, red Volkswagen) for use during suppression The findings showed that
participants provided with the distracter thought did not exhibit later preoccupation with
the unwanted thought.

Wegner and Erber (1992) found evidence pertaining to the hyperaccessibility of
suppressed thoughts under load In Experiment 1, participants were instructed to make
associations to word prompts while either suppressing a target word or concentrating on
the target word. Those participants suppressing a target word under load (i.e., time
pressure) responded with the target word (eg, house) to related prompts (cg, home)
more frequently than those under no load and even participants who were concentrating
on the target word ' In Experiment 2, participants performed a modification of the Stroop
(1935) color-word task. Participants suppressing thoughts of a word under high load
(i.e., rehearse a 9-digit number) were slower to indicate the color in which the word was
printed than participants suppressing droughts of the word under low load (i.e., rehearse a
l-digit number) or even participants who were concentrating on the target word. The
authors interpreted these findings as suggesting that the suppressed word is more
accessible under load or when compared to a word on which the participant is trying to
concentrate.

Ironies of mood control. High levels of either positive (cg, excitement) or negative
(cg, anxiety) emotions experienced during competition can also be detrimental to

athletic performance (sec Landers & Boutcher, 1998). As a result, sport psychology

20

practitioners will often instruct athletes and coaches regarding the importance of
“psyching-up” or “psyching-down” when needed. Moreover, emphasis is placed on
maintaining confidence and eliminating negative emotions, such as anger. In the clinical
domain, Wegner (1994a) noted that because of the unpleasant nature of emotional
disturbances like general anxiety, panic disorders, and phobias, individuals with these
and similar disorders are highly motivated to initiate mental control.

However, in support of ironic process theory, Navon (1994a) suggested that
individuals attempting to avoid anxiety under stress, for instance, can eXpericnce a
“snowball efl‘ect” resulting in increased anxiety. Wegner, Shortt, Blake, and Page (1990)
found that suppression of exciting thoughts ironically increases physiological responses
as indexed by skin conductance level. Moreover, Wegner, Erber, and Zanakos (1993)
found evidence for reversals in mood states during efforts at mental control under load

Thus, releasing mental control over mood states might reverse these ironic processes.
As noted earlier, Borkovec ct al. (1983) found that providing anxious patients with a half-
hour worry period each day, in which to focus on their unwanted thoughts, displayed a
marked decrease in anxiety symptoms compared to a control group at the end of a 4-
week treatment program

Ironies of inteng'gnal relaxation Excessive muscular tension can impair athletic
performance (eg, Williams & Harris, 1998). Consequently, athletes under self- or other-
instruction (i.e., coach, sport psychologist) ofien initiate mental control when
experiencing too much tension However, the attempt to relax under stress can often
create the opposite of what is wanted (Wegner, 1994a). For example, Wegner et al.

(1993) showed that intentional relaxation under conditions of load produced ironic

21

increases in tension as indexed by skin conductance level. Specifically, participants in
the first experiment attempted progressive relaxation under low load (i.e., rehearse a 1-
digit number) or high load (i.e., rehearse a 9-digit number). Participants in the second
experiment attempted to relax using their own individual method under low load (i.e.,
assess neutral items) or high load (i.e., answer questions introduced as an intelligence
test). Thus, consistent with ironic process theory, attempting to relax under load
backfired and resulted in increased tension

In a related domain, Ansfield, Wegner, and Bowser (1996) found evidence of ironic
effects in attemmed sleep. Specifically, participants instructed to fall asleep “as fast as
you can” under high load (i.e., listening to loud music) took longer to fall asleep
compared to those under low load (i.e., listening to soft music) or participants given the
instruction to fall asleep “whenever you want.” Thus, initiating mental control with
respect to falling asleep can ironically produce “a bit of insomnia” (Wegner, 1994a, p.
45).

Ironies of pg}; conggl. Booth (1987, as cited by Heil, 1993) estimated that 17 million
sports injuries occur each year among American athletes. Increasingly, the topics of
injury and pain management have become of interest to the field of sport psychology
(Taylor & Taylor, 1997). Sport psychology practitioners utilize a wide variety of
nonplmrmacological pain management strategies when working with these athletes
(Taylor & Taylor, 1998). Pain focusing techniques may involve directing attention to the
pain (i.e., association) or directing attention away fiom the pain (i.e., dissociation) (see

Taylor & Taylor, 1998).

22

However, Ciofi'r and Holloway (1993) found evidence indicating that attempts to
suppress pain can ironically magnify these sensations. In addition, Heil (1993) suggested
that dissociation techniques in some rehabilitation situations might be counterproductive.
Wegner (1994a) argued that the effectiveness of both strategies depends on whether the
pain is acute or chronic. Cioffi (1993, as cited by Wegner, 1994a), found that
dissociation is more effective for acute pain, while association is more effective for
chronic pain According to ironic process theory, initiating mental control for persistent
pain would eventually result in the operating process becoming taxed, thereby creating a
subsequent rebound effect or preoccupation with the pain

Ironies of concentrag'on. Orlick (1990) identified concentration and distraction
control as two of the most important elements for excellence in sport Specifically,
findings have revealed that elite performers are more likely to attend to relevant stimuli
and ignore irrelevant stimuli or distractions during performance (e. g, Singer, Cauraugh,
Chen, Steinbcrg, & Frehlich, 1996). However, the attempt to suppress a thought or
distraction can sometimes make it more available, and the attempt to concentrate can
sometimes make distractions more accessible (see Wegner, 1994a). As noted earlier,
Wegner et al. (1993) found that the to-be-suppressed thought or distracter becomes more
accessible during suppression under load Similarly, Janelle (1999) reviewed findings
fiom Janelle, Singer, and Williams (1999) indicating that participants involved in an
auto-racing simulation task were more likely to attend to distracters which they were

instructed to ignore while under load

23

Limi;ta_tions of Rmh Usng’ me Process Theog to 11mm Failures in Spgrt
Although the above findings strongly support the hypothesis that ironic process theory

may be useful in explaining failures in self-regulation during sport performance, there are
noteworthy limitations across all these studies. Perhaps the most important limitation
relates to external validity and the generalizibility of the findings to sport, in general, and
elite athletes, in particular. No study presented above directly tested ironic process
theory in an actual sport context, employing a sport specific mental or physical load, with
athletes serving as the participants. For example, the participants in Wegner et al.’s
(1998) study were selected from a sample of undergraduates enrolled in an introductory
psychology class. Likewise, although Janelle et a]. (1999) employed a golf putting task,
participants were not selected from a population of golf players. In addition, the task
employed in both studies did not directly correspond to an actual golf putt, as participants
puttedacrossanartificial surface toaspot, ratherthanonaputtinggreenwithacupas
the target
In [m'gg Ironic Processes

Sholam and Rohrbaugh (1997) noted that researchers “now known good deal about
what ironic processes look like, less about why they occur, and too little about how to
change them” (p. 151). Given that ironic effects span several domains of mental control,
it is important to identify ways to combat them. An understanding of the dual-process
model of mental control reveals several possibilities for developing an intervention For
example, Wegner (1994a) states that ironic processes are only initiated during mental
control. Thus, when giving up attempts at self-regulation, the susceptibility to

counterintentional effects should be eliminated. However, Wegner (1994a) noted that it

24

is unclear under what circumstances this approach would be most effective and exactly
how rescinding mental control would be accomplished It could be that, as Wegner et al.
(1987) suggest, providing a distracter thought for use during thought suppression may
eliminate a rebound effect or later preoccupation with the to-be-suppressed thought

Janelle (1999) presented an overview of ironic process theory in the context of sport
and provided several recommendations for helping athletes interrupt ironic processes.
Specifically, Janelle suggested that sport psychologists can help athletes (1) reduce load,
either by reducing task commcxity or decreasing anxiety using stress management, (2)
follow paradoxical interventions designed to disrupt the ironic monitoring process, (3)
decrease reliance on the operating process by making skills more automatic, or (4) better
understand the nature of this phenomenon.

In their invited commentary, Hall et al. (1999) provided a critique of the
recommendations offered by Janelle (1993). First, the authors argued that reducing task
complexity is not always possible or desirable, especially given that ironic effects are
relatively infrequent. Also, the authors pointed out in reference to J ones (1995) that
anxiety can be both debilitating and facilitative and should only be addressed with regard
to the former effect Second, the authors argued that paradoxical interventions, such as
having the athlete focus on an rmwantcd thought, are extremely questionable. Third, the
authors argued that automaticity is already a goal and telling the athlete to become better
is of no practical value. Further, the authors argued that awareness of a phenomenon
does not always result in any change, referring to social loafing (Huddleston, Doody, &

Ruder, 1985) as an example. Instead, Hall et al. recommended that one possible solution

25

is to have athletes accept their unwanted thoughts, as opposed to dwelling on them or
trying to suppress them.

Taylor (1999) also provided a commentary on J anelle’s (1999) review of ironic
process theory. Taylor made several recommendations for helping athletes to minimize
ironic processes. For instance, he argued that whether the monitoring process is activated
is often influenced by how the athlete processes negative events. Taylor provided an
example of an athlete shooting an airball in basketball to illustrate this point. Ifthe
athlete interprets the airball emotionally (i.e., as an embarrassment), mental control will
likely follow in an attempt to guard against this “embarrassing” outcome from happening
again. However, if the airball is interpreted inforrnationally, the athlete will be more
likely to consider why this result happened and what corrections to make instead of
trying to suppress what happened

Wenzlaff and Wegner (2000) argued that individuals beset by unwanted thoughts
should relinquish thought suppression for better methods of mental control, including
learning to accept and express any unwanted thoughts. Consistent with this approach
might be developing an attitude of detachment or distance from negative or unwanted
thoughts; sirnply noticing them as thoughts to observe versus becoming frightened by
them may work better.
we of Ironic ProcessTheorv

Navon (1994b) argued that the theory of ironic processes fails to provide a definitive
account of phenomena considered ironic or paradoxical. Specifically, Navon provided
the following reasons: (1) ironic process theory is not as general as claimed, (2) ironic

effects can be explained by other theories, (3) the concept of the monitoring process is

26

“functionally implausible,” and (4) the existence of the monitoring process has not been
empirically substantiated According to Navon, the data collected in support of Wegner’s
theory only demonstrate the dependence of failures in self-regulation on load, which can
be accounted for by many other theories. Specifically, Navon stated that ironic effects
occur when the efficiency of voluntary attention and selectivity is compromised under
load In response, Wegner (1994b) argued that the general prediction of ironic process
theory has been clearly substantiated

Wenzlaff and Wegner (2000) considered other theoretical perspectives offered to
account for ironic effects with regard to thought suppression For example, the authors
discussed the possible role of motivation in the postsuppression rebound effect. Martin,
Tesser, and McIntosh (1993, as cited by Wenzlaff and Wegner, 2000) argued that the
postsuppression rebound effect might be explained by the Zeigarnik effect (Zeigarnik,
1938; Lewin, 1951) as the result of goal interruption

Hall ct al. (1999) offered a critique of ironic process theory as applied to the context
of sport and exercise. The authors began their commentary by questioning the advantage
of relying on ironic process theory because “other theories (cg, self-efficacy theory,
Bandura, 1997; catastrophe theory, Hardy, 1990; theory of planned behavior, Ajzen,
1985) can equally or better explain some of these losses of mental control” (p. 221).
However, Hall et al. did not provide a rationale for this assertion, except that “some of
these theories have been subjected to considerable investigation in the sport and exercise
domains” (p. 221). The authors also argued, with regard to Janelle’s (1999) suggestions,
that ironic processes are unable to completely account for such concerns as the “yips” in

golf or why pe0ple fail to adhere to exercise programs. Moreover, the authors stated that

27

ironic effects are rare, especially in elite athletes, and ironic effects cannot be predicted,
because mental control is usually effective under load.
Implications for Sport chholggy

As demcnstrated in this review of the literature, ironic process theory (Wegner,
1994a) holds the potential to explain numerous failures in self-regulation that transpire in
sport Suinn (1980) suggested that instructors emphasize to the learner what to do, rather
than what to avoid Janelle (1999) explained that “the mind has great difficulty in
ignoring negative commands” (p. 207). However, ironic process theory holds that good
intentions regarding both what to do and what to avoid can backfire, especially when the
individual is under load Future research needs to be directed toward a better
understanding of the nature of ironic effects in sport and methods to interrupt ironic

processes, so that we can eventually minimize their impact.

28

CHAPTER III

METHOD

Participagts and Desigg
After receiving approval from the University Committee on Research Involving

Human Subjects (see Appendix A), a total of 96 male (N = 84) and female (N = 12)
undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory billiards class at Michigan State
University voluntarily served as study participants. Participants were randomly assigned
to a “try not to choke” group (n = 32), a “try to relax” group (n = 32), or to a control
group (n = 32). The design of this study was a 3 (“don’t choke” group, “relax” group,
control group) x 2 (load, no load) x 3 (pretest, posttest 1, posttest 2) repeated measures
ANOVA.
13le

The task performed by each participant involved shooting a cue ball on a billiard
table. Specifically, participants attempted to hit the cue ball fi'om the head spot across
the billiard table, rebound the ball off the foot rail, and then stop the ball on the center
spot, marked by a white circle (see Appendix B). All participants reported that this was a
novel task, as they had not performed it previously. A standard one ball and cue were
provided. The billiard table measured 4.5 it x 9 ft. The same billiard table was used for
each participant.

A pilot study with 6 participants was performed to ensure that this task was

appropriate for the experiment. One modification was made to the experimental task as a

29

result of the pilot study. Specifically, the shooting target was moved from the head spot
at the front of the table back to the center spot (see Appendix B), as participants tended
to overshoot the head spot with the ball then hitting the head rail. Participants in the pilot
test indicated that they understood their respective instructions, and, as such, no changes
were made.
Rationale for Billiards Tgk

Billiards provides an excellent vehicle to investigate ironic processes of mental
control. Billiards is a closed motor skill, and, as such, offers a consistent and predictable
environment. Thus, the performance task employed in the present study provides a
tractable and precise way to assess shooting accuracy. This performance task might be
considered similar in many ways to a golf putt or free throw shot in basketball.
Pro_c§ure

After providing informed consent (see Appendix C), participants were told that the
purpose of the study was twofold: (1) to examine shooting accuracy across several trials
of practice, and (2) to compare individual performance. These instnrctions represented
an attempt to increase participant motivation to perform their best timing the experiment.

Participants began with 10 warm-up attempts. Next, participants were told to perform
as best they can for the next series of attempts, stopping the cue ball on the target or as
close as possible. Specifically, this series served as the pre-test, consisting of 15
attempts. After each attempt, the experimenter recorded the distance the cue ball
stopped from the target and then replaced the ball on the starting location (see Appendix

D). However, when the cue ball hit an unintended rail (i.e., the side rail or the head rail),

30

thedistancebetweenthispointandthetargetwasrecorded Theclassinstructoranda
teaching assistant served as the experimenters.

Following the pre-test, participants were provided with a short break At this point,
the experimental groups were provided with specific instructions for posttest 1, as
described below.

Choke gggup. Participants in this group were told, “Now, it is very important that you
try your best not to think about choking while you perform. Don’t think about choking.”
After completing the fifth and tenth attempts, participants were told, “Remember, try not
to think about choking.”

Relax ggoup. , Participants in this group were told, “Now, it is very important that you
try your best to relax while you perform. Do your best to relax.” Afier completing the
fifth and tenth attempts, participants were told, “Remember, try your best to relax.”

antrol group. Participants in this group were not provided any additional
instructions during posttest 1, other than those provided with the mental load
manipulation, as described below.

Half the participants in each of the three groups were given a mental load during
posttest 1. Specifically, these participants were told immediately prior to posttest 1,
“Now, until I tell you to stop, and this is very important, I want you to start counting
down from 1,000 by 75 (that is, 1,000, 993, 896, and so on). After I say stop at the end of
the trial I will ask you what number you have reached.” The mental load manipulation is
identical to that which was successfirlly employed for an experiment performed by

Wegner et al. (1998).

31

Except for adding the experimental manipulations described above, the pretest and
posttest 1 tasks were identical. Posttest 1 also consisted of 15 attempts. To the
participant, posttest I appeared to be just another series of attempts. Immediately
following posttest 1, participants provided with the mental load were asked to report the
current number in their countdown to determine if directions were followed. All
participants reported numbers suggesting that directions were followed.

Following posttest 1, participants were provided with a short break At this point, the
experimental groups were provided with specific instructions for posttest 2, as described
below.

Choke goup. Participants in this group were told, “Now, you can just release your
attempt at trying not to choke. Perform as best you can while accepting any thoughts you
might happen to have, even if they are about choking. Just let them go away on their
own Without trying to block them out.” Alter completing the fifth and tenth attempts,
participants were told, “Remember, accept any thoughts you might be having.”

Relax group. Participants in this group were told, “Now, you can just release your
attempt at trying to relax. Le any relaxation happen on its own while you do nothing but
perform as best you can.” After completing the fifth and tenth attempts, participants will
be told, “Remember, let any relaxation just happen”

Control gr_ogp. Participants in this group were not provided any additional
instructions during posttest 2, other than being provided with the mental load
manipulation described above.

Except for modifying the experimental manipulations described above, the posttest l

and posttest 2 tasks were identical. Posttest 2 also consisted of 15 attempts. To the

32

participant, posttest 2 appeared to be just another series of attempts. However, in
contrast to posttest 1, all participants in posttest 2 performed under the mental load
manipulation Participants not performing under mental load during posttest I began
counting backward from 1,000, while participants performing under mental load during
posttest 1 continued comrting backward from the number they reached during posttest 1.
Immediately following posttest 2, all participants were asked to report the current
number in their countdown to determine if directions were followed All participants
reported numbers suggesting that directions were followed

At this point, all participants were administered a self-report postexperimental
questionnaire (see Appendix E) and then fully debriefed (see Appendix F). Specifically,
the post—experimental questionnaire assessed the effect of the manipulations on

participants’ performance.

33

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

The results are presented in two sections The first section reports descriptive and
inferential statistics for the shooting accuracy scores. The second section reports
descriptive and inferential statistics for self—report measures on the post-experimental
questionnaire. A significance level of p 5 .05 was used for analyses in this study.
W

Shooting accuracy was measured by the distance (cm) away from the target that the
cue ball stopped after each attempt. Table 1 contains means and standard deviations of
shooting accuracy by group. The small number of female participants precluded any
statistical comparisons between gender.

Table 1 means suggest that the control groups’ performance improved from pretest to
posttest l, but declined fiom posttest 1 to posttest 2. Performance of those participants in
the relax group declined from pretest to posttest l, with no change in performance fiom
posttest 1 to posttest 2. Performance of those participants in the choke group improved
from pretest to posttest l and from posttest l to posttest 2. Irrespective of group
assignment, performance of those participants experiencing load at both posttest 1 and
posttest 2 improved from posttest l to posttest 2, while performance of participants in the
relax and control groups who only experienced load at posttest 2 declined from posttest 1

to posttest 2.

34

Table 1

Mean Dim fi'om the Tarth (cm) by Grggn

 

 

 

 

Shooting Accuracy (em)

Group Pre-test Post-test 1 Post-test 2

- n M (an) In (...281) .. _M. ram -
Control 16 39.21 (12.10) 31.37 (11.28) 36.94 (9.71)
Control - Load 16 44.53 (18.52) 41.63 (10.96) 40.04 (12.34)
Total 32 41.87 (15.62) 36.50 412.12) 38.49 (11.03)
Relax 16 35.34 (7.81) 36.66 (11.81) 38.22 (9.94)
Relax - Load 16 37.96 ( l 1.33) 41.57 (11.48) 39.96 (10.23)
Total 32 36.65 (9.66) 39.1 1 (1 1.73) 39.09 (9.96)
Choke 16 37.21 (10.63) 37.19 (10.87) 36.57 (11.80)
Choke — Load 16 41.46 (12.02) 40.05 (9.42) 34.33 (11.52)
Total 32 39.33 (11.37) 38.62 (10.11) 35.45 (11.53)

 

 

 

 

To explore Hypotheses 1 through 4, shooting scores were submitted to a 3 (“don’t
choke” group, “relax” group, control group) x 2 (load, no load) x 2 (pretest, posttest 1)
repeated measures ANOVA (see Appendix G for all ANOVA tables). There was no
significant group x load x trial block interaction, E (2,90) = .62, p > .05, and no
significant load x trial block interaction, E (2,90) = .70, p > .05. There was a significant
group x trial block interaction, E (2,90) = 3.81, p _<_ .05 (see Figure 2). Follow-up paired
samples t-tests showed that the control group significantly improved in shooting accuracy
frompretesttoposttest 1,;(31)=2.13,ps.05,§S_= .38. Incontrast, ascanbe seen
from Figure 2, the performance of the “don’t choke” and the “relax” groups was quite
different. Shooting acetnacy did not significantly change from pretest to posttest 1 for
the “don’t choke” group, 1 (31) = .41, p > .05, ES = .07, or for the “relax” group, t (31) =
-1.49, p > .05, ES = .26. The pattern of means followed the ironic process theory

prediction (Hypotheses 1 and 2), as efforts at mental control with respect to “choking”

35

and “relaxing” proved detrimental to normal performance improvement when compared
to the control group (i.e., there was no improvement in performance).

Tests of between-subjects effects indicated that neither the treatment main effect, E
(2, 90) = .15, p > .05, nor the interaction between treatment and load, If (2, 90) = .43, p >
.05, were significant. However, there were significant between-group difl'erences on
mental load, 1;“ (1, 90) = .5.75, p _<_ .05. Specifically, irrespective of group, participants
experiencing mental load performed significantly worse than participants not
experiencing load mental load Although these findings suggest that load impacts
performance, load failed to contribute to between group differences on shooting scores as

predicted by ironic process theory. Thus, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were not supported

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5, 44
g 42~
E 404 ' cm"

38~ ~~O~~Relax
E 36— ~~*-~av:.
2 34‘
g 32

Protest Posttest1 Posttestz
TrialBlock

Figu__re 2, Mean distance from the target (cm) across trial blocks as a function of group.
To explore the effects of the intervention strategy of releasing mental control
(Hypotheses 5 and 6), shooting scores were submitted to a 3 (“don’t choke” group,

“relax” group, control group) x 2 (load, no load) x 2 (posttest l, posttest 2) repeated

36

measures ANOVA There was no significant group x load x trial block interaction, E
(2,90) = .37, p > .05, and no significant group x trial block interaction, E (2,90) = 2.51, p
> .05. These findings failed to support Hypotheses 5 and 6 that releasing mental control
would lead to improved performance. However, there was a significant load x trial block
interaction, E (2,90) = 7.39, p 5 .05. Follow-up paired samples t-tests showed that those
participants who had received load at posttest 1 and continued to receive load at posttest
2 significantly improved in shooting accuracy from posttest 1 to posttest 2, t (47) = 2.34,
p _<_ .05, 1_3_$_ = .34. In contrast, those participants experiencing load at posttest 2 forthe
first time did not significantly change in shooting accuracy from posttest 1 to posttest 2, t
(47) = -1.52, p > .05, E._S_ = .22. Thus, mental load failed to contribute to significant
differences between groups, and appeared to have a learning effect from posttest 1 to
posttest 2.

Given that there was a learning effect with respect to mental load, separate analyses
were performed with only those participants in the no load condition to examine the
effects of the mental control manipulation Shooting scores were submitted to a 3
(“don’t choke” group, “relax” group, control group) x 2 (pretest, posttest 1) repeated
measures ANOVA, which produced a significant group x trial block interaction, E (2, 45)
= 3.25, p _<_ .05. Follow-up paired-samples t-tests exploring this interaction indicated that
the no load control group significantly improved in shooting accuracy from pretest to
posttest 1, _t_ (15) = 2.53, p 5 .05, _E_S_ = 2.52. In contrast, as can be seen fiom Figure 3,
shooting accuracy did not significantly change from pretest to posttest 1 for the no load
“don’t choke” group, 1(15) = .01 , p > .05, _E_S = .00, or for the no load “relax” group, 1

(15) = - .53, p > .05, E_S_ = .13. These findings lend additional support to Hypotheses 1

37

and 2 that mental control with respect “trying not to choke” and “trying to relax”
negatively effects performance.

Separate analyses were performed with only those participants in the no load
condition to also examine the effects of the mental release manipulation. Shooting
scores were submitted to a 3 (“don’t choke” group, “relax” group, control group) x 2
(posttest 1, posttest 2) repeated measures ANOVA. There was no significant group x
trial block interaction, E (2, 45) = 1.66, p > .05. Thus, the overall findings for the no load

conditions were consistent with the combined load and no load conditions regarding

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U
N

 

 

on
O
r

 

shootingaccuracy.
13‘ 42
g, 40
a
"" 33 —-I-—Coutrol
E as ......m
g 34 +1)th
i
2

Protest Posttestl PosttestZ
Trial Block

figure; Mean distance from the target (cm) across trial blocks as a fimction of group
(no load).
Post-Em’mental mestionnaire

The post-experimental questionnaire was administered to each participant following
completion of the study. In order to assess perceived skill level, participants were asked
to report on a 7-point Likert scale their playing ability level for billiards. The scale

ranged from 1 - “beginning,” to 7 - “advanced,” with 4 - “intermediate” as the mean.

38

There were no significant difl‘erences between the “don’t choke” group (M = 3.88, §I_)_ =
.91), the “relax” group (M = 3.97, E = 1.06) and the control group (M = 4.28, _S__I_)_ = .89)
with respect to perceived skill level, E (2, 93) = 1.59, p > .05.

As a manipulation check, participants in the “don’t choke” group were asked to report
how hard they tried not to choke during posttest 1, while participants in the “relax” group
were asked to report how hard they tried to relax during posttest 1. A 7—point Likert scale
was provided, ranging flour 1 - “not at all,” to 7 - “as hard as I could” The “don’t
choke” group (M = 4.38, _S_12 = 1.56) reported significantly trying harder not to choke
than the control group (M = 2.34, _S_I_)_ = 1.56), t (62) - 2.03, p < .05. And, the “relax”
group (M = 4.38, S]; = 1.39) reported significantly trying harder to relax than the control
group (M = 3.03, __S_I_)_ = 1.60), t (62) - 1.34, p < .05. '

Next, the perceived effects of the manipulations on participants’ performance by
group were assessed Participants in the “don’t choke” group were asked to report what
effect the instruction “not to choke” had on their performance for posttest 1, and what
effect the instruction “to just let go of trying not to choke” had on their performance for
posttest 2. A 5-point Likert scale was provided for both questions, ranging fiom 1 - “very
harmful,” to 5 - ‘Very helpful,” with 3 - “no effect” as the mean. The mean for the
mental control instruction was below the scale’s mid-range (M = 2.59, ,S_1_)_ == .84), while
the mean for the mental release instruction was above the scale’s mid—range (M = 3.56,
Q = .62). One-sample chi-square tests were conducted to test the significance of the
perceived effects of the mental control instructions “try not to choke” and “to just let go
of trying not to choke”. Results for both mental control, 12 (4, 13 = 32) = 28.63, p < .05,

and mental release, 12 (2, fl = 32) = 10.75, p < .05, instructions were significant.

39

Overall, with respect to the mental control instruction, 1 participant reported a “very
lmrmful” effect, 16 participants reported a “harmful” effect, 11 reported “no effect”, 3
reported a “helpful” effect, and 1 reported a “very helpful” effect With respect to the
mental release instruction, 16 participants reported “no effect”, 14 participants reported a
“helpful” effect, and 2 reported a “Very helpful” effect These frequencies demonstrate
that more participants experienced the mental control instructions as harmful, rather than
helpful. In contrast, while half of the participants experienced the mental release
instructions as having no effect, the other half of participants reported that the
instructions were helpful or very helpful.

Participants in the “relax” group were asked to report what effect the instruction “to
relax” had on their performance for posttest 1, and what effect the instruction “to just let
go of trying to relax” had on their performance for posttest 2. A 5-point Likert scale was
provided for both questions, ranging from 1 - “very harmful,” to 5 - “very helpful,” with
3 - “no effect” as the mean The mean for the mental control instruction was just above
the scale’s midorange M = 3.09, SD = .73), while the mean for the mental release
instruction was farther above the scale’s mid-range (M = 3.41, _S__I; = .67). One-sample
chi-square tests were conducted to test the significance of the perceived effects of the
mental control instructions “to relax” and “to just let go of trying not to relax”. While
results for the mental control instructions were not significant, x2 (2, E = 32) = 3.06, p >
.05, results for the mental release instructions were significant, )8 (3, El = 32) = 21.75, p
< .05. Overall, with respect to the mental control instruction, 7 participants reported a
“harmful” effect, 15 participants reported “no effect”, and 10 reported a “helpful” effect.

With respect to the mental release instruction, 2 participants reported a “harmful effect”,

40

16 participants reported “no effect”, 13 reported a “helpfill” effect, and 1 reported a
“very help ” effect. These frequencies demonstrate that most participants experienced
themermlcontrolinstructionsashavingnoefl'ect. Incontrast,whilemostofthe
participants experienced the mental release instructions as having no effect, more
pmticipantsreponedthattheinstrucfionswerehelpfiflraflrerthanharmfill.

Participants in the “relax” group were asked to report on a 7-point Likert scale their
level ofactivationdruingbothposttest 1 andposttest2. Thescalerangedfi'om 1 -“too
relaxed,” to 7 « “too tense,” with 4 - “just right” as the mean. The mean response for
posttest 1 was above the scale’s mid-range (M = 4.53, 512 = .88), while the mean
response for posttest 2 was closer to the scale’s mid-range (M = 4.19, 512 = 1.45). One-
samfle chi-square tests were conducted to test whether the number of participants in the
“relax” group were likely to be equal across the activation levels at posttest l and posttest
2. Results forbothposttest l, x2 (3,y_==32)= 12.25,p>.05,andposttest2, x’ (2,_N;=
32) = 3.06, p > .05, were significant. With respect to posttest 1, 5 participants reported
an activation level of “3”, 8 participants reported an activation level of “4 - just right”, 16
reported an activation level of “5”, and 3 participants reported and activation level of
“6”. With respect to posttest 2, 2 participants reported an activation level of “l - too
relaxed”, 3 participants reported an activation level of “2”, 3 reported an activation level
of “3”, 8 reported an activation level of “4 — just right”, 12 reported an activation level of
“5”, 3 reported an activation level of “6”, and 1 participant reported an activation level of
“7 - too tense.” These frequencies demonstrate that most participants perceived

themselves more tense than relaxed during posttest l, and, at posttest 2, participants were

41

more likely to report activation levels of “4 - just right” or “5”, which is in the direction
of “too tense.”

Participants in the “don’t choke” group were also asked to report on the same 7-point
Likert scale as the “relax” group their level of activation during both posttest l and
posttest 2. The response for posttest 1 was slightly above the scale’s mid-range M =
4.50, i]; = 1.48), indicating an activation level of “tense.” In contrast, the response for
posttest 2 was closer to the scale’s mid-range M = 4.03, §_I_)_ = .86), indicating an
activation level of “just right” The mean response for participants in the control group
when asked to indicate their activation level for the overall experiment was above the
scale’s mid-range M = 4.44, $12 = .67). One-sample chi-square tests were conducted to
test whether the number of participants in the “don’t choke” group were likely to be
equal across the activation levels at posttest 1 and posttest 2. Results for both posttest l,
x’ (6, 131, = 32) = 15.25, p > .05, and posttest 2, x2 (4,11 = 32) = 21.13, p > .05, were
significant With respect to posttest 1, 2 participants reported an activation level of “1 -
too relax ”, 1 reported an activation level of “2”, 4 reported an activation level of “3”, 7
participants reported an activation level of “4 - just right”, 9 reported an activation level
of “5”, 8 reported and activation level of “6”, and l participant reported and activation
level of “7 —- too tense.” With respect to posttest 2, 1 participant reported an activation
level of “2”, 7 reported an activation level of “3”, 15 reported an activation level of “4 -
just right”, 8 reported an activation level of “5”, and 1 participant reported an activation
level of “6.” These frequencies demonstrate that most participants perceived themselves
more tense than relaxed during posttest l, and, at posttest 2, participants were more likely

to report activation levels of “4 - just right.”

42

With respect to the mental load manipulation, participants in each group were asked
to report what effect cormting backwards had on their performance. A 5-point Likert
scale was provided, ranging from 1 - “very harmful,” to 5 - “very helpful,” with 3 - “no
efl‘ect” as the mean The mean for the control group M = 2.78, _S_Q = 1.07), the “relax”
group M = 2.63, S2 = .91), and “don’t choke” group M = 2.72, SQ = 1.05) were
slightly below the scale’s mid-range suggesting a slightly “harmful” effect A one-way
ANOVA was performed on these means, failing to produce a significant group effect, E

(2, 93)== .20, 13> .05.

43

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION

The purpose of this dissertation was to explore Wegner’s (1994a) theory of ironic
processes of mental control with respect to “choking” and “relaxing” in a sport context
Three mainquestions were addressed: (1) With respect to “tryingnottochoke” and/or
“trying to relax” during motor skill performance, can mental control backfire and
interfere with performance? (2) Does the presence of mental load increase the extent to
which these ironic processes interfere with performance? (3) Can releasing mental
connolpreventorinterrupttheseironicprocessesfi’omtranspiring?

M ontrol Sh tin Acc

Analysis of shooting accuracy from pretest to posttest 1 showed that the control group
experienced a significant improvement in performance, while the shooting accuracy for
both the “don’t choke” and the “relax” groups remained constant Although the mental
control instructions did not decrease performance, these findings are supportive of ironic
process theory. Specifically, the “don’t choke” group and the “relax” group each failed
to demonstrate the normal performance improvement with repeated practice that was
experienced by the control group.

Self-report measures provided additional support for the ironic process theory. When
asked to report on the post-experimental questionnaire what effect the instructions “not
to choke” had on their performance, the mean response of the “don’t choke” group was
below the scale’s mid-range indicating that participants in this group perceived the
instructions as having a “harmfill” effect. Moreover, several of the open—ended responses

to this question were also revealing. For example, one participant from this group wrote,

“I thought about choking instead ofthe shot,” and another participant observed, “The
word (choke) occasionally popped into my head”

Homer, self-report measures for the “relax” group were mixed When asked to
report on the post-experimental questionnaire what effect the instruction to “relax” had
on their performance, the mean response of the “relax” group was just above the scale’s
mid-range indicating that the participants in this group perceived the instructions as
having “no effect.” Open-ended responses to this question were likewise mixed in terms
of the effectiveness of this instruction. For example, one participant stated, “I seemed to
think about the next shot better and I took a deep breath before it,” while another
participant wrote, “Trying to relax and count messed up my overall concentration.”

When asked to indicate on the post-experimental questionnaire what their level of
activation was dining the second set of attempts, the mean response of the “relax” group
was above the scale’s mid-range, indicating that they were more “tense” than “relaxed”
It is interesting to note that the “don’t choke” group reported a similar mean response to
this question This suggests that tension may have been a contributing factor to a lack of
improved performance fi'om pretest to posttest l for both groups.

It is therefore unlikely that the failure of the “relax” group to immove their shooting
accuracyfrompretesttoposttest 1, incontrasttothecontrol group, canbeattributedto
becoming “too relax ” as a result of their instruction to “try their best to relax” (see
Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). In fact, based on the self-report measures, participants in this
group reported an activation level higher than would be desired, following the ironic

process prediction.

45

One limitation of the present study is that the ironic effect of mental control was only
assessed via shooting accuracy and self-report measures of activation level and perceived
effectiveness of the manipulation Using a psychophysiological measure, such as skin
conductance level (SCL), may have provided specific information about changes across
trial blocks with respect to mental control. For example, Wegner et al. (1996) found
ironic increases in SCL for participants trying to relax under load Also, measrn‘ing grip
pressure to detect changes in muscle tension might be useful in future investigations. In
addition, with respect to the experimental design, the present study did not assess
variable error with respect to ball destination As such, it is uncertain whether mental
control instructions differentially impacted whether the ball ended long or short of the
target or strayed fi'om the midline. Understanding whether athletes will over- or under-
shoot the target could provide additional awareness about how ironic processes impact
athletic performance.

On a practical note, it would be informative to examine athletes with different levels
of expertise to compare their susceptibility to ironic processes, as well as strategies used
to overcome unwanted thoughts (cg, “choking”) or successfully induce the relaxation
response while performing. However, as experts have developed greater automaticity in
their execution (Proctor & Dutta, 1995), it would follow that these performers would
have more attentional resources to allocate to stress or load without compromising the
operating process and unleashing the ironic monitoring process, compared to their novice

or intermediate counterparts.

WW

Analysis of shooting accuracy showed that the mental load manipulation had a
significant negative impact on performance. However, mental load did not moderate the
relationship between mental control instructions and shooting accuracy, in contrast to the
ironic process theory. It is important to note that ironic effects have also been observed
without mental load (cg, Wegner et al., 1987).

Although the mental load manipulation failed to significantly contribute to the
production of ironic effects in the present dissertation, the experiment itself cannot be
consideredtobewithoutanystressorload Thetestingwasevaluative innatureand
either the class instructor or teaching assistant served as the experimenter. Thus, the
instructions to “try not to choke” or “try to relax” were not out of character for this type
of situation. Additionally, selfnreport by participants in the combined load and no load
control group indicated that for the experiment their mean level of activation was above
the scale’s mid-range in the “tense” rather than the “relax” direction. It is possible that
there was sufficient load to produce the pattern of means from pretest to posttest 1
following the ironic process prediction, without requiring the mental load manipulation

It is also important to consider the type of load employed in the present study.
Although the findings suggest that counting backwards had a marginally detrimental
effect on performance, some participants reported that it had either no effect or was in
fact beneficial to their performance. For example, one participant wrote that counting
backwards was helpful because, “It took my mind off everything else.” Perhaps some
participants released their mental control of “trying not to choke” or “trying to relax” and

concerned themselves more with keeping track of counting However, it is unknown

47

whether a more Sport specific type of load (e.g., anxiety, fatigue, time constraints) would

have strengthened the pattern of ironic effects observed in the present study (see Janelle,

1999).
Mental Relfig and §mgtjng Accuracy

Wegner et al. (1987) found that individuals provided with a specific distracter thought
for use during attempted suppression of an unwanted target thought were less likely to
have a rebound or later preoccupation with the target thought However, he later
cautioned against the habitual use of self-distraction to ward off thinking about that
which is unwanted because it can be self-limiting, instead Wegner suggested to “stop
stopping” or release mental control and confront that which is unwanted (Wegner, 1989).
The third question in this dissertation addressed whether releasing mental control with
respect to “trying not to choke” or “trying to relax” can interrupt ironic processes and
facilitate performance.

Although results failed to show that the mental release intervention did not
significantly improve performance, some individual participant self-reports indicated that
the intervention was helpful. For example, one participant in the “don’t choke” group
who had reported that during posttest l “The word (choke) kept popping up in my head”
stated for posttest 2 that “The word (choke) stopped popping up in my head” Other
participants ill the “don’t choke” group reported that this instruction reduced “pressure.”
One participant in the “relax” group stated for posttest 2 that “[1] didn’t have to think
about relaxing, [I] just let it come naturally.” In addition, the overall mean response of

the “don’t choke” group and the “relax” group regarding the effect of the mental release

48

instructions were above the scale’s midrange, suggesting that the intervention was
perceived favorably.

It is also important to note that neither the “don’t choke” group nor the “relax” group
experienced a postsuppression rebound or preoccupation with the unwanted target
following mental release as would have been indicated by a decline in shooting accuracy
from posttest l to posttest 2. Thus, stopping thought suppression once initiated was not
found detrimental to subsequent performance.

The concept of mental release as presented in this dissertation is similar to Hall et
al.’s (1999) suggestion that it might be helpful for athletes to interrupt ironic processes by
learning to accept negative thoughts when they occur. The authors noted that this does
not imply dwelling on negative thoughts. This approach was compared to what. Rotella.
(1995) had stated about understanding that golf is not a me of “perfect” and that it is
importantto leamto acceptmistakes soasto proceedwithplay. Itisalso noteworthyto
mention that for thousands of years practitioners of Eastern philosophy have earned to rid
themselves of unwanted thoughts during meditation by letting them go rather than trying
to push them away (see Kabat-Zinn, 1994).

In contrast, sport psychology practitioners have traditionally utilized techniques such
as thought stoppage to help athletes eliminate negative or distracting thoughts (Zinsser et
al., 1998). Wegner (1989) argues against this approach, referring to studies that
demonstrate its failure in therapeutic contexts (e. g., Reed, 1985). However, comparing
the efficacy of mental release and techniques such as thought stoppage in a Sport context

requires further investigation.

49

Quadrant!

The present study revealed that instructiom “not to choke” and “to relax” had
ironically proved detrimental to shooting accuracy. Thus, additional support for ironic
process theory was found However, although mental load was detrimental to
performance, it failed to moderate the effects of mental control instructions. It is
possible that a more sport specific type of mental load may have produced different
results. In addition, although results did not support the efficacy of releasing mental
control, individual participant responses suggest that mental release may have some
promise as an effective intervention strategy against ironic processes. Perhaps, in this
study the mental release instructions may have proved more beneficial if, as part of the
experimental design, participants had received some training regarding the nature of
ironic processes and how the intervention was intended to combm them.

In sport, although mental control usually contributes to the athlete’s desired efl‘ect,
there are times when it leads to the very errors, fumbles, or miscues that the athlete
sought most to avoid Armed with a greater understanding of ironic processes, sport
psychologists will eventually be able to help athletes reduce their good intentions from
going bad.

W

Hall et al. (1999) argued that ironic effects “occur relatively infiequently, especially in
elite athletes” (p. 221). Future research on this topic should consider the extent to which
ironic effects occur in sport, and whether differences exist between elite and non-elite
athletes. It is also important to ascertain the impact of different types of sport specific

load on ironic processes. In the present study, a non-sport specific load (i.e., counting

$0

backwards) was not found to moderate ironic effects. Moreover, as stated above, future

research should explore and compare alternative intervention strategies intended to offset

the adverse efl'ects of ironic effects on sport performance.

51

APPENDICES

52

W

University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects Approval

53

MICHIGAN STATE
u N I v E R SIT Y

 

April 17, 2000

TO: Deborah L. FELTZ
138 IM Sports Circle
Dept. of Kinesiology
MSU

RE: IRB# 00-210 CATEGORYZ1-A, 1-C
APPROVAL DATE: April 17, 2000

TITLE: GOOD INTENTIONS GONE BAD: EXPLORING IRONIC EFFECTS IN SPORT

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects‘ (UCRIHS) review of this
project is complete and i am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human
subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore, the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval
date shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green
renewal form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to
continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVlSlONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects, prior
to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal. please use the green renewal
form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written
request to the UCRIHS Chair, requesting revised approval and referencing the project's lRB#
and title. include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments,
consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMS/CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work,
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating

greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and
approved.

 

office 0': if we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517 355-2180 or via email:

RESEAB UCRIHS@pilot.msu.edu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
”(is http://www.msu.edulunltlvprgslUCRlHSl

GRADUATE Sheerely.
STUDI'

rily Committee an
Instant Involving
Human Subjects

lillan State University
minislialion Building
st Lansing. Michlgm
48824-1046 cc: James Afremow
517/355.2180 Room 39 IM SPORTS CIRCLE

we 517/353-2976 . MSU
msu.eduluser/uuihs
ail: ucxihs©msu.edu

 

man we 54
saw/0W

W
Table Diagram

55

 

 

 

 

Side Rail _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

56

APPEQM C

Consent Form

57

W
Consent Form
Dear Participant,

I would like to request your participation in this research study I am conducting through
the Departtnent of Kinesiology at Michigan State University. Specifically, this project
will help me fulfill part of the requirements for my Doctoral Degree. Your participation
in this study may contribute to our knowledge about how psychological processes affect
athletic performance, and, as such, your cooperation is valuable and appreciated. This
project aims to investigate the influence of instructions on the accuracy of shooting a cue
ball across several trials of practice. In addition, you will be asked to complete a brief
questionnaire regarding your performance. Total participation time for the study will be
approximately 30 minutes.

Your participation is voluntary. Whether you choose to participate in this study will not
affect your class grade. At any time, you may discontinue your participation or not
answer specific items on the questionnaire without penalty. Ifyou have any questions
you can ask the experimenter at any time. Participation involves minimal psychological
risk, and no benefits are guaranteed Data obtained during the experiment will be treated
with strict confidence and you will remain anonymous in any report of the results. On
your request, the results can be forwarded to you upon project completion

If you have any questions about this project, you can contact:

James Afremow, MS., MA, LLPC Deborah Feltz, PhD.

Doctoral Candidate Professor and Department Chair
Department of Kinesiology Department of Kinesiology
Michigan State University Michigan State University
(517) 432-7121 or e-mail: Wmmedu

Ifyou have any concerns about how this research was conducted, you can call:
Dr. David Wright at (517) 355-2180

 

Ifyou understand the nature of the project and the nature of your participation and
consent to participate in this project, please print and sign your name below.

Name (Print): Signature:

 

 

Date:

 

58

W

Performance Recording Sheet

59

APPENDIX D:

 

 

Performance Recording Sheet
Group:
Participant Name: Date:
Experimenter: JA / MK
Term: SP / SU

PRETEST POS'I'I‘EST l . POSTTEST 2

1) __ 1) _.______ 1) ___._____

2) ______. 2) ...._____ 2) ____._

3) __ 3) _______ 3) ..____._.

4) _________ 4) __ 4) __

5) ..______ 5) ________. 5) ...__.__.

6) ___..___ 6) __._.._. 6) ____.....

7) ________ 7) __________ 7) ...__._.

8) ________. 8) _______ 8) __.__..__

9) __.____ 9) __.____._ 9) ___.___._
10) _________ 10) ______ 10) ________
11) __ 11) _________ 11) __
12) ___________ 12) w 12) ______
13) __ 13) __ 13) ___.
14) _______ i4) ___________ l4) ___________
15) ________ 15) __________ 15) _________

60

APPENDIX E

Post-Experimental Questionnaire

61

W

 

 

Post-experimental Questionnaire
“Don’t choke” Group
Name:
Age (DOB):
Gender. M / F

Directions: Each question below refers to your performance. Please circle the number
for the most appropriate response. Do not mark between the numbers.

1. How would you rate your playing ability level for billiards?

l 2 3 4 5 6 7

Beginning Intermediate Advanced

2. What effect did gagging backwards have on yom' performance?
1 2 3 4 5

Very harmful Harmful No effect Helpful Very helpful

Please explain:

3. How hard did you try not Q choke during your second set of attempts?
I 2 3 4 5 6 7

Not at all As hard as I could

62

4. What was your level of m'ygtion during your second set of attempts?
I 2 3 4 ‘5 6 7

Too relaxed Just right 'I‘oo tense

5. What effect did the instructions not to choke have on your performance?
1 2 3 4 5
Very harmful Harmful No effect Helpful Very helpful

Please explain:

6. What effect did the instructions to let go of trying not to choke and accept any
thoughts about choking have on your performance? ‘

l 2 3 4 5
Very harmful Harmful No effect Helpful Very helpful

Please explain:

7. What was your level of actixation during your third set of attempts?
I 2 3 4 5 6 7

Too relaxed Just right Too tense

63

APPE_NDD( E:
Post-experimental Questionnaire

“Relax” Group

Name:
Age (DOB):
Gender. M / F

 

 

Directions: Each question below refers to your performance. Please circle the number
for the most appropriate response. Do not mark between the numbers.

1. How would you rate your playing ability level for billiards?

l 2 3 4 5 6 7

Beginning Intermediate Advanced

2. What effect did counting backwards have on yom' performance?

1 2 3 4 5

Very harmful Harmful No effect Helpful Very helpful

Please explain:

3. How hard did you try to relax during your second set of attempts?
l 2 3 4 5 6 7

Not at all As hard as I could

4. What was your level of activation during your second set of attempts?
l 2 3 4 5 6 7

Too relaxed Just right Too tense

5. What effect did the instructions to rely; have on your performance?
1 2 3 4 5

Very harmful Harmful No effect Helpful Very helpful

Please explain:

6. What effect did the instructions to let go Qf gang to max and just let it happen on its
own have on your performance?
1 2 3 4 5
Very harmful Harmful No effect Helpful Very helpful

Please explain:

7. What was your level of activation during your third set of attempts?
I 2 3 4 5 6 7

Too relaxed Just right Too tense

65

APPENDIX E:

 

 

Post-experimental Questionnaire
C Group
Name:
Age (DOB):
Gender. M / F

Directions: Each question below refers to your performance. Please circle the number
jbr the most appropriate response. Do not mark between the numbers.

1. How would you rate your playing ability level for billiards?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Beginning Intermediate Advanced

2. What effect did counting backwards have on your performance?
1 2 3 4 5

Very harmful Harmful No effect Helpful Very helpful

Please explain:

3. How hard did you try not to chgke?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Not at all As hard as I could

4. How hard did you try to relax?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Not at all As hard as I could

5. What was your level of actuation?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Too relaxed Just right Too terms

67

PENDD( F

Debriefing Script

68

APPENDD( F:
Debriefing Script

There are times when athletes try not to think, feel, or behave in a specific manner.
For example, an athlete may be experiencing a distracting thought, negative emotion, or
have a desire not to make a particular error in performance. These efforts at mental
control are usually helpful. However, there are times when these intentions backfire and
the unwanted thought, feeling, or behavior is manifested The ptn‘pose of this study is to
explore these effects under different conditions. Your participation will help provide a
better understanding of when efforts at mental control are beneficial and when they
might be avoided. Please direct any specific questions regarding your participation to the

experimenter. Thank you again for your participation.

69

APPENDIX Q

ANOVA Summary Tables

70

APPENDIX G:

ANOVA Summary Tables

TABLE 1

Analygis of Vm’ cc of smting Scores from Pre-test to PM 1

 

 

Source SS _d_f MS E
Between subjects

Group 62. 82 2 31.41 .15
Load 1217.40 1 1217.40 5.75"
Group X Load 182.60 2 91.30 .43
Error 9065.15 90 211.84

Within subjects
Trial Block 70.08 1 70.08 1.08
Group X Trial Block 496.48 2 248.24 3.81 "'
Load X Trial Block 45.37 1 45.37 .70
Group X Load X Trial Block 81.03 2 40.52 .62
Error 5864.14 90 65.16

 

*p<.05.

71

TABLE 2

we of Variance gf Shoogg’ Scorgg from Posttest 1 to PM 2

 

 

Source SS d_f MS E
Between subjects
Group 150.52 2 75.26 .38
Load 567.19 1 567.19 2.86
Group X Load 325.43 2 162.71 .82
Error 17847.08 90 198.30
Within subjects

Trial Block 7.79 l 7. 79 .18
Group X Trial Block 215.95 2 107.97 2.51
Load X Trial Block 317.24 1 317.24 7 .39
Group X Load X Trial Block 31.95 2 15.97 .37
Error 3865.93 90 42.96

 

*g<.05.

TABLE 3

A_ngy§is of Variance of Shooting Scores from Pre-test t9 Posttest 1 (No Long)

 

 

 

Source SS gr MS 13
Between subjects

Group 185.86 2 92.93 .37
Error 1 1 195.03 45 248.80

Within subjects
Trial Block 1.34 1 1.30 .02
Group X Trial Block 185.82 2 92.91 1.33
Error 3153.32 45 70.07
TABLE 4

wigs of Variance of Shooting Scores from Posttest 1 to Posttest 2 (_N_Q Load)

 

 

Source SS _d_f MS 13
Between subjects
Group 197.62 2 98.81 .52
Error 8622.32 45 191.61
Within subjects

Trial Block 112.81 1 112.81 2.38
Group X Trial Block 157.60 2 78.80 1.66
Error 2135.45 45 47.45

 

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl
& J. Beckmann (Eds), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-40). Berlin:
Springer-Vedag

Ansfield, ME, Wegner, DM., & Bowser, R (1996). Ironic effects of sleep urgency.
Behavigjg Research and Them, 34, 523-531.

Bandura, A (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Barr, K., & Hall, C. (1992). The use of imagery by rowers. International Journal 9f
Spgrt Psychology, 23, 243-261.

Baumeister, RF. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical
effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 46, 610-620.
Begel, D. (2000). The psychopathology of everyday athletic life. In D. Begel & R.

Burton (Eds), Spgrt psychim: Theory and m'ce (pp. 82-92). W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc, New York.

Beilock, S.L., Afremow, 1A., Rabe, A.L., & Carr, TH (2000). “Don’t miss!” The
debilitating effects of suppressive imagery on golf putting peformance. Manuscript
submitted for publication.

Booth, w. (1987, August 21). Arthritis Institute tackles sports. Science 237 846-847.

 

Borkovec, T.D., Wilkinson, L., Folensbee, R., & Lerman, C. (1983). Stimulus control

applications to the treatment of worry. Behaviour Mb and Theram, 21, 247-251.

74

Braffman, W., Kirsch, L, Milling, L.S., & Burgess, C. (1997). Expectancy, ironic
processes, and the Chevreul pendulum illusion. Internatignal J cm of Clinig M

E ' H is 45 474-474.
Cioffi, D. (1993). Sensate body, directive mind: Physical sensations and mental

control. In D.M. Wegner & J .W. Pennebaker (Eds), Handbook of mental control (pp.
410-442). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ciofli, D., & Holloway, J. (1993). Delayed costs of suppressed pain. Jo_um_a_l of
Personalig and Socigl PsycholggLfi, 274-282.

Driskell, J.E., Copper, C. & Moran, A. ( 1994). Does Mental Practice Enhance
Performance? Journal 9f Applied Psychglogy, Vol. 79, No. 4, 481-492.

Easterbrook, J .A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the
organization of behavior. Bsycholggcal Review; 66. 183-201.

Feltz, D.L., & Landers, D.M (1983). The effects of mental practice on motor skill
learning and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Smrt Puchology, 5, 25-57.

Gould, D. & Krane, V. (1992). The arousal-athletic performance relationship: Current
status and future directions. In T. Horn (Ed. ), Advances in smrt psychglogy (pp. 119-
141). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hall, C.R., Hardy, J., & Gammage, KL. (1999). About hitting golf balls in the water.
Comments on Janelle’s (1999) article on ironic processes. The Smrt chholggigt, 13,
221-224.

Hall, C.R., Rodgers, W.M., & Barr, KA. (1990). The use of imagery by athletes in

selected sports. The Sport Psychologist. 4, 1-10.

75

Hanin, Y.L. (1980). A study of anxiety in sports. In W.F. Straub W
psychology: An analygis of athlete behavior (pp. 236-249). Ithaca, NY: Movement.

Hardy, L. (1990). A catastrophe model ofperformance in sport. In J.G. Jones & L.
Hardy (Eds), Stress and performance in sport (pp. 81-106). Chichester, UK: John Wiley
& Sons.

Hardy, L., & Fazey, J. (1987, June). The inverted-U hypothesis: A catastrophe for
sport psychology. Paper presented at the meeting of the North American Society for the
Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Vancouver, BC.

Heide, F.J. & Borkovec, TD. (1983). Relaxation-induced anxiety: Paradoxical anxiety
enhancement due to relaxation training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
_5__l_, 171-182.

Heil, J. (Ed). Psychology of sport injury. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Huddleston, S., Doody, S.G., & Ruder, MK (1985). The effect of prior knowledge of
the social loafing phenomenon on performance in a group. Inte ti nal Jo of S
Pachology, 16, 176-182.

Hull, CL. (1943). Princi of behavior. New York: Appleton—Century.

Janelle, CM. (1999). Ironic mental processes in sport: Irnplications for sport
psychologists. The Smrt Psyghologig, 13, 201-220.

Janelle, C.M., Murray, N.P., de la Pena, D., & Bouchard, LJ. (1999).
Overcompensation as a result of faulty mental control processes. Manuscript submitted

for publication.

76

Janelle, C.M., Singer, RN. & Williams, AM (1999). External distraction and
attentional narrowing: Visual search evidence. 191mg of Smrt Q Exercise Psyghology,
_2_1, 70-91.

Jones, J .G. (1995). More than just a game: Research developments and issues in
competitive anxiety in sport British Jgurnal 9f fisycholggy, 86, 449-478.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are. New York: Hyperion.

Landers, D.M, & Boutcher, SH. (1998). Arousal-performance relationships. In J .M.
(Ed), Applied Sport Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak Performance (3rd ed, pp. 197.
218). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.

Leith, LM. (1988). Choking in sports: Are we our own worst enemies? W
J of rtP c l 19, 59-64.

Lewin K (1951). Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers New
York: Harper & Row

Lewis, B., & Linder, D. (1997). Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and
paradoxical performance. Pegging a_ng Socigl Psychogy Bujlgtgg' 23, 937-944.

Macrae C.N., Bodenhausen, G.V., Milne, AB, Wheeler, V. (1996). On resisting the
temptation for simplification: Counterintentional effects of stereotype suppression on
social memory. WA-ZO.

Martin L.L., Tesser A, & McIntosh W.D. (1993). Wanting but not having the effects
of unattained goals on thoughts and feelings. In Wegner & Pennebaker, 1993, pp. 552-
72.

Monteith M.J., Sherman, J .W., Devine, PG (1998). Suppression as a stereotype

control strategy. P nali and ocial ch01 R view 2:63—82.

77

Navon, D. (1994a). From pink elephants to psychosomatic disorders: Paradoxical

effects in cognition cholgpy: 5(36) Paradoxical Cognition (1).
, Navon, D. (1994b). Paradoxical effects and Occam’s razor. W: 5(41)

Paradoxical Cognition (3).

Orlick, T. (1990). In pursuit of excellence. Champaign, IL: Leisure Press.

Orlick, T., & Partington, J. (1988). Mental links to excellence. l’he_S_ppg
ngchologlgt,’ 2, 105-130.

Powell, GE. (1973). Negative and positive mental practice in motor skill acquisition.
Percpptual and Motor Skills, 37, 312.

Proctor, RW., & Dutta, A (1995). Skill acquisition and human performance.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Reed, GE (1985). Obsessional experience and compulsive behavior. Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.

Rotella, R. (1995). Golf is not a game of perfect New York: Simon and Schuster.

Salkovskis, P.M., Reynolds, M. (1994). Thought suppression and smoking cessation.
Ephav. Res. Ther. 32:193—201.

Shoham, V., & Rohrbaugh, M (1997). Interrupting ironic processes. tholpgjcal
Scienpe, 8 (_No. 3), 151-153.

Singer, RN. (1980). Motor learning and human performance (3":1 ed). New York:
Macmillan

Singer, RN., Cauraugh, J .I-L, Chen, D., Steinberg, G.M., & Frehlich, S.G. (1996).
Visual search, anticipation, and reactive comparisons between highly skilled and

beginning tennis players. Jou_rp§ of Applied Smrt Psychology, 8, 9-26.

78

Spence, J .T., & Spence, K.A (1966). The motivational components of manifest
anxiety: Drive and drive stimuli. In C.D. Spielberger (Ed), Anxiety and behavior. (pp.
291-326). New York: Academic.

Stroop, J .P. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of
Expprimental ngcholpgy, 18, 643-662.

Suinn, RM. (1980). Psychology and sports performance: Principles and applications.
In R.M. Suinn (Ed), P§ychology in Sp_orts: Methods and Sppligtions (pp. 26-36).
Burgess.

Taylor, J. (1999). Isn’t it Ironic? 0r irony is in the unconscious eye of the beholder.
111p Spprt nghologjgg, 13, 225-230.

Taylor, J ., & Taylor, S. (1997). Psychological approaches to sports injury
rehabilitation. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen

Taylor, J ., & Taylor, S. (1998). Pain education and management in the rehabilitation
from sports injury. The Spprt P§ychologjg 12, 68-88.

Van Raalte, J.L., Brewer, B.W., Rivera, PM, & Petipas, A.J. (1994). The relationship

between observable self-talk and competitive junior tennis players’ match performances.

Journal of Spprt & Exercig ngholpgy, 16, 400-415.

Wegner, DM (1989). White m and other ppm thoggh_§. New York:
Viking/Penguin.

Wegner, D.M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. ngchplogjcal Reviewnlé.
34-52.

Wegner, D.M. (1994b). Pink elephant tramples white bear. The evasion of

suppression. cholmuy: 5(40) Paradoxical Cognition (2).

79

Wegner, D.M (1997). When the antidote is the poison: Ironic mental control
processes. Pachologjcal Scipnce, 8, 148-150.

Wegner, D.M. (1999, January/February). The seed of our undoing Esyphplpgipgl
Spience Agehg, 10-12.

Wegner, D.M, Ansfield, M, & Pillof, D. (1998). The putt and the pendulum: Ironic
effects of the mental control of action. chhologjcal Science, 9, 196-199.

Wegner, D.M, Broome, A, & Blumberg, SJ. (1997). Ironic effects of trying to relax

under stress. Behavior Rpmh Ed Therapy, 25, 11-21.

Wegner, D.M, & Erber, R (1992). The hyperaccessibility of suppressed thoughts.
Johrhpl of Personality and Social ngphology, 63, 903-912.

Wegner, D.M, Erber, R., & Zanakos, S. (1993). Ironic processes in the mental control
of mood-related thought. 0 f Personali and Soci P chol 65 1093-1104.

Wegner, D.M, & Schneider, D.J., Carter, S. III, & White, L. (1987). Paradoxical
effects of thought suppression. J camp] of Personalig and Sppial Psychology, 8, 409-418.

Wegner, D.M, Shortt, J .W., Blake, A.W., & Page, MS. (1990). The suppression of
exciting thoughts. qumal of Persohalig and Social P§ychology, 58, 409-418.

Wenzlaff, RM, & Wegner, D.M (2000). Thought suppression. In S.T. Fiske (Ed),
M Review of Psychology (Vol. 51). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Williams, J .M & Harris, D.V. (1998). Relaxation and energizing techniques for
regulation of arousal. In J .M Williams (Ed, 3rd ed), Applied spprt psycholpgy: pprsonal
W (pp. 219-236). Moutain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing

Company.

80

Woolfolk, RL., Murphy, S.M, Gottesfeld, D., & Aitken, D. (1985). Effects of mental
rehearsal of task motor activity and mental depiction of task outcome on motor skill

performance. 102M of Smrt ngchplpgy, 7, 191-197.
Woolfolk, KL, Parish, W., & Murphy, SM (1985). The effects of positive and

negative imagery on motor skill performance. Cogpjtive Thprapy m Rpmh, 9, 335-
341.

Yerkes, R.M., & Dodson, J .D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity
of habit formation Journal of Comphlgptive Neurology and chhology, 18, 459-482.

Zeigarnik B. (1938). On finished and unfinished tasks. In A Source Book of Gestalt
Psychology. W.D. Ellis (Ed), pp. 300—3 14. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Zinsser, N., Bunker, L., & Williams, J.M (1988). Cognitive techniques for building
confidence and enhancing performance. In J .M (Ed), Applied Sport Psychology:
Personal Growth to Peak Performance (3“l ed, pp. 270-295). Mountain View, CA:

Mayfield.

81