- Email: [email protected]
Testing an interactionist perspective on the relationship between personality traits and performance under public pressure
Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 243e250
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Psychology of Sport and Exercise journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport
Testing an interactionist perspective on the relationship between personality traits and performance under public pressure Katharina Geukes a, b, c, *, Christopher Mesagno d, Stephanie J. Hanrahan c, e, Michael Kellmann b, c, e a
Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany Faculty of Sport Science, Ruhr-University Bochum, Stiepeler Str 129, 44801 Bochum, Germany c School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Australia d School of Health Sciences, University of Ballarat, Australia e School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, Australia b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 20 April 2011 Received in revised form 18 December 2011 Accepted 19 December 2011 Available online 24 December 2011
Objectives: The interactionist principle of trait activation [Tett & Gutermann (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397e423.] explains human behavior through the stimulation of traits by trait-relevant situational cues (i.e., situation-trait relevance). In applied (real-world) highpressure situations, audiences provide the situational demand of public evaluation. Therefore, traits that are related to public evaluation are appraised as situation-relevant. The purpose of the current study was to test if situation-relevant traits (i.e., narcissism, public self-consciousness) predict performance in applied high-pressure situations, while situation-irrelevant traits (i.e., private self-consciousness) do not contribute to the performance explanation. Design/Method: Experienced handball players (N ¼ 55) completed personality questionnaires and performed a throwing task in low and high-pressure conditions, whereby the high-pressure condition involved 1500e2000 spectators during halftime breaks of professional handball games. Results: Findings supported the assumptions about situation-trait relevancies and indicated that narcissism and public self-consciousness were relevant to high-pressure performance (i.e., positively associated), whereas private self-consciousness was found to be irrelevant. No predictors were correlated to low-pressure performance. Conclusions: Results emphasize that trait activation is a promising explanation for the relevance of personality characteristics to performance under pressure. A systematic consideration of situational demands of high-pressure situations will result in adequate appraisals of situation-trait relevance and help predict performance with trait scores. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Choking Public evaluation Narcissism Self-consciousness Person-situation debate Trait activation
Whether involved in exams, job interviews, presentations, music performances, or sport competitions, people inevitably need to perform under pressure. Antecedents of success and failure in pressure situations have been a focus of experimental research, especially in sport psychology research on motor tasks (e.g., Beilock & Carr, 2001; Lewis & Linder, 1997). Although intraindividual performance variance between low and high-pressure conditions has been attributed to pressure manipulations, interindividual differences in performance in high-pressure situations has e among other explanations e been attributed to personality characteristics (e.g., Baumeister, 1984).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ49 234 32 24361; fax: þ49 234 32 14245. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Geukes). 1469-0292/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.12.004
Performance under pressure In sport psychology research, performance under pressure has been investigated as a phenomenon metaphorically labeled as choking under pressure (i.e., choking; Baumeister, 1984). Choking has been conceptualized as “as a critical deterioration in skill execution leading to substandard performance that is caused by an elevation in anxiety levels under perceived pressure at a time when successful outcome is normally attainable by the athlete” (Mesagno & Mullane-Grant, 2010, p. 343). Despite an ongoing debate on an appropriate operational definition of choking (see Gucciardi, Longbottom, Jackson, & Dimmock, 2010; Hill, Hanton, Fleming, & Matthews, 2009), choking experiences generally involve decreases in performance during high-pressure situations. Not everyone, however, experiences choking in pressure situations.
244
K. Geukes et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 243e250
Excelling under pressure (i.e., clutch performance), which is increased performance from low to high-pressure conditions, is also possible (Otten, 2009). Depending on the operationalizations of performance and choking, experimental research indicates choking likelihoods (based on missed attempts) between, for example, 29.8% (Otten, 2009) and 54.4% (Wang, Marchant, & Morris, 2004). In an archival study, Jordet and Hartman (2008) investigated penalty kicks in elite soccer and found a frequency of missed attempts of 26.2%. Nevertheless, caution should be used when interpreting real-world and experimental choking prevalence rates because of the expanding debate about choking and underperformance (see Hill et al., 2009; Hill, Hanton, Matthews, & Fleming, 2010), the lack of an appropriate operational definition of choking, and the difficulty in separating choking from other phenomena (e.g., yips, slumps, panics, or random performance fluctuations; Clark, Tofler, & Lardon, 2005). The findings that athletes choke and excel under pressure, however, are in line with observations from Olympic finals, which support that some athletes have failed to perform up to previously exhibited standards, whereas others have broken world records on this big occasion. Thus, the term performance under pressure applies to a continuum of performance comparisons ranging from choking to stable performance to excelling under pressure compared to lowpressure performance. Underlying mechanisms of choking The distraction model (Carver & Scheier, 1981; Eysenck & Calvo, 1992; Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007) indicates that poor performance under pressure occurs because the performer focuses too little on the task due to distracted attention on taskirrelevant cues. Increased pressure leads to somatic changes, worrying, imagining anticipated consequences of the performance, and comparing expectations of oneself and others, which might overwhelm working memory to a degree that task execution is disrupted. Distraction, however, is not necessarily an internal phenomenon; external visual or auditory cues of high-pressure situations may also cause distraction from the task and result in poor performance (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1981; Eysenck & Calvo, 1992; Eysenck et al., 2007; Oudejans, Kuipers, Kooijman, & Bakker, 2011; Sarason, 1988; Smith, Bellamy, Collins, & Newell, 2001; Wilson, 2008). The self-focus model (Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr, 2001), in contrast, explains choking by too much attention on the skill execution. The pressure-induced desire to perform well leads the performer to intentionally focus attention on the skill execution. Although this attentional focus appears to be an appropriate response to pressure, it, paradoxically, disrupts performance. Taking into account that well or over-learned skills are usually processed outside conscious attention and outside working memory, conscious step-by-step control of automated skill leads to comparatively poor performance (e.g., Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr, 2001; Masters, 1992; Masters & Maxwell, 2008). Personality traits as predictors of performance under pressure Deducing hypotheses from these models, researchers proposed and have found personality dispositions to facilitate the prediction of performance under pressure (e.g., Baumeister, 1984; Kinrade, Jackson, & Ashford, 2010; Wang, Marchant, & Morris, 2004). Among these personality characteristics that predict performance under pressure are trait anxiety (e.g., Wang, Marchant, Morris, & Gibbs, 2004; Wine, 1971), coping styles (Wang, Marchant, & Morris, 2004), dispositional reinvestment (e.g., Kinrade et al.,
2010; Masters, 1992; Masters, Polman, & Hammond, 1993), selfconsciousness (e.g., Baumeister, 1984; Wang Marchant, Morris, & Gibbs, 2004), and narcissism (e.g., Wallace & Baumeister, 2002; Wallace, Baumeister, & Vohs, 2005). Relevance of traits to performance under pressure: trait activation The prediction of performance under pressure by personality dispositions has the inherent difficulty that the time-dimensions of the two variables (i.e., performance and personality disposition) differ. Performance under pressure is characterized by a situationspecific behavioral outcome, but personality dispositions are defined to be (relatively) stable over time (Allport, 1966). Thus, predicting situation-specific behavioral outcomes using stable personality traits requires a reasonable argument that traits could be relevant to the specific situation. Personality psychology researchers have proposed an interactionist perspective (i.e., interactionism; Shoda, Mischel, & Wright, 1994), explaining human behavior by taking person variables (i.e., personality traits) and situation variables (i.e., situational demands) into account (e.g., Kenrick & Funder, 1988). An advancement of the interactionist perspective is the principle of trait activation (Tett & Gutermann, 2000) that formalizes the interactionist relation between personality characteristics and situations. A trait only becomes activated given trait-relevant situational cues (i.e., situation-trait relevance), resulting in trait-accordant behavioral expressions. Thus, on the basis of situation-trait relevance, trait activation is capable of predicting and explaining the relevance of traits in situations (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Gutermann, 2000). The relevance of traits in this respect, however, reflects a correlation per se, but does not include the prediction of correlational directions. Only in a second step, further theoretical assumptions about mechanisms and cognitive processes need to be considered to predict correlational directions. Applying trait activation to performance under pressure Because performance is a behavioral outcome, the application of the trait activation principle to performance under pressure appears to be justified. According to the trait activation principle, individuals enter a situation with a full set of personality dispositions and depending on situation-trait relevance, situation-specific dispositions become aroused and determine variance in behavior and behavioral outcomes (i.e., performance) in a situation. Hence, inferring situation-trait relevance of experimental pressure situations from the manipulated situational factors that cause participants’ pressure perceptions is the precondition to deduce directed hypotheses about associations between traits and performance under pressure. Situation trait (Ir-)relevance and correlational directions In contrast to the commonly used, comparatively private, laboratory-based research approach, in this study a public realworld setting was used during the high-pressure condition. While performing a gross motor task and competing with each other, participants were observed and presumably evaluated by a large audience of 1500 to 2000 spectators. Accordingly, public evaluation characterizes (one of) the major situational demands of this applied high-pressure situation. Consequently, situation-relevance in this comparatively public high-pressure situation was inferred for traits linked to public evaluation. The traits public self-consciousness and narcissism appear to be linked to public evaluation, whereas private self-consciousness does not.
K. Geukes et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 243e250
245
Public self-consciousness Public self-consciousness refers to individuals’ consistent tendency to direct attention outward (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975, p. 522). The predominant awareness of oneself as a social object and of being observed and/or evaluated by others is characteristic of persons who score high on public self-consciousness (Fenigstein et al., 1975). Because sport competitions usually provide the situational demand of public evaluation through the presence of an audience, public self-consciousness is explicitly linked to public evaluation and accordingly appraised to be situation-relevant. Within self-presentation theory (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Mesagno, Harvey, & Janelle, 2011), participants try to impress the audience with their performance. In addition to performance, however, outward appearances, behaviors, reactions to, and interactions with others may be part of participants’ self-presentational concerns. Because individuals who score high on public selfconsciousness are more used to the awareness of being evaluated than their low-scoring counterparts (e.g., Baumeister, 1984), we expect that they are able to protect themselves from distraction due to the audience or pressure. In addition to worries about consequences and evaluations of the performance, the distraction includes external visual (e.g., moving spectators) and auditory (e.g., clapping or booing) cues caused by the audience, which might distract from task execution (e.g., DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, & Beilock, 2011). Therefore, we ascribe the ability to successfully concentrate on the task and to protect oneself from distraction to individuals who score high on public self-consciousness, which is in line with the explanation of Baumeister (1984) concerning the selfconsciousness trait. Narcissism The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-IV-TR, American Psychiatric Association, 2000) describes characteristics of a narcissistic personality as including (but not limited to) a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior) and a need for admiration. The need for admiration emphasizes the dependency of narcissists on the positive evaluation of others and provides the link to public evaluation. Therefore, narcissism represents a situation-relevant trait. Concerning the correlational direction, Wallace et al. (2005) hypothesized that narcissism, even in a subclinical population, may be a relevant personality disposition to predict performance under pressure. They considered narcissists to excel in settings that are challenging and promise support for their perceived grandiosity and contingent admiration. An initial experimental study on a dart-throwing task indicated a positive association between narcissism and performance under pressure (Experiment 3; Wallace & Baumeister, 2002). When defeating competitors, breaking records, or experiencing success in front of large audiences, grandiosity and admiration are likely to be perceived (e.g., Elliot & Trash, 2001). Because high-pressure situations involving large audiences offer contexts in which narcissists could create these positive experiences, we expect narcissists to excel under these circumstances. Because socially evaluative situations are important for narcissists (Elliot & Trash, 2001), they presumably have developed an adaptation to its demands due to intentionally and frequently putting themselves into similar situations. Thus, narcissists are used to performing in front of others and perform better than individuals who score low on narcissism. Nevertheless, we consider narcissists to perceive the same pressure intensity as their low-scoring counterparts, so their better performance is not be attributed to lower anxiety scores.
Fig. 1. Schematic display of the goal with attached tarpaulin (hatched area is targethole).
Private self-consciousness To provide evidence that only situation-relevant traits become activated, private self-consciousness, appearing not to be explicitly linked to the major situational demands in this public applied highpressure situation, was included in this study. Private selfconsciousness describes the tendency to introspect, to habitually observe inner states and feelings (Fenigstein et al., 1975). The situational cues of the high-pressure situation (as well as of the low-pressure situation) in this study did not offer a specific link to the private self-consciousness trait so situation-irrelevance was inferred. Because distraction from the task is considered to cause choking in this applied context, or the successful protection from distraction causes clutch performances, the self-focus model e reflected through scores on private self-consciousness e appears to be irrelevant. Purpose The purpose of this study was to test the predictions of the interactionist principle of trait activation using the traits of private and public self-consciousness, and narcissism. The situational component of this study involved an applied pressure manipulation that is unique to choking research. Because competitive sport usually involves (large) audiences, this approach resembles real situational demands. Specifically, we hypothesized that a) the three traits would not contribute to the prediction of low-pressure performance, b) narcissism and public self-consciousness, but not private self-consciousness, would contribute to the prediction of high-pressure performance. Method Participants Participants were 55 handball players (aged from 19 to 41; M ¼ 25.62, SD ¼ 5.60) who were currently playing in an experienced handball team (4th to 6th division), with 34 (62%) participants being female. The inclusion criterion was that participants had at least 3 years of experience in senior handball competitions. Experience in senior handball competitions ranged from 3 to 23 years (M ¼ 7.89, SD ¼ 5.44). Type of sport, experimental task, and equipment Handball is a fast indoor game in which two teams each try to score goals (and prevent the opposing team from scoring). The task in this study was a throwing accuracy task that resembled
246
K. Geukes et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 243e250
a standard 7-m penalty throw. A tarpaulin was placed inside a standard handball goal (dimensions of 3 m by 2 m) attached to the goal posts and bar. In the center of the tarpaulin was a circular target-hole with a diameter of 40 cm (Fig. 1), where participants aimed to throw the handball. The goal was located parallel to the sideline on the midline of the court. Measures Demographics questionnaire The demographic questionnaire included questions about age, gender, and handball playing experience. Private and public self-consciousness Self-consciousness was measured with a modified German version of the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein et al., 1975): Questionnaire Measuring Dispositional Self-Consciousness ([Fragebogen zur Erfassung dispositioneller Selbstaufmerksamkeit] SAM; Filipp & Freudenberg, 1989). This 27-item questionnaire includes two subscales measuring private (13 items) and public self-consciousness (14 items). Reported internal consistencies are satisfactory with Cronbach’s alpha values of .87 for private selfconsciousness and .88 for public self-consciousness (Filipp & Freudenberg, 1989). The items were answered using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very rarely) to 5 (very often). Consequently, scores ranged from 13 to 65 and 14 to 70 for the private and public self-consciousness subscales, respectively. An example of an item from the private self-consciousness scale is “I realize that I am observing myself”, and from the public self-consciousness scale is “I feel uncomfortable when observed by others”. Narcissism Narcissism was measured using a 10-item subscale of the German Personality Style and Disorder Inventory ([PersönlichkeitsStil-und-Störungs-Inventar] PSSI; Kuhl & Kazén, 2009). The PSSI is a questionnaire that assesses subclinical expressions (i.e., personality styles) of 14 existing personality disorders that are described in the DSM-IV-TR (2000). With the explicit intention of measuring subclinical narcissism (and no other personality style), we only used the subscale labeled “ambitious style and narcissistic personality disorder” reflecting narcissistic tendencies in mentally healthy humans. This subscale has a satisfactory value for internal consistency of .76. The response format was a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (I do not agree) to 4 (I strongly agree), resulting in a total score from 10 to 40. A sample item is “The thought of being a famous person appeals to me.” Reliability analyses of the personality questionnaires The reliability (i.e., internal consistency) of the personality questionnaires was tested for the sample of handball players. The analysis of the private self-consciousness subscale of the SAM indicated a Cronbach Alpha value of .81 for this sample. For the SAM-subscale public self-consciousness a Cronbach Alpha value of .78 was established. The analysis of the narcissism subscale of the PSSI indicated a Cronbach Alpha value of .76. According to George and Mallery (2003) these internal consistency values are acceptable (a > .7) to good (a > .8). Manipulation check Competitive state anxiety Competitive state anxiety was measured using the 12-item subscale of the Wettkampfangstinventar [Competition Anxiety Inventory] (WAI; Brand, Ehrlenspiel, & Graf, 2009). The WAI is
based on the Sport Anxiety Scale (SAS; Smith, Smoll, & Schutz, 1990) and consists of two major subscales assessing competitive trait and state anxiety. The WAI-state scale used in this study has four items in each of three subscales (i.e., somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and self-confidence). The subscales have Cronbach’s alpha values of .81, .74, and .82 for somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and self-confidence, respectively. The response format was a 4-point Likert scale, from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so). Total scores ranged from 4 to 16 points for each subscale. Sample items are: “Right now I feel queasy” (somatic anxiety subscale), “Right now I am concerned that others might be disappointed by my performance” (cognitive anxiety scale), and “Right now I am confident to master this challenge” (self-confidence subscale; all translations by authors). The somatic and cognitive anxiety subscales were included in the data analyses. Performance The total number of successful shots (defined as balls thrown through the target-hole) out of eight attempts for each condition was the dependent variable. This relatively small number of attempts, compared to other studies (e.g., Wang, Marchant, & Morris, 2004) was used for two reasons: First, the small number of throws reduces the likelihood that participants will acclimatize to the pressure situation. Second, this small number heightens the importance and thereby increases the pressure of each throw (Baumeister & Showers, 1986). Procedure Participants were recruited from German handball teams. With the head coaches’ permission, participants were asked to complete a demographic information sheet and an informed consent form, which included information about the institution’s ethical approval. The experimental phase was divided into two separate conditions (hereafter referred to as low-pressure and highpressure), which took place on two different days no more than three days apart. The order of the low and high-pressure conditions was counterbalanced across teams and gender to avoid order effects due to familiarization or learning (i.e., two male and two female teams participated in each of the possible orders). In both conditions, participants were asked to read the instructions for the condition, complete the state-anxiety questionnaire used as a check of pressure manipulation, and then perform the experimental task. Each participant required a total of approximately 6 min to complete these three parts, with the experimental task taking approximately 1 min. Due to time restrictions in the high-pressure condition, participants were not given warm-up throws in either condition. Because the task was not to throw as hard as possible, but as accurate as possible, there were no complains about this procedure neither by the participants nor by the coaches. In each testing session, and for organizational reasons, players originating from one team were tested on the same day, resulting in 6e10 participants per session. Low-pressure The low-pressure condition took place 1 h prior to a team’s training-session at their usual training facility. After completing the personality questionnaires in the changing rooms, the performance-measurement began with the first participant and lead author leaving for the gymnasium. Successively, all participants were tested independently in the gymnasium with only the first author present. Directly after completing the state-anxiety questionnaire, participants performed the task. Meanwhile the rest of the team, accompanied by a research assistant and the coach,
K. Geukes et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 243e250
waited in the changing room. Coaches used this time to prepare for the next game or to discuss organizational issues. High-pressure The high-pressure condition took place during halftime breaks of professional handball games (2nd division) with a large audience of 1500e2000 spectators present per game. When participants were not involved in the high-pressure phase (i.e., during the halftime break), they were part of the audience during the ongoing match. In addition to the audience providing the demand of public evaluation, the pressure manipulation included monetary incentives. Participants were informed that the most accurate shooter (based on individual scores in the high-pressure condition) in this study would receive V50 and the most accurate team (based on the team mean score in the high-pressure condition) would receive V150. The team competition served to sustain motivation, and to enhance commitment to the team score, even if the initial individual attempts were unsuccessful. Before the game and in the beginning of the halftime break, the hall announcer provided a short and standardized description of the halftime “events”, so the audience was informed about the task and the prizes. During the halftime break, there was crowd noise and movement because spectators visited the restrooms or bought drinks. Nevertheless, the majority of the spectators were attentive and only interacted with the participants through clapping when throwing successfully through the target hole. Participants, who waited for their turn, sat 5 m behind the performing participants as part of the audience in the first row where they successively completed the state anxiety questionnaire directly prior to their performance. Participants’ overt behaviors during the highpressure condition did not differ from the behavior of other spectators. After completing the experiment, participants were asked what they thought the purpose of the study was. None of the participants made correct connections between the questionnaires and the throwing task. Participants were then debriefed and thanked for their participation. After full completion of data collection, the best player and the best team received their monetary rewards. Results Manipulation check e anxiety differences To check whether the pressure manipulation was successful, the anxiety subscales of the WAI were analyzed. For this purpose two separate one-tailed paired samples t-tests were conducted for somatic anxiety (low pressure: M ¼ 4.89, SD ¼ 1.30; high pressure: M ¼ 6.89, SD ¼ 1.93) and cognitive anxiety (low pressure: M ¼ 6.05, SD ¼ 1.66; high pressure: M ¼ 7.22, SD ¼ 2.42). Significant differences in anxiety were found for the two subscales of the state anxiety questionnaire. Somatic anxiety, t(54) ¼ 7.91, p < .001, d ¼ 1.19, and cognitive anxiety, t(54) ¼ 3.75, p ¼ .001, d ¼ .55, were significantly higher in the high-pressure than in the lowpressure condition. Correlations between personality traits and competitive state anxiety To ensure that possible differences in performances in the low and high-pressure conditions are not explicable through different pressure perceptions, bivariate correlations were calculated between the personality scores for private (M ¼ 43.55, SD ¼ 5.22; Min ¼ 23; Max ¼ 59) and public self-consciousness (M ¼ 46.02, SD ¼ 5.77; Min ¼ 32; Max ¼ 59), and narcissism (M ¼ 23.20, SD ¼ 4.76; Min ¼ 14; Max ¼ 36) and the low pressure and high-
247
pressure somatic and cognitive anxiety scores. All correlations were insignificant (all p > .05) indicating that the pressure perceptions did not vary with scores on personality traits. Performance differences Performance results indicated that six participants had stable performances across conditions, 20 participants performed better in the high-pressure condition, and 29 participants performed better in the low-pressure condition. Overall, a two-tailed paired samples t-test indicated no significant differences in performance, t(54) ¼ .80, p ¼ .44, d ¼ .13, between the low-pressure (M ¼ 3.45, SD ¼ 1.63) and high-pressure (M ¼ 3.24, SD ¼ 1.79) conditions. Testing personality-related hypotheses To test the hypotheses related to the personality and performance relationship, two regression analyses (low and highpressure conditions) were conducted with each personality disposition serving as predictor of performance. Private selfconsciousness did not contribute to the explanation of performance in the low-pressure, b ¼ .15, t(53) ¼ 1.13, p ¼ .27, or the highpressure condition, b ¼ .11, t(53) ¼ .78, p ¼ .44. The linear regression analysis indicated that public selfconsciousness did not reach significance when predicting lowpressure performance, b ¼ .04, t(53) ¼ .25, p ¼ .80. Public selfconsciousness, however, significantly contributed to the prediction of high-pressure performance scores, b ¼ .29, t(53) ¼ 2.20, p ¼ .03. The regression significantly explained 8% of the highpressure performance, R2 ¼ .08, F (1, 53) ¼ 4.85, p ¼ .03. The linear regression analysis indicated that narcissism did not contribute to the explanation of low-pressure performance, b ¼ .05, t(53) ¼ .37, p ¼ .72. Narcissism, however, significantly predicted high-pressure performance, b ¼ .34, t(53) ¼ 2.62, p ¼ .01, explaining 12% of the high-pressure performance variance, R2 ¼ .12, F (1, 53) ¼ 6.89, p ¼ .01. Additional multiple regression analyses To determine whether public self-consciousness and narcissism (r ¼ .21; p ¼ .119) contributed uniquely to the prediction of performance, they were tested for their combined predictive abilities in a multiple regression analysis. The analysis indicated a significant explanation of performance variance, R2 ¼ .16, F (2, 52) ¼ 4.99, p ¼ .01, with narcissism being the only significant predictor, b ¼ .28, t(52) ¼ 2.19, p ¼ .03, and public self-consciousness not reaching significance, b ¼ .22, t(52) ¼ 1.69, p ¼ .10. Predicting performance changes between low and high-pressure conditions To provide further support for the (ir-)relevance of the investigated traits, a change score was calculated by subtracting lowpressure performance from high-pressure performance (M ¼ .22; SD ¼ 2.03). These scores ranged from 4 points to 4 points and maintained information about performance increases (i.e., positive values) or decreases (i.e., negative values) from low to high-pressure condition. The regression analysis with private selfconsciousness as a predictor and the change score of performance as criterion indicated no contribution to the explanation of performance changes, b ¼ .14, t(54) ¼ .98, p ¼ .341; R2 ¼ .02, F (1, 54) ¼ .92, p ¼ .341. The public self-consciousness trait significantly predicted the change score of performance in the two conditions, b ¼ .27, t(54) ¼ 2.04, p ¼ .047, and explained 7% of the performance variance, R2 ¼ .07, F (1, 54) ¼ 4.15, p ¼ .047. The regression analysis with
248
K. Geukes et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 243e250
narcissism indicated only marginal significance, b ¼ .26, t(54) ¼ 1.93, p ¼ .059, predicting the change score of performance, R2 ¼ .07, F (1, 54) ¼ 3.72, p ¼ .059. These results indicate positive associations between the scores on the public self-consciousness (and narcissism) scales with performance changes across pressure conditions. High trait scores were related to improved performance, whereas low trait scores indicated performance decreases in the high-pressure condition. Contrasting choking and clutch performances On the basis of the performance change scores, choking athletes (n ¼ 29; M ¼ 1.79, SD ¼ 1.08) and clutch athletes (n ¼ 20; M ¼ 2.00; SD ¼ 1.03), who significantly differed in performance changes, t(47) ¼ 12.32, p < .001, d ¼ 3.59, were contrasted with one-tailed t-tests for independent samples according to their scores on the investigated traits. Concerning private self-consciousness, choking (M ¼ 43.86; SD ¼ 6.17) and clutch performing athletes (M ¼ 44.70; SD ¼ 6.87) did not differ significantly, t(48) ¼ .45, p ¼ .328; d ¼ .13. Scores on the public self-consciousness scale significantly separated choking (M ¼ 44.52; SD ¼ 6.19) and clutch performing athletes (M ¼ 49.25; SD ¼ 5.29), t(48) ¼ 2.79, p ¼ .004; d ¼ .81. Choking (M ¼ 22.20; SD ¼ 3.82) and clutch performing athletes (M ¼ 24.05; SD ¼ 5.34) only marginally differed on narcissism trait scores, t(48) ¼ 1.40, p ¼ .097; d ¼ .41. Discussion The purpose of the current study was to test the predictions of the interactionist principle of trait activation on the relationship between personality and performance under pressure. Participants performed a throwing accuracy task in low-pressure and applied high-pressure situations, which was unique to research on performance under pressure. Due to anticipated situation-trait relevance, narcissism and public self-consciousness were hypothesized to predict performance in a publicly evaluative high-pressure situation. In contrast, private self-consciousness, given proposed situation-trait irrelevance, was not expected to contribute to the prediction of either low or high-pressure performance. The findings support the applicability of the interactionist principle of trait activation predicting performance under pressure. Personality e performance under pressure relationship To provide evidence for trait activation, it was necessary to find the relevance of situation-relevant traits (i.e., public selfconsciousness and narcissism) and the irrelevance of situationirrelevant traits (i.e., private self-consciousness). As hypothesized, narcissism and public self-consciousness significantly contributed to the prediction of high-pressure performance, but were irrelevant to low-pressure performance. Private self-consciousness, as expected, did not contribute to the prediction of performance in any condition. Additional analyses that predicted the differential score of low and high-pressure performance and contrasted choking and clutch performing athletes indicated a similar pattern. Public selfconsciousness was found to significantly predict the differential performance score, and participants who choked during the highpressure condition scored significantly lower on the public selfconsciousness scale compared to those who had clutch performances. The same tendency e nevertheless, only marginally significant e was found for the narcissism trait. Compared to the regression analyses, the addition of analyzing the differential score and contrasting choking and clutch performers reduced variability in the performance scale. Given that there were only eight throws per pressure condition and that the dichotomous performance
operationalization restricted potential variance, low variance might account for only marginally significant findings for the narcissism trait. Generally, only the combination of significant findings for situation-relevant dispositions and insignificant findings for situation-irrelevant dispositions represents the full predictive potential of trait activation. Trait activation, however, is only able to predict relevance per se. Analyses of correlational directions, however, indicated that narcissism and public self-consciousness were positively associated with performance under pressure. Individuals who showed clutch performances scored higher on these predictors than individuals who showed choking performances. These positive associations support the assumption that individuals who are publicly self-conscious and narcissistic are better at creating a state in which successful performance is possible, as self-presentation and distraction explanations of choking would predict (e.g., Mesagno et al., 2011; Oudejans et al., 2011). Handling the exposure to public and protecting themselves from possible distraction and self-presentational concerns in the high-pressure condition appear to be key abilities for success in this public pressure situation. Private self-consciousness Because private self-consciousness did not contribute to any prediction of performance, the self-focus model, which was found to be largely relevant to the explanation of choking in laboratorybased experimental studies, does not explain performance under pressure in this applied context. Private self-consciousness is commonly considered to reflect the tendency to develop a current self-focus (e.g., Baumeister, 1984; Wang, Marchant, Morris, & Gibbs, 2004), which might lead to the explicit monitoring of task execution and result in poor performance (e.g., Master, 1992; Masters & Maxwell, 2008). Therefore, we concluded that either our pressure manipulation was unable to provoke a self-focus that might cause choking in applied settings or real competitions, or choking in real competitions mainly occurs due to distraction rather than a current self-focus. Public self-consciousness To our knowledge, this study is the first to find public selfconsciousness as a single subscale that contributes to the explanation of performance under pressure. The positive association to performance under pressure reflects the correlative direction Baumeister (1984) proposed and empirical support for the relationship of self-consciousness and performance under pressure. Baumeister, however, used the combined scores of private and public self-consciousness. The relevance of public selfconsciousness in a high-pressure situation with public evaluation as a major situational demand indicates that being accustomed to demands of high-pressure can serve as a facilitative factor. Individuals who score low on public self-consciousness are not as used to the state of being publicly self-aware as their high-scoring counterparts, and they show poor performance presumably due to distraction from the task. Whether this distraction was caused by internal cues (e.g., worries) or external cues (e.g., being attentive to reactions of the audience) remains an unresolved question. Narcissism Although further and explicit research on the exact mechanism of how narcissism facilitates performance under pressure is needed, we suggest two main reasons why participants scoring high on narcissism showed better performance under pressure than their low-scoring counterparts. First, because socially evaluative situations are important to maintain their grandiose pictures of themselves and receive admiration (e.g., Elliot & Trash, 2001),
K. Geukes et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 243e250
narcissists might be more experienced in performing in front of others than their low-scoring counterparts. Due to this experience narcissists were able to create a state that allowed optimal performance. Second, while being equally state-anxious as their less narcissistic counterparts, narcissists performed better in the high-pressure condition. Thus, they might have anticipated positive evaluation and admiration by the audience, and therefore interpreted the exposure to the audience in the high-pressure situation in a more positive way. According to Jones and Swain (1992) and Lazarus and Folkman (1984), for example, the interpretation of anxiety related symptoms and thoughts may determine whether performing is facilitated or debilitated under heightened levels of anxiety. Limitations Task Throwing accuracy in handball is important for successful penalty throws. Although penalty throws usually demand more than throwing accuracy alone (e.g., decision making, anticipating the goalkeeper’s movement), the ability to throw accurately reflects a basal precondition for successful attempts. Findings indicated that using a small number of trials (i.e., eight throws) is a legitimate way to induce enough performance variance for correlational analyses, although accepting that this low variance might make it difficult to detect group differences. Participants Participants were skilled handball players out of teams of the 4th to 6th division, who had at least 3 years of experience in senior handball competitions. The decision for players out of these divisions was taken to ensure that the participants were skilled but unused to large audiences. Usually, these players perform in front of 50e300 spectators, so the high-pressure condition somewhat exaggerated their real competitions. Pressure manipulation The pressure manipulation was successful at inducing statistically significant differences in anxiety across the low and highpressure conditions. With medium to high effect sizes (Cohen, 1988), somatic anxiety was affected the most by the pressure manipulation, followed by cognitive anxiety. Admittedly, one could have expected greater effect sizes for the state anxiety comparison, because state anxiety should increase with the intensity and scope of the pressure manipulation (e.g., Baumeister & Showers, 1986). Two reasons might explain these comparatively low anxiety differences. First, because it is not possible to measure state anxiety with a questionnaire in a pre-coping state, we believe that the participants e especially directly before performing e might have only admitted intermediate levels of anxiety. Second, the cognitive anxiety scale of the WAI only includes a few items that address the major situational demand of this high-pressure condition (i.e., public evaluation, audiences; Brand et al., 2009). Therefore, the construct validity might be suboptimal for this applied setting. Although the WAI might involve these limitations, its ability to detect anxiety differences remains unchallenged. Future directions This study was the first to investigate the applicability of trait activation to performance under pressure using an applied, but experimentally controlled, real-world pressure manipulation. Despite advantages concerning ecological validity, the highpressure condition was not as controlled as in laboratory-based settings. The need for research in settings that closely simulate
249
competitions, however, appears to justify this applied, less controlled, research approach. Therefore, future research should also address situation-trait relevance as an indicator of relevance of traits. Admittedly, situation-trait relevance is a vague term and in this study only relies on construct-based plausibility through conceptual relations. Nevertheless, our comparatively subjective judgments were confirmed by our findings. The quantification of situation-trait relevance as a statistical value (Tett & Gutermann, 2000) will be the task for future researchers to improve objectivity. High-pressure situations (e.g., private and public high-pressure) might differ in situation-trait relevance, so that different traits might explain performance in different high-pressure situations. To establish traits that matter in different high-pressure situations, a comparison of high-pressure situations is necessary. To provide findings that are generalizable to the applied field, especially as foundation for the development of interventions, ecologically valid approaches are essential. On the basis of the application of trait activation to the relationship of personality traits and performance under pressure, it will be interesting whether this idea is transferable to domains other than sport and tasks other than gross motor skills. Although there is no obvious reason why trait activation prediction should be restricted to gross motor tasks in sports, an explicit investigation will be crucial. Music concerts (e.g., Wan & Huon, 2005), exams (e.g., Beilock & DeCaro, 2007; Kinrade et al., 2010), driving tests (e.g., Fairclough, Tattersall, & Houston, 2006), presentations, and job-interviews (e.g., Beilock, 2010), or police work (e.g., Nieuwenhuys & Oudejans, 2010; Oudejans, 2008), for example, offer interesting and diverse contexts in which trait activation may also help explain the relationship between personality and performance under pressure. Generally, the consideration of interactionism, and specifically of the trait activation principle, in the context of performance under pressure might help to gain a situation-specific understanding of the personality influence and to develop interventions that are specific to the expected pressure situation and to the task to be performed. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the HSG Ahlen-Hamm for their outstanding cooperation and support in helping us conduct this applied experimental study (even in the halftime breaks of important games!). We would also like to thank Michael Janik for his valuable suggestions and helpful comments from a personality psychology perspective. Additionally, we would like to thank the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Sankt Augustin (Germany) for its fundamental support of this project. References Allport, G. W. (1966). Traits revisited. American Psychologist, 21, 1e10. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Revised 4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 610e620. Baumeister, R. F., & Showers, C. (1986). A review of paradoxical performance effects: choking under pressure in sports and mental tests. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 361e381. Beilock, S. L. (2010). Choke: What the secrets of the brain reveal about getting it right when you have to. New York: Free Press (Simon & Schuster). Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: what governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 701e725. Beilock, S. L., & DeCaro, M. S. (2007). From poor performance to success under stress: working memory, strategy selection, and mathematical problem solving under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 983e998.
250
K. Geukes et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 243e250
Brand, R., Ehrlenspiel, F., & Graf, K. (2009). Wettkampf-Angst-Inventar (WAI). Manual zur komprehensiven Eingangsdiagnostik von Wettkampfangst, Wettkampfängstlichkeit und Angstbewältigungsmodus im Sport. [Competition Anxiety Inventory. Manual for comprehensive diagnostics of competitive trait and state anxiety, and coping]. Köln: Sport und Buch Strauß. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation. New York: Springer. Clark, T. P., Tofler, I. R., & Lardon, M. T. (2005). The sport psychiatrist and golf. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 24, 959e971. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DeCaro, M. S., Thomas, R. D., Albert, N. B., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Choking under pressure: multiple routes to skill failure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 390e406. Elliot, A. J., & Trash, T. M. (2001). Narcissism and motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 216e219. Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: attentional control theory. Emotion, 7, 336e353. Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: the processing efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409e434. Fairclough, S. H., Tattersall, A., & Houston, K. (2006). The British driving test: the influence of anxiety on performance. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology & Behaviour, 9, 43e52. Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private selfconsciousness: assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522e527. Filipp, S.-H., & Freudenberg, E. (1989). Der Fragebogen zur Erfassung dispositioneller Selbstaufmerksamkeit (SAM-Fragebogen). [Questionnaire measuring dispositional self-consciousness]. Göttingen: Hogrefe. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gucciardi, D. F., Longbottom, J., Jackson, B., & Dimmock, J. A. (2010). Experienced golfers’ perspectives on choking under pressure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 61e83. Hill, D. M., Hanton, S., Fleming, S., & Matthews, N. (2009). A re-examination of choking in sport. European Journal of Sport Science, 9, 203e212. Hill, D. M., Hanton, S., Matthews, N., & Fleming, S. (2010). Choking in sport: a review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3(1), 24e39. Jones, G., & Swain, A. (1992). Intensity and direction as dimensions of competitive state anxiety and relationships with competitiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 467e472. Jordet, G., & Hartman, E. (2008). Avoidance motivation and choking under pressure in soccer penalty shootouts. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 450e457. Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: lessons from the personesituation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23e34. Kinrade, N., Jackson, R. C., & Ashford, K. J. (2010). Dispositional reinvestment and skill failure cognitive and motor tasks. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 312e319. Kuhl, J., & Kazén, M. (2009). Persönlichkeits-Stil-und-Störungs-Inventar (PSSI). Manual. [Personality style and disorder inventory] (2., überarbeitete und neu normierte Auflage).. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: a literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34e47. Lewis, B. P., & Linder, D. E. (1997). Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 937e944.
Masters, R. S. W. (1992). Knowledge, nerves and know-how. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 343e358. Masters, R. S. W., & Maxwell, J. (2008). The theory of reinvestment. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 160e184. Masters, R. S. W., Polman, R. C. J., & Hammond, N. V. (1993). ‘Reinvestment’: a dimension of personality implicated in skill breakdown under pressure. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 655e666. Mesagno, C., Harvey, J. T., & Janelle, C. M. (2011). Self-presentation origins of choking: evidence from separate pressure manipulations. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 441e459. Mesagno, C., & Mullane-Grant, T. (2010). A comparison of different pre-performance routines as possible choking interventions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 343e360. Nieuwenhuys, A., & Oudejans, R. R. D. (2010). Effects of anxiety on handgun shooting behavior of police officers: a pilot study. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 23, 225e233. Otten, M. (2009). Choking vs. clutch performance: a study of sport performance under pressure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31, 583e601. Oudejans, R. R. D. (2008). Reality based practice under pressure improves handgun shooting performance of police officers. Ergonomics, 51, 261e273. Oudejans, R. R. D., Kuipers, W., Kooijman, C. C., & Bakker, F. C. (2011). Thoughts and attention of athletes under pressure: skill-focus or performance worries? Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 24, 59e73. Sarason, I. G. (1988). Anxiety, self-preoccupation and attention. Anxiety Research, 1, 3e7. Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. (1994). Intraindividual stability in the organization and patterning of behavior: incorporating psychological situations into the idiographic analysis of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 674e687. Smith, N. C., Bellamy, M., Collins, D. J., & Newell, D. (2001). A test of processing efficiency theory in a team sport context. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 321e332. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Schutz, R. W. (1990). Measurement and correlates of sport-specific cognitive and somatic anxiety: the sport anxiety scale. Anxiety Research, 2, 263e280. Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500e517. Tett, R. P., & Gutermann, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397e423. Wallace, H. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). The performance of narcissists rises and falls with perceived opportunity for glory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 819e834. Wallace, H. M., Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2005). Audience support and choking under pressure: a home disadvantage? Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 429e438. Wan, C. Y., & Huon, G. F. (2005). Performance degradation under pressure in music: an examination of attentional processes. Psychology of Music, 33, 155e172. Wang, J., Marchant, D. B., & Morris, T. (2004). Coping style and susceptibility to choking. Journal of Sport Behavior, 27, 75e92. Wang, J., Marchant, D. B., Morris, T., & Gibbs, P. (2004). Self-consciousness and trait anxiety as predictors of choking in sport. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 7, 174e185. Wilson, M. (2008). From processing efficiency to attentional control: a mechanistic account of the anxiety-performance relationship. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 184e202. Wine, J. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 92e104.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Psychology of Sport and Exercise journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport
Testing an interactionist perspective on the relationship between personality traits and performance under public pressure Katharina Geukes a, b, c, *, Christopher Mesagno d, Stephanie J. Hanrahan c, e, Michael Kellmann b, c, e a
Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany Faculty of Sport Science, Ruhr-University Bochum, Stiepeler Str 129, 44801 Bochum, Germany c School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Australia d School of Health Sciences, University of Ballarat, Australia e School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, Australia b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 20 April 2011 Received in revised form 18 December 2011 Accepted 19 December 2011 Available online 24 December 2011
Objectives: The interactionist principle of trait activation [Tett & Gutermann (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397e423.] explains human behavior through the stimulation of traits by trait-relevant situational cues (i.e., situation-trait relevance). In applied (real-world) highpressure situations, audiences provide the situational demand of public evaluation. Therefore, traits that are related to public evaluation are appraised as situation-relevant. The purpose of the current study was to test if situation-relevant traits (i.e., narcissism, public self-consciousness) predict performance in applied high-pressure situations, while situation-irrelevant traits (i.e., private self-consciousness) do not contribute to the performance explanation. Design/Method: Experienced handball players (N ¼ 55) completed personality questionnaires and performed a throwing task in low and high-pressure conditions, whereby the high-pressure condition involved 1500e2000 spectators during halftime breaks of professional handball games. Results: Findings supported the assumptions about situation-trait relevancies and indicated that narcissism and public self-consciousness were relevant to high-pressure performance (i.e., positively associated), whereas private self-consciousness was found to be irrelevant. No predictors were correlated to low-pressure performance. Conclusions: Results emphasize that trait activation is a promising explanation for the relevance of personality characteristics to performance under pressure. A systematic consideration of situational demands of high-pressure situations will result in adequate appraisals of situation-trait relevance and help predict performance with trait scores. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Choking Public evaluation Narcissism Self-consciousness Person-situation debate Trait activation
Whether involved in exams, job interviews, presentations, music performances, or sport competitions, people inevitably need to perform under pressure. Antecedents of success and failure in pressure situations have been a focus of experimental research, especially in sport psychology research on motor tasks (e.g., Beilock & Carr, 2001; Lewis & Linder, 1997). Although intraindividual performance variance between low and high-pressure conditions has been attributed to pressure manipulations, interindividual differences in performance in high-pressure situations has e among other explanations e been attributed to personality characteristics (e.g., Baumeister, 1984).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ49 234 32 24361; fax: þ49 234 32 14245. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Geukes). 1469-0292/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.12.004
Performance under pressure In sport psychology research, performance under pressure has been investigated as a phenomenon metaphorically labeled as choking under pressure (i.e., choking; Baumeister, 1984). Choking has been conceptualized as “as a critical deterioration in skill execution leading to substandard performance that is caused by an elevation in anxiety levels under perceived pressure at a time when successful outcome is normally attainable by the athlete” (Mesagno & Mullane-Grant, 2010, p. 343). Despite an ongoing debate on an appropriate operational definition of choking (see Gucciardi, Longbottom, Jackson, & Dimmock, 2010; Hill, Hanton, Fleming, & Matthews, 2009), choking experiences generally involve decreases in performance during high-pressure situations. Not everyone, however, experiences choking in pressure situations.
244
K. Geukes et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 243e250
Excelling under pressure (i.e., clutch performance), which is increased performance from low to high-pressure conditions, is also possible (Otten, 2009). Depending on the operationalizations of performance and choking, experimental research indicates choking likelihoods (based on missed attempts) between, for example, 29.8% (Otten, 2009) and 54.4% (Wang, Marchant, & Morris, 2004). In an archival study, Jordet and Hartman (2008) investigated penalty kicks in elite soccer and found a frequency of missed attempts of 26.2%. Nevertheless, caution should be used when interpreting real-world and experimental choking prevalence rates because of the expanding debate about choking and underperformance (see Hill et al., 2009; Hill, Hanton, Matthews, & Fleming, 2010), the lack of an appropriate operational definition of choking, and the difficulty in separating choking from other phenomena (e.g., yips, slumps, panics, or random performance fluctuations; Clark, Tofler, & Lardon, 2005). The findings that athletes choke and excel under pressure, however, are in line with observations from Olympic finals, which support that some athletes have failed to perform up to previously exhibited standards, whereas others have broken world records on this big occasion. Thus, the term performance under pressure applies to a continuum of performance comparisons ranging from choking to stable performance to excelling under pressure compared to lowpressure performance. Underlying mechanisms of choking The distraction model (Carver & Scheier, 1981; Eysenck & Calvo, 1992; Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007) indicates that poor performance under pressure occurs because the performer focuses too little on the task due to distracted attention on taskirrelevant cues. Increased pressure leads to somatic changes, worrying, imagining anticipated consequences of the performance, and comparing expectations of oneself and others, which might overwhelm working memory to a degree that task execution is disrupted. Distraction, however, is not necessarily an internal phenomenon; external visual or auditory cues of high-pressure situations may also cause distraction from the task and result in poor performance (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1981; Eysenck & Calvo, 1992; Eysenck et al., 2007; Oudejans, Kuipers, Kooijman, & Bakker, 2011; Sarason, 1988; Smith, Bellamy, Collins, & Newell, 2001; Wilson, 2008). The self-focus model (Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr, 2001), in contrast, explains choking by too much attention on the skill execution. The pressure-induced desire to perform well leads the performer to intentionally focus attention on the skill execution. Although this attentional focus appears to be an appropriate response to pressure, it, paradoxically, disrupts performance. Taking into account that well or over-learned skills are usually processed outside conscious attention and outside working memory, conscious step-by-step control of automated skill leads to comparatively poor performance (e.g., Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr, 2001; Masters, 1992; Masters & Maxwell, 2008). Personality traits as predictors of performance under pressure Deducing hypotheses from these models, researchers proposed and have found personality dispositions to facilitate the prediction of performance under pressure (e.g., Baumeister, 1984; Kinrade, Jackson, & Ashford, 2010; Wang, Marchant, & Morris, 2004). Among these personality characteristics that predict performance under pressure are trait anxiety (e.g., Wang, Marchant, Morris, & Gibbs, 2004; Wine, 1971), coping styles (Wang, Marchant, & Morris, 2004), dispositional reinvestment (e.g., Kinrade et al.,
2010; Masters, 1992; Masters, Polman, & Hammond, 1993), selfconsciousness (e.g., Baumeister, 1984; Wang Marchant, Morris, & Gibbs, 2004), and narcissism (e.g., Wallace & Baumeister, 2002; Wallace, Baumeister, & Vohs, 2005). Relevance of traits to performance under pressure: trait activation The prediction of performance under pressure by personality dispositions has the inherent difficulty that the time-dimensions of the two variables (i.e., performance and personality disposition) differ. Performance under pressure is characterized by a situationspecific behavioral outcome, but personality dispositions are defined to be (relatively) stable over time (Allport, 1966). Thus, predicting situation-specific behavioral outcomes using stable personality traits requires a reasonable argument that traits could be relevant to the specific situation. Personality psychology researchers have proposed an interactionist perspective (i.e., interactionism; Shoda, Mischel, & Wright, 1994), explaining human behavior by taking person variables (i.e., personality traits) and situation variables (i.e., situational demands) into account (e.g., Kenrick & Funder, 1988). An advancement of the interactionist perspective is the principle of trait activation (Tett & Gutermann, 2000) that formalizes the interactionist relation between personality characteristics and situations. A trait only becomes activated given trait-relevant situational cues (i.e., situation-trait relevance), resulting in trait-accordant behavioral expressions. Thus, on the basis of situation-trait relevance, trait activation is capable of predicting and explaining the relevance of traits in situations (Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Gutermann, 2000). The relevance of traits in this respect, however, reflects a correlation per se, but does not include the prediction of correlational directions. Only in a second step, further theoretical assumptions about mechanisms and cognitive processes need to be considered to predict correlational directions. Applying trait activation to performance under pressure Because performance is a behavioral outcome, the application of the trait activation principle to performance under pressure appears to be justified. According to the trait activation principle, individuals enter a situation with a full set of personality dispositions and depending on situation-trait relevance, situation-specific dispositions become aroused and determine variance in behavior and behavioral outcomes (i.e., performance) in a situation. Hence, inferring situation-trait relevance of experimental pressure situations from the manipulated situational factors that cause participants’ pressure perceptions is the precondition to deduce directed hypotheses about associations between traits and performance under pressure. Situation trait (Ir-)relevance and correlational directions In contrast to the commonly used, comparatively private, laboratory-based research approach, in this study a public realworld setting was used during the high-pressure condition. While performing a gross motor task and competing with each other, participants were observed and presumably evaluated by a large audience of 1500 to 2000 spectators. Accordingly, public evaluation characterizes (one of) the major situational demands of this applied high-pressure situation. Consequently, situation-relevance in this comparatively public high-pressure situation was inferred for traits linked to public evaluation. The traits public self-consciousness and narcissism appear to be linked to public evaluation, whereas private self-consciousness does not.
K. Geukes et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 243e250
245
Public self-consciousness Public self-consciousness refers to individuals’ consistent tendency to direct attention outward (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975, p. 522). The predominant awareness of oneself as a social object and of being observed and/or evaluated by others is characteristic of persons who score high on public self-consciousness (Fenigstein et al., 1975). Because sport competitions usually provide the situational demand of public evaluation through the presence of an audience, public self-consciousness is explicitly linked to public evaluation and accordingly appraised to be situation-relevant. Within self-presentation theory (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Mesagno, Harvey, & Janelle, 2011), participants try to impress the audience with their performance. In addition to performance, however, outward appearances, behaviors, reactions to, and interactions with others may be part of participants’ self-presentational concerns. Because individuals who score high on public selfconsciousness are more used to the awareness of being evaluated than their low-scoring counterparts (e.g., Baumeister, 1984), we expect that they are able to protect themselves from distraction due to the audience or pressure. In addition to worries about consequences and evaluations of the performance, the distraction includes external visual (e.g., moving spectators) and auditory (e.g., clapping or booing) cues caused by the audience, which might distract from task execution (e.g., DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, & Beilock, 2011). Therefore, we ascribe the ability to successfully concentrate on the task and to protect oneself from distraction to individuals who score high on public self-consciousness, which is in line with the explanation of Baumeister (1984) concerning the selfconsciousness trait. Narcissism The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-IV-TR, American Psychiatric Association, 2000) describes characteristics of a narcissistic personality as including (but not limited to) a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior) and a need for admiration. The need for admiration emphasizes the dependency of narcissists on the positive evaluation of others and provides the link to public evaluation. Therefore, narcissism represents a situation-relevant trait. Concerning the correlational direction, Wallace et al. (2005) hypothesized that narcissism, even in a subclinical population, may be a relevant personality disposition to predict performance under pressure. They considered narcissists to excel in settings that are challenging and promise support for their perceived grandiosity and contingent admiration. An initial experimental study on a dart-throwing task indicated a positive association between narcissism and performance under pressure (Experiment 3; Wallace & Baumeister, 2002). When defeating competitors, breaking records, or experiencing success in front of large audiences, grandiosity and admiration are likely to be perceived (e.g., Elliot & Trash, 2001). Because high-pressure situations involving large audiences offer contexts in which narcissists could create these positive experiences, we expect narcissists to excel under these circumstances. Because socially evaluative situations are important for narcissists (Elliot & Trash, 2001), they presumably have developed an adaptation to its demands due to intentionally and frequently putting themselves into similar situations. Thus, narcissists are used to performing in front of others and perform better than individuals who score low on narcissism. Nevertheless, we consider narcissists to perceive the same pressure intensity as their low-scoring counterparts, so their better performance is not be attributed to lower anxiety scores.
Fig. 1. Schematic display of the goal with attached tarpaulin (hatched area is targethole).
Private self-consciousness To provide evidence that only situation-relevant traits become activated, private self-consciousness, appearing not to be explicitly linked to the major situational demands in this public applied highpressure situation, was included in this study. Private selfconsciousness describes the tendency to introspect, to habitually observe inner states and feelings (Fenigstein et al., 1975). The situational cues of the high-pressure situation (as well as of the low-pressure situation) in this study did not offer a specific link to the private self-consciousness trait so situation-irrelevance was inferred. Because distraction from the task is considered to cause choking in this applied context, or the successful protection from distraction causes clutch performances, the self-focus model e reflected through scores on private self-consciousness e appears to be irrelevant. Purpose The purpose of this study was to test the predictions of the interactionist principle of trait activation using the traits of private and public self-consciousness, and narcissism. The situational component of this study involved an applied pressure manipulation that is unique to choking research. Because competitive sport usually involves (large) audiences, this approach resembles real situational demands. Specifically, we hypothesized that a) the three traits would not contribute to the prediction of low-pressure performance, b) narcissism and public self-consciousness, but not private self-consciousness, would contribute to the prediction of high-pressure performance. Method Participants Participants were 55 handball players (aged from 19 to 41; M ¼ 25.62, SD ¼ 5.60) who were currently playing in an experienced handball team (4th to 6th division), with 34 (62%) participants being female. The inclusion criterion was that participants had at least 3 years of experience in senior handball competitions. Experience in senior handball competitions ranged from 3 to 23 years (M ¼ 7.89, SD ¼ 5.44). Type of sport, experimental task, and equipment Handball is a fast indoor game in which two teams each try to score goals (and prevent the opposing team from scoring). The task in this study was a throwing accuracy task that resembled
246
K. Geukes et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 243e250
a standard 7-m penalty throw. A tarpaulin was placed inside a standard handball goal (dimensions of 3 m by 2 m) attached to the goal posts and bar. In the center of the tarpaulin was a circular target-hole with a diameter of 40 cm (Fig. 1), where participants aimed to throw the handball. The goal was located parallel to the sideline on the midline of the court. Measures Demographics questionnaire The demographic questionnaire included questions about age, gender, and handball playing experience. Private and public self-consciousness Self-consciousness was measured with a modified German version of the Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein et al., 1975): Questionnaire Measuring Dispositional Self-Consciousness ([Fragebogen zur Erfassung dispositioneller Selbstaufmerksamkeit] SAM; Filipp & Freudenberg, 1989). This 27-item questionnaire includes two subscales measuring private (13 items) and public self-consciousness (14 items). Reported internal consistencies are satisfactory with Cronbach’s alpha values of .87 for private selfconsciousness and .88 for public self-consciousness (Filipp & Freudenberg, 1989). The items were answered using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very rarely) to 5 (very often). Consequently, scores ranged from 13 to 65 and 14 to 70 for the private and public self-consciousness subscales, respectively. An example of an item from the private self-consciousness scale is “I realize that I am observing myself”, and from the public self-consciousness scale is “I feel uncomfortable when observed by others”. Narcissism Narcissism was measured using a 10-item subscale of the German Personality Style and Disorder Inventory ([PersönlichkeitsStil-und-Störungs-Inventar] PSSI; Kuhl & Kazén, 2009). The PSSI is a questionnaire that assesses subclinical expressions (i.e., personality styles) of 14 existing personality disorders that are described in the DSM-IV-TR (2000). With the explicit intention of measuring subclinical narcissism (and no other personality style), we only used the subscale labeled “ambitious style and narcissistic personality disorder” reflecting narcissistic tendencies in mentally healthy humans. This subscale has a satisfactory value for internal consistency of .76. The response format was a 4-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (I do not agree) to 4 (I strongly agree), resulting in a total score from 10 to 40. A sample item is “The thought of being a famous person appeals to me.” Reliability analyses of the personality questionnaires The reliability (i.e., internal consistency) of the personality questionnaires was tested for the sample of handball players. The analysis of the private self-consciousness subscale of the SAM indicated a Cronbach Alpha value of .81 for this sample. For the SAM-subscale public self-consciousness a Cronbach Alpha value of .78 was established. The analysis of the narcissism subscale of the PSSI indicated a Cronbach Alpha value of .76. According to George and Mallery (2003) these internal consistency values are acceptable (a > .7) to good (a > .8). Manipulation check Competitive state anxiety Competitive state anxiety was measured using the 12-item subscale of the Wettkampfangstinventar [Competition Anxiety Inventory] (WAI; Brand, Ehrlenspiel, & Graf, 2009). The WAI is
based on the Sport Anxiety Scale (SAS; Smith, Smoll, & Schutz, 1990) and consists of two major subscales assessing competitive trait and state anxiety. The WAI-state scale used in this study has four items in each of three subscales (i.e., somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and self-confidence). The subscales have Cronbach’s alpha values of .81, .74, and .82 for somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and self-confidence, respectively. The response format was a 4-point Likert scale, from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so). Total scores ranged from 4 to 16 points for each subscale. Sample items are: “Right now I feel queasy” (somatic anxiety subscale), “Right now I am concerned that others might be disappointed by my performance” (cognitive anxiety scale), and “Right now I am confident to master this challenge” (self-confidence subscale; all translations by authors). The somatic and cognitive anxiety subscales were included in the data analyses. Performance The total number of successful shots (defined as balls thrown through the target-hole) out of eight attempts for each condition was the dependent variable. This relatively small number of attempts, compared to other studies (e.g., Wang, Marchant, & Morris, 2004) was used for two reasons: First, the small number of throws reduces the likelihood that participants will acclimatize to the pressure situation. Second, this small number heightens the importance and thereby increases the pressure of each throw (Baumeister & Showers, 1986). Procedure Participants were recruited from German handball teams. With the head coaches’ permission, participants were asked to complete a demographic information sheet and an informed consent form, which included information about the institution’s ethical approval. The experimental phase was divided into two separate conditions (hereafter referred to as low-pressure and highpressure), which took place on two different days no more than three days apart. The order of the low and high-pressure conditions was counterbalanced across teams and gender to avoid order effects due to familiarization or learning (i.e., two male and two female teams participated in each of the possible orders). In both conditions, participants were asked to read the instructions for the condition, complete the state-anxiety questionnaire used as a check of pressure manipulation, and then perform the experimental task. Each participant required a total of approximately 6 min to complete these three parts, with the experimental task taking approximately 1 min. Due to time restrictions in the high-pressure condition, participants were not given warm-up throws in either condition. Because the task was not to throw as hard as possible, but as accurate as possible, there were no complains about this procedure neither by the participants nor by the coaches. In each testing session, and for organizational reasons, players originating from one team were tested on the same day, resulting in 6e10 participants per session. Low-pressure The low-pressure condition took place 1 h prior to a team’s training-session at their usual training facility. After completing the personality questionnaires in the changing rooms, the performance-measurement began with the first participant and lead author leaving for the gymnasium. Successively, all participants were tested independently in the gymnasium with only the first author present. Directly after completing the state-anxiety questionnaire, participants performed the task. Meanwhile the rest of the team, accompanied by a research assistant and the coach,
K. Geukes et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 243e250
waited in the changing room. Coaches used this time to prepare for the next game or to discuss organizational issues. High-pressure The high-pressure condition took place during halftime breaks of professional handball games (2nd division) with a large audience of 1500e2000 spectators present per game. When participants were not involved in the high-pressure phase (i.e., during the halftime break), they were part of the audience during the ongoing match. In addition to the audience providing the demand of public evaluation, the pressure manipulation included monetary incentives. Participants were informed that the most accurate shooter (based on individual scores in the high-pressure condition) in this study would receive V50 and the most accurate team (based on the team mean score in the high-pressure condition) would receive V150. The team competition served to sustain motivation, and to enhance commitment to the team score, even if the initial individual attempts were unsuccessful. Before the game and in the beginning of the halftime break, the hall announcer provided a short and standardized description of the halftime “events”, so the audience was informed about the task and the prizes. During the halftime break, there was crowd noise and movement because spectators visited the restrooms or bought drinks. Nevertheless, the majority of the spectators were attentive and only interacted with the participants through clapping when throwing successfully through the target hole. Participants, who waited for their turn, sat 5 m behind the performing participants as part of the audience in the first row where they successively completed the state anxiety questionnaire directly prior to their performance. Participants’ overt behaviors during the highpressure condition did not differ from the behavior of other spectators. After completing the experiment, participants were asked what they thought the purpose of the study was. None of the participants made correct connections between the questionnaires and the throwing task. Participants were then debriefed and thanked for their participation. After full completion of data collection, the best player and the best team received their monetary rewards. Results Manipulation check e anxiety differences To check whether the pressure manipulation was successful, the anxiety subscales of the WAI were analyzed. For this purpose two separate one-tailed paired samples t-tests were conducted for somatic anxiety (low pressure: M ¼ 4.89, SD ¼ 1.30; high pressure: M ¼ 6.89, SD ¼ 1.93) and cognitive anxiety (low pressure: M ¼ 6.05, SD ¼ 1.66; high pressure: M ¼ 7.22, SD ¼ 2.42). Significant differences in anxiety were found for the two subscales of the state anxiety questionnaire. Somatic anxiety, t(54) ¼ 7.91, p < .001, d ¼ 1.19, and cognitive anxiety, t(54) ¼ 3.75, p ¼ .001, d ¼ .55, were significantly higher in the high-pressure than in the lowpressure condition. Correlations between personality traits and competitive state anxiety To ensure that possible differences in performances in the low and high-pressure conditions are not explicable through different pressure perceptions, bivariate correlations were calculated between the personality scores for private (M ¼ 43.55, SD ¼ 5.22; Min ¼ 23; Max ¼ 59) and public self-consciousness (M ¼ 46.02, SD ¼ 5.77; Min ¼ 32; Max ¼ 59), and narcissism (M ¼ 23.20, SD ¼ 4.76; Min ¼ 14; Max ¼ 36) and the low pressure and high-
247
pressure somatic and cognitive anxiety scores. All correlations were insignificant (all p > .05) indicating that the pressure perceptions did not vary with scores on personality traits. Performance differences Performance results indicated that six participants had stable performances across conditions, 20 participants performed better in the high-pressure condition, and 29 participants performed better in the low-pressure condition. Overall, a two-tailed paired samples t-test indicated no significant differences in performance, t(54) ¼ .80, p ¼ .44, d ¼ .13, between the low-pressure (M ¼ 3.45, SD ¼ 1.63) and high-pressure (M ¼ 3.24, SD ¼ 1.79) conditions. Testing personality-related hypotheses To test the hypotheses related to the personality and performance relationship, two regression analyses (low and highpressure conditions) were conducted with each personality disposition serving as predictor of performance. Private selfconsciousness did not contribute to the explanation of performance in the low-pressure, b ¼ .15, t(53) ¼ 1.13, p ¼ .27, or the highpressure condition, b ¼ .11, t(53) ¼ .78, p ¼ .44. The linear regression analysis indicated that public selfconsciousness did not reach significance when predicting lowpressure performance, b ¼ .04, t(53) ¼ .25, p ¼ .80. Public selfconsciousness, however, significantly contributed to the prediction of high-pressure performance scores, b ¼ .29, t(53) ¼ 2.20, p ¼ .03. The regression significantly explained 8% of the highpressure performance, R2 ¼ .08, F (1, 53) ¼ 4.85, p ¼ .03. The linear regression analysis indicated that narcissism did not contribute to the explanation of low-pressure performance, b ¼ .05, t(53) ¼ .37, p ¼ .72. Narcissism, however, significantly predicted high-pressure performance, b ¼ .34, t(53) ¼ 2.62, p ¼ .01, explaining 12% of the high-pressure performance variance, R2 ¼ .12, F (1, 53) ¼ 6.89, p ¼ .01. Additional multiple regression analyses To determine whether public self-consciousness and narcissism (r ¼ .21; p ¼ .119) contributed uniquely to the prediction of performance, they were tested for their combined predictive abilities in a multiple regression analysis. The analysis indicated a significant explanation of performance variance, R2 ¼ .16, F (2, 52) ¼ 4.99, p ¼ .01, with narcissism being the only significant predictor, b ¼ .28, t(52) ¼ 2.19, p ¼ .03, and public self-consciousness not reaching significance, b ¼ .22, t(52) ¼ 1.69, p ¼ .10. Predicting performance changes between low and high-pressure conditions To provide further support for the (ir-)relevance of the investigated traits, a change score was calculated by subtracting lowpressure performance from high-pressure performance (M ¼ .22; SD ¼ 2.03). These scores ranged from 4 points to 4 points and maintained information about performance increases (i.e., positive values) or decreases (i.e., negative values) from low to high-pressure condition. The regression analysis with private selfconsciousness as a predictor and the change score of performance as criterion indicated no contribution to the explanation of performance changes, b ¼ .14, t(54) ¼ .98, p ¼ .341; R2 ¼ .02, F (1, 54) ¼ .92, p ¼ .341. The public self-consciousness trait significantly predicted the change score of performance in the two conditions, b ¼ .27, t(54) ¼ 2.04, p ¼ .047, and explained 7% of the performance variance, R2 ¼ .07, F (1, 54) ¼ 4.15, p ¼ .047. The regression analysis with
248
K. Geukes et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 243e250
narcissism indicated only marginal significance, b ¼ .26, t(54) ¼ 1.93, p ¼ .059, predicting the change score of performance, R2 ¼ .07, F (1, 54) ¼ 3.72, p ¼ .059. These results indicate positive associations between the scores on the public self-consciousness (and narcissism) scales with performance changes across pressure conditions. High trait scores were related to improved performance, whereas low trait scores indicated performance decreases in the high-pressure condition. Contrasting choking and clutch performances On the basis of the performance change scores, choking athletes (n ¼ 29; M ¼ 1.79, SD ¼ 1.08) and clutch athletes (n ¼ 20; M ¼ 2.00; SD ¼ 1.03), who significantly differed in performance changes, t(47) ¼ 12.32, p < .001, d ¼ 3.59, were contrasted with one-tailed t-tests for independent samples according to their scores on the investigated traits. Concerning private self-consciousness, choking (M ¼ 43.86; SD ¼ 6.17) and clutch performing athletes (M ¼ 44.70; SD ¼ 6.87) did not differ significantly, t(48) ¼ .45, p ¼ .328; d ¼ .13. Scores on the public self-consciousness scale significantly separated choking (M ¼ 44.52; SD ¼ 6.19) and clutch performing athletes (M ¼ 49.25; SD ¼ 5.29), t(48) ¼ 2.79, p ¼ .004; d ¼ .81. Choking (M ¼ 22.20; SD ¼ 3.82) and clutch performing athletes (M ¼ 24.05; SD ¼ 5.34) only marginally differed on narcissism trait scores, t(48) ¼ 1.40, p ¼ .097; d ¼ .41. Discussion The purpose of the current study was to test the predictions of the interactionist principle of trait activation on the relationship between personality and performance under pressure. Participants performed a throwing accuracy task in low-pressure and applied high-pressure situations, which was unique to research on performance under pressure. Due to anticipated situation-trait relevance, narcissism and public self-consciousness were hypothesized to predict performance in a publicly evaluative high-pressure situation. In contrast, private self-consciousness, given proposed situation-trait irrelevance, was not expected to contribute to the prediction of either low or high-pressure performance. The findings support the applicability of the interactionist principle of trait activation predicting performance under pressure. Personality e performance under pressure relationship To provide evidence for trait activation, it was necessary to find the relevance of situation-relevant traits (i.e., public selfconsciousness and narcissism) and the irrelevance of situationirrelevant traits (i.e., private self-consciousness). As hypothesized, narcissism and public self-consciousness significantly contributed to the prediction of high-pressure performance, but were irrelevant to low-pressure performance. Private self-consciousness, as expected, did not contribute to the prediction of performance in any condition. Additional analyses that predicted the differential score of low and high-pressure performance and contrasted choking and clutch performing athletes indicated a similar pattern. Public selfconsciousness was found to significantly predict the differential performance score, and participants who choked during the highpressure condition scored significantly lower on the public selfconsciousness scale compared to those who had clutch performances. The same tendency e nevertheless, only marginally significant e was found for the narcissism trait. Compared to the regression analyses, the addition of analyzing the differential score and contrasting choking and clutch performers reduced variability in the performance scale. Given that there were only eight throws per pressure condition and that the dichotomous performance
operationalization restricted potential variance, low variance might account for only marginally significant findings for the narcissism trait. Generally, only the combination of significant findings for situation-relevant dispositions and insignificant findings for situation-irrelevant dispositions represents the full predictive potential of trait activation. Trait activation, however, is only able to predict relevance per se. Analyses of correlational directions, however, indicated that narcissism and public self-consciousness were positively associated with performance under pressure. Individuals who showed clutch performances scored higher on these predictors than individuals who showed choking performances. These positive associations support the assumption that individuals who are publicly self-conscious and narcissistic are better at creating a state in which successful performance is possible, as self-presentation and distraction explanations of choking would predict (e.g., Mesagno et al., 2011; Oudejans et al., 2011). Handling the exposure to public and protecting themselves from possible distraction and self-presentational concerns in the high-pressure condition appear to be key abilities for success in this public pressure situation. Private self-consciousness Because private self-consciousness did not contribute to any prediction of performance, the self-focus model, which was found to be largely relevant to the explanation of choking in laboratorybased experimental studies, does not explain performance under pressure in this applied context. Private self-consciousness is commonly considered to reflect the tendency to develop a current self-focus (e.g., Baumeister, 1984; Wang, Marchant, Morris, & Gibbs, 2004), which might lead to the explicit monitoring of task execution and result in poor performance (e.g., Master, 1992; Masters & Maxwell, 2008). Therefore, we concluded that either our pressure manipulation was unable to provoke a self-focus that might cause choking in applied settings or real competitions, or choking in real competitions mainly occurs due to distraction rather than a current self-focus. Public self-consciousness To our knowledge, this study is the first to find public selfconsciousness as a single subscale that contributes to the explanation of performance under pressure. The positive association to performance under pressure reflects the correlative direction Baumeister (1984) proposed and empirical support for the relationship of self-consciousness and performance under pressure. Baumeister, however, used the combined scores of private and public self-consciousness. The relevance of public selfconsciousness in a high-pressure situation with public evaluation as a major situational demand indicates that being accustomed to demands of high-pressure can serve as a facilitative factor. Individuals who score low on public self-consciousness are not as used to the state of being publicly self-aware as their high-scoring counterparts, and they show poor performance presumably due to distraction from the task. Whether this distraction was caused by internal cues (e.g., worries) or external cues (e.g., being attentive to reactions of the audience) remains an unresolved question. Narcissism Although further and explicit research on the exact mechanism of how narcissism facilitates performance under pressure is needed, we suggest two main reasons why participants scoring high on narcissism showed better performance under pressure than their low-scoring counterparts. First, because socially evaluative situations are important to maintain their grandiose pictures of themselves and receive admiration (e.g., Elliot & Trash, 2001),
K. Geukes et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 243e250
narcissists might be more experienced in performing in front of others than their low-scoring counterparts. Due to this experience narcissists were able to create a state that allowed optimal performance. Second, while being equally state-anxious as their less narcissistic counterparts, narcissists performed better in the high-pressure condition. Thus, they might have anticipated positive evaluation and admiration by the audience, and therefore interpreted the exposure to the audience in the high-pressure situation in a more positive way. According to Jones and Swain (1992) and Lazarus and Folkman (1984), for example, the interpretation of anxiety related symptoms and thoughts may determine whether performing is facilitated or debilitated under heightened levels of anxiety. Limitations Task Throwing accuracy in handball is important for successful penalty throws. Although penalty throws usually demand more than throwing accuracy alone (e.g., decision making, anticipating the goalkeeper’s movement), the ability to throw accurately reflects a basal precondition for successful attempts. Findings indicated that using a small number of trials (i.e., eight throws) is a legitimate way to induce enough performance variance for correlational analyses, although accepting that this low variance might make it difficult to detect group differences. Participants Participants were skilled handball players out of teams of the 4th to 6th division, who had at least 3 years of experience in senior handball competitions. The decision for players out of these divisions was taken to ensure that the participants were skilled but unused to large audiences. Usually, these players perform in front of 50e300 spectators, so the high-pressure condition somewhat exaggerated their real competitions. Pressure manipulation The pressure manipulation was successful at inducing statistically significant differences in anxiety across the low and highpressure conditions. With medium to high effect sizes (Cohen, 1988), somatic anxiety was affected the most by the pressure manipulation, followed by cognitive anxiety. Admittedly, one could have expected greater effect sizes for the state anxiety comparison, because state anxiety should increase with the intensity and scope of the pressure manipulation (e.g., Baumeister & Showers, 1986). Two reasons might explain these comparatively low anxiety differences. First, because it is not possible to measure state anxiety with a questionnaire in a pre-coping state, we believe that the participants e especially directly before performing e might have only admitted intermediate levels of anxiety. Second, the cognitive anxiety scale of the WAI only includes a few items that address the major situational demand of this high-pressure condition (i.e., public evaluation, audiences; Brand et al., 2009). Therefore, the construct validity might be suboptimal for this applied setting. Although the WAI might involve these limitations, its ability to detect anxiety differences remains unchallenged. Future directions This study was the first to investigate the applicability of trait activation to performance under pressure using an applied, but experimentally controlled, real-world pressure manipulation. Despite advantages concerning ecological validity, the highpressure condition was not as controlled as in laboratory-based settings. The need for research in settings that closely simulate
249
competitions, however, appears to justify this applied, less controlled, research approach. Therefore, future research should also address situation-trait relevance as an indicator of relevance of traits. Admittedly, situation-trait relevance is a vague term and in this study only relies on construct-based plausibility through conceptual relations. Nevertheless, our comparatively subjective judgments were confirmed by our findings. The quantification of situation-trait relevance as a statistical value (Tett & Gutermann, 2000) will be the task for future researchers to improve objectivity. High-pressure situations (e.g., private and public high-pressure) might differ in situation-trait relevance, so that different traits might explain performance in different high-pressure situations. To establish traits that matter in different high-pressure situations, a comparison of high-pressure situations is necessary. To provide findings that are generalizable to the applied field, especially as foundation for the development of interventions, ecologically valid approaches are essential. On the basis of the application of trait activation to the relationship of personality traits and performance under pressure, it will be interesting whether this idea is transferable to domains other than sport and tasks other than gross motor skills. Although there is no obvious reason why trait activation prediction should be restricted to gross motor tasks in sports, an explicit investigation will be crucial. Music concerts (e.g., Wan & Huon, 2005), exams (e.g., Beilock & DeCaro, 2007; Kinrade et al., 2010), driving tests (e.g., Fairclough, Tattersall, & Houston, 2006), presentations, and job-interviews (e.g., Beilock, 2010), or police work (e.g., Nieuwenhuys & Oudejans, 2010; Oudejans, 2008), for example, offer interesting and diverse contexts in which trait activation may also help explain the relationship between personality and performance under pressure. Generally, the consideration of interactionism, and specifically of the trait activation principle, in the context of performance under pressure might help to gain a situation-specific understanding of the personality influence and to develop interventions that are specific to the expected pressure situation and to the task to be performed. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the HSG Ahlen-Hamm for their outstanding cooperation and support in helping us conduct this applied experimental study (even in the halftime breaks of important games!). We would also like to thank Michael Janik for his valuable suggestions and helpful comments from a personality psychology perspective. Additionally, we would like to thank the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Sankt Augustin (Germany) for its fundamental support of this project. References Allport, G. W. (1966). Traits revisited. American Psychologist, 21, 1e10. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (Revised 4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 610e620. Baumeister, R. F., & Showers, C. (1986). A review of paradoxical performance effects: choking under pressure in sports and mental tests. European Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 361e381. Beilock, S. L. (2010). Choke: What the secrets of the brain reveal about getting it right when you have to. New York: Free Press (Simon & Schuster). Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: what governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 701e725. Beilock, S. L., & DeCaro, M. S. (2007). From poor performance to success under stress: working memory, strategy selection, and mathematical problem solving under pressure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 983e998.
250
K. Geukes et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 13 (2012) 243e250
Brand, R., Ehrlenspiel, F., & Graf, K. (2009). Wettkampf-Angst-Inventar (WAI). Manual zur komprehensiven Eingangsdiagnostik von Wettkampfangst, Wettkampfängstlichkeit und Angstbewältigungsmodus im Sport. [Competition Anxiety Inventory. Manual for comprehensive diagnostics of competitive trait and state anxiety, and coping]. Köln: Sport und Buch Strauß. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation. New York: Springer. Clark, T. P., Tofler, I. R., & Lardon, M. T. (2005). The sport psychiatrist and golf. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 24, 959e971. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DeCaro, M. S., Thomas, R. D., Albert, N. B., & Beilock, S. L. (2011). Choking under pressure: multiple routes to skill failure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 390e406. Elliot, A. J., & Trash, T. M. (2001). Narcissism and motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 216e219. Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: attentional control theory. Emotion, 7, 336e353. Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: the processing efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 409e434. Fairclough, S. H., Tattersall, A., & Houston, K. (2006). The British driving test: the influence of anxiety on performance. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology & Behaviour, 9, 43e52. Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private selfconsciousness: assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522e527. Filipp, S.-H., & Freudenberg, E. (1989). Der Fragebogen zur Erfassung dispositioneller Selbstaufmerksamkeit (SAM-Fragebogen). [Questionnaire measuring dispositional self-consciousness]. Göttingen: Hogrefe. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gucciardi, D. F., Longbottom, J., Jackson, B., & Dimmock, J. A. (2010). Experienced golfers’ perspectives on choking under pressure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 61e83. Hill, D. M., Hanton, S., Fleming, S., & Matthews, N. (2009). A re-examination of choking in sport. European Journal of Sport Science, 9, 203e212. Hill, D. M., Hanton, S., Matthews, N., & Fleming, S. (2010). Choking in sport: a review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3(1), 24e39. Jones, G., & Swain, A. (1992). Intensity and direction as dimensions of competitive state anxiety and relationships with competitiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 467e472. Jordet, G., & Hartman, E. (2008). Avoidance motivation and choking under pressure in soccer penalty shootouts. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 450e457. Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: lessons from the personesituation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23e34. Kinrade, N., Jackson, R. C., & Ashford, K. J. (2010). Dispositional reinvestment and skill failure cognitive and motor tasks. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 312e319. Kuhl, J., & Kazén, M. (2009). Persönlichkeits-Stil-und-Störungs-Inventar (PSSI). Manual. [Personality style and disorder inventory] (2., überarbeitete und neu normierte Auflage).. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: a literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34e47. Lewis, B. P., & Linder, D. E. (1997). Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 937e944.
Masters, R. S. W. (1992). Knowledge, nerves and know-how. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 343e358. Masters, R. S. W., & Maxwell, J. (2008). The theory of reinvestment. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 160e184. Masters, R. S. W., Polman, R. C. J., & Hammond, N. V. (1993). ‘Reinvestment’: a dimension of personality implicated in skill breakdown under pressure. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 655e666. Mesagno, C., Harvey, J. T., & Janelle, C. M. (2011). Self-presentation origins of choking: evidence from separate pressure manipulations. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 441e459. Mesagno, C., & Mullane-Grant, T. (2010). A comparison of different pre-performance routines as possible choking interventions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 343e360. Nieuwenhuys, A., & Oudejans, R. R. D. (2010). Effects of anxiety on handgun shooting behavior of police officers: a pilot study. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 23, 225e233. Otten, M. (2009). Choking vs. clutch performance: a study of sport performance under pressure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31, 583e601. Oudejans, R. R. D. (2008). Reality based practice under pressure improves handgun shooting performance of police officers. Ergonomics, 51, 261e273. Oudejans, R. R. D., Kuipers, W., Kooijman, C. C., & Bakker, F. C. (2011). Thoughts and attention of athletes under pressure: skill-focus or performance worries? Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 24, 59e73. Sarason, I. G. (1988). Anxiety, self-preoccupation and attention. Anxiety Research, 1, 3e7. Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Wright, J. (1994). Intraindividual stability in the organization and patterning of behavior: incorporating psychological situations into the idiographic analysis of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 674e687. Smith, N. C., Bellamy, M., Collins, D. J., & Newell, D. (2001). A test of processing efficiency theory in a team sport context. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 321e332. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Schutz, R. W. (1990). Measurement and correlates of sport-specific cognitive and somatic anxiety: the sport anxiety scale. Anxiety Research, 2, 263e280. Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500e517. Tett, R. P., & Gutermann, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397e423. Wallace, H. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2002). The performance of narcissists rises and falls with perceived opportunity for glory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 819e834. Wallace, H. M., Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2005). Audience support and choking under pressure: a home disadvantage? Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 429e438. Wan, C. Y., & Huon, G. F. (2005). Performance degradation under pressure in music: an examination of attentional processes. Psychology of Music, 33, 155e172. Wang, J., Marchant, D. B., & Morris, T. (2004). Coping style and susceptibility to choking. Journal of Sport Behavior, 27, 75e92. Wang, J., Marchant, D. B., Morris, T., & Gibbs, P. (2004). Self-consciousness and trait anxiety as predictors of choking in sport. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 7, 174e185. Wilson, M. (2008). From processing efficiency to attentional control: a mechanistic account of the anxiety-performance relationship. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 184e202. Wine, J. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 92e104.