Warming up with Pressure Improves Subsequent Clutch Performance on a Golf-Putting Task

doi:10.4236/ape.2012.24025

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Advances in Physical Education

2012. Vol.2, No.4, 144-147

Published Online November 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ape) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ape.2012.24025

144

Warming up with Pressure Improves Subsequent Clutch

Performance on a Golf-Putting Task

Desmond McEwan1, Rodney Schmaltz2, Kathleen A. Martin Ginis1

1Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

2Department of Psychology, Grant MacEwan University, Edmonton, Canada

Email: [email protected]

Received August 25th, 2012; revised September 28th, 2012; accepted October 11th, 2012

The purpose of the current study was to determine if athletic performance in a high-pressure situation is

improved by briefly warming up under high-pressure conditions. Participants first completed a warm up

round of golf putting (five shots) under low, moderate, or high pressure. Following a short break, partici-

pants completed a single putt under high pressure. Participants who completed the warm up under high

pressure performed significantly better on the subsequent high-pressure shot than those who warmed up

under low pressure. Warming up under pressure may be an effective means of improving performance in

an impending high-pressure situation.

Keywords: Choking; Pressure; Psychology; Golf; Explicit Monitoring

Introduction

The phenomenon known as “choking under pressure” has

been subject to extensive experimental research in sport and

performance psychology. Choking occurs when an individual

performs poorer under instances of high pressure (or in “clutch”

situations) in comparison to his/her performance under in-

stances of lower pressure (Beilock & Gray, 2007). There are

certainly times when athletes do not perform at their peak but,

in many instances, these performance decrements occur during

critical points of competition when the importance of perform-

ing well is very high. For instance, a golfer may find that suc-

cessfully sinking a short putt on the final hole of a major to win

the tournament is far more daunting than other putts taken dur-

ing competition.

Numerous theories have been proposed and tested to deter-

mine why high pressure can impair performance. Among these

is the explicit monitoring theory, which posits that high-pres-

sure situations raise self-consciousness and anxiety regarding

performance (Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Gray, 2007). In

these clutch situations, individuals try to exert more explicit

control and monitoring than normally would be applied (and

required) in lower-pressure situations. Several studies have

provided support for this theory as a potential explanation for

choking (e.g., Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr, 2001; Lewis

& Linder, 1997; Masters, 1992) and suggest that the psycho-

logical demands—specifically the self-regulatory demands—are

different in high-pressure situations of competition compared to

other situations. In addition, research guided by the explicit

monitoring theory has been conducted to test for potential ways

to ameliorate choking. Most pertinent to the current study is the

finding that an athlete’s learning condition can affect his/her

performance in later high-pressure situations. Beilock and Carr

(2001) found that participants who were trained on a golf-put-

ting task under self-consciousness-evoking learning conditions

were less likely to choke on a high-pressure follow-up task that

would increase self-consciousness compared to those who had

been trained under conditions that did not evoke self-con-

sciousness. The researchers concluded that these participants

performed better because they had been trained under condi-

tions similar to the final testing situation. In addition, other

studies have found that individuals who train under conditions

of mild anxiety are more likely to perform successfully in later

high-pressure situations compared to those who train without

anxiety (Oudejans & Pijpers, 2010; Oudejans & Pijpers, 2009).

Thus, it seems that individuals are better prepared for perform-

ing in situations that are similar to those they have encountered

previously, as they seem to have become “accustomed” to the

self-regulatory demands of these types of situations (Baumeis-

ter, 1984).

In the current study, we sought to build upon the results of

the aforementioned studies of performing in high-pressure

situations. While the training environment that an athlete prac-

tices in is clearly an important factor for improving perform-

ance under high pressure, we believe that preparation should

also occur just prior to these high-pressure scenarios (i.e., dur-

ing an individual’s warm up). As Baumeister, Heatherton, and

Tice (1994: p. 19) put it: “people who are not accustomed to

controlling themselves should find it difficult to do so when it

suddenly becomes necessary.” We also believe that this type of

a warm up to pressure need not be extensive. Rather, even a

brief simulation of pressure will be beneficial to individuals’

performance in a subsequent high-pressure situation as it will

help prime the self-regulatory processes required for perform-

ing optimally in these latter situations. We tested this possibil-

ity in the present experiment using a golf-putting task. Partici-

pants first completed a series of warm up shots under low,

moderate, or high pressure. Thereafter, all participants com-

pleted a single, high-pressure putt, as a simulation of the clutch

situations that often result in choking in sports. Presumably,

those who had recently experienced these high-pressure sce-

narios (i.e., those in the high-pressure warm up condition)

would be better able to self-regulate under these conditions and,

D. MCEWAN ET AL.

thus, perform better than those who had not recently experi-

enced putting under high pressure (i.e., those in the low-pres-

sure warm up condition).

It was hypothesized that the warm up condition would be a

significant predictor of performance on the single, high-pres-

sure shot. Specifically, participants who warmed up in the high-

pressure condition would be more likely to make the high-

pressure shot than those in the moderate-pressure group who, in

turn, would be more likely to make the high-pressure shot than

those in the low-pressure group. We believed that these differ-

ences would emerge because those who had already performed

in a high-pressure situation would become accustomed to the

psychological demands of performing in these high-pressure

circumstances.

Method

Participants

The study sample consisted of 119 undergraduate students

(28 males, 91 females) from a Canadian university who re-

ceived credit toward an introductory psychology course re-

quirement participated in this study. Ethical approval for the

study was given from the university’s research ethics board.

Procedures

After signing a consent form, participants were given an

overview of the procedure and asked to take five practice shots

to become familiar with the putter and the putting green. The

putting task was completed with a neutral-handed putter and

regulation golf ball on a nine-foot long indoor, carpeted putting

green, which had a regulation-sized cup. The actual length of

all putts was 7 feet. Although there was only one participant per

session, participants were led to believe that three other indi-

viduals were completing the same study at the same time in

separate rooms within the testing laboratory with another ex-

perimenter. The reason given for this separation of participants

was that there was not enough room in the present room for all

four participants; in actuality, this cover story was given to set

up the later manipulation.

Participants were randomly allocated to the low- (n = 39),

moderate- (n = 38), or high-pressure (n = 42) warm up condi-

tion and read through a form that provided more detailed in-

formation about the experimental task. Written instructions

were provided in order to keep the experimenter blind to the

condition and, thus, prevent any potential demand awareness

effects. The experimenter left the room for two minutes and,

upon return, asked if the participants read and understood the

procedure form—there were no instances in which a participant

did not understand clearly and, thus, no instances where an

experimenter was clued into which group a participant had been

assigned to.

Warm up round of putting. Participants were given one of

three pieces of information depending on which warm up con-

dition they were in. In the low-pressure condition, participants

read that the study was being conducted to determine how

many putts an average student can make out of five attempts. In

the moderate-pressure condition, participants read that he/she

had been paired with one of the other alleged study participants

and competing against the other two alleged participants; as

such, the social pressure to perform well (i.e., not letting one’s

teammate down) was higher in this condition compared to the

low-pressure condition. The participant was told that there

would be a series of rounds of five putts; his/her team’s score

would be compared against the other team’s score and the win-

ning team would receive a ten-dollar prize; this potential

monetary reward was also included to increase the importance

of performing well compared to the low-pressure condition. In

the high-pressure condition, the participant read a similar pro-

cedure form as those participants in the moderate condition;

however, he/she was told that there would only be one round of

putting. This was included to increase the importance of per-

forming well compared to the moderate-pressure condition.

That is, while participants in the moderate-pressure condition

would supposedly have many chances to perform well (in

which case, they could “make up” for any poor performances

over several rounds), participants in the high-pressure would

only have one round of putting to perform well. Moreover, the

participant was told that the other three participants had already

completed their putts and his/her current performance would

decide who the winners would be. Upon completion of the first

five putts, the experimenter exited the room to allegedly tally

up the results.

The tiebreaker scenario. After two minutes, the experi-

menter returned and handed the participant another procedure

form. This form described that there had been a tie between the

two teams and he/she was required to take a final shot to decide

the competition’s winners. The cover story varied slightly to

correspond with the information presented in the initial round

of putting. As such, participants in the low-pressure condition

were informed that, contrary to what they were previously told,

they had actually been paired with another participant and were

competing against two other participants for a ten-dollar prize.

Essentially, they were told what participants in the high-pres-

sure condition were originally told and that a tie resulted from

this alleged competition. Participants in the moderate-pressure

group were informed that, instead of several rounds of putting,

the previous five putts were the only ones that would count

towards their final score but there was a tie between the two

teams. Participants in the high-pressure condition read that the

initial round of putting did not decide a winner because of a tie.

All participants were then told that there was only time for one

shot because the experimental session needed to be completed

shortly. Therefore, if the participant made the shot, his/her team

would receive the ten-dollar reward (five dollars each); how-

ever, if he/she missed, no reward would be given. Upon com-

pletion of the tiebreaker shot, participants were asked how

much pressure and anxiety they felt throughout the experiment,

probed for suspicions regarding the true purpose of the study,

and debriefed. To maintain ethical standards, all participants

were given the five-dollar reward, regardless of their perform-

ance on this shot.

Data Analysis

A one-way ANOVA was first carried out to determine

whether conditions differed significantly in shot percentages on

the initial five warm-up putts. A binary logistic regression was

then conducted to determine whether the condition in which

participants completed the five warm up shots predicted per-

formance on the tiebreaker shot. The outcome variable was

whether participants made or missed this tiebreaker shot. The

predictor variable was condition in the warm up round of put-

ting.

D. MCEWAN ET AL.

Results

The shot percentage for the low-pressure condition in the

warm up round was 34.4%, compared to 33.2% for the moder-

ate-pressure condition, and 37.1% for the high-pressure condi-

tion. A one-way ANOVA revealed that successful shot per-

centages on the five warm up shots were not significantly dif-

ferent between the three conditions (i.e., regardless of condition,

participants were equally likely to make a given shot during the

warm up), F(118) = .25, p = .78. Ten out of 39 participants

(25.6%) in the low-pressure condition successfully made the

subsequent tiebreaker shot, compared to 13 out of 38 partici-

pants (34.2%) in the moderate-pressure condition, and 20 out of

42 participants in the high-pressure condition. The binary logis-

tic regression revealed that condition was a significant predictor

of performance on the tiebreaker shot. As hypothesized, par-

ticipants in the high-pressure warm up condition were more

likely to make the tiebreaker shot than participants in the

low-pressure warm up condition, Wald = 4.09, β = .97, p = .043.

Contrary to hypothesis, participants in the moderate-pressure

condition did not perform significantly better than those in the

low-pressure condition, Wald = .67, β = .41, p = .413.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine whether warming

up under high pressure would predict better performance on a

subsequent high-pressure athletic task compared to warming up

under moderate or low pressure. In partial support of our hy-

pothesis, participants who warmed up under high pressure per-

formed significantly better on the high-pressure tiebreaker shot

than those who completed the warm up under low pressure.

This finding provides an important contribution to the literature

on performing under pressure. Specifically, it suggests that a

brief warm up under pressure may be a beneficial way for im-

proving performance in subsequent clutch situations.

The results of this study complement the findings of previous

studies, which have shown that training in an environment that

simulates the high-pressure circumstances that occur during

athletic competition results in improved performance when

these situations subsequently arise (Beilock & Carr, 2001;

Oudejans & Pijpers, 2009; Oudejans & Pijpers, 2010). In addi-

tion to training for high-pressure situations (i.e., during prac-

tices), our results indicate that it seems beneficial to briefly

warm up for these situations (i.e., just prior to when they are

expected to occur). Furthermore, as our initial round of putting

consisted of a mere five shots, it seems that this warm up need

not be overly exhaustive. As such, athletes—as well as coaches

and/or sport psychologists—could easily employ this technique

without interfering with the normal preparation for competition.

Preparing for high-pressure situations can be viewed as analo-

gous to preparing oneself, physically. That is, to ensure high

athletic performance, a muscle or physical skill must first be

trained in a manner that simulates the physical demands that

will occur during an upcoming competition. Then, just prior to

the competition, the athlete must stretch and warm up to also

help ensure optimal performance. In much the same way,

preparation for the psychological demands of a forthcoming

high-pressure competition should occur during training and also

while warming up immediately before the competition.

This study provides further support for the utility of the ex-

plicit monitoring theory as a guiding framework for improving

athletic performance under pressure. This theory posits that,

under pressure, self-consciousness increases and individuals

attend to the step-by-step processes involved in completing a

motor task, which impairs performance (Baumeister, 1984;

Beilock & Gray, 2007). However, this theory also suggests that

familiarizing oneself with the conditions that will result in this

conscious control of the skill is a beneficial way of improving

performance under pressure (Baumeister, 1984). Indeed, the

psychological demands on an athlete to perform well under

high pressure are different than in normal competitive situations

(Beilock & Carr, 2001; Beilock & Gray, 2007). By preparing

for these demands in training and just prior to competition ath-

letes can become better able to deal with the self-regulatory

demands of high-pressure circumstances. In turn, this prepara-

tion can result in improved performance during clutch situations.

Limitations

While the results of this study provide a novel contribution to

the literature of performance under pressure, it is not without its

limitations. For one, our sample consisted of undergraduate

psychology students. As such, it may be premature to suggest

that these results generalize to athletes. Secondly, while the

purpose of not having participants interact with other alleged

competitors (e.g., a study confederate) in the experiment was to

prevent any group dynamics effects, the resulting manner in

which the current study was conducted is somewhat artificial

compared to real-world sporting competitions. Thirdly, while

being debriefed, most participants in the high-pressure warm up

condition claimed that they felt high pressure to perform well,

while most in the low-pressure condition indicated that they felt

little or no pressure to perform well. However, a more rigorous

manipulation check would be valuable to help quantify the

amount of pressure (or other emotions such as anxiety) that

participants may have experienced.

Future Directions

Discovering the most beneficial ways in which athletes can

perform optimally in high-pressure situations continues to be a

focus for numerous researchers in the field of sport psychology.

The results from the current study are the first to suggest that it

may be helpful for athletes to warm up under conditions that

simulate the impending high-pressure situations that will arise

during competition, and it would be valuable that additional

tests of this hypothesis be carried out. For instance, it may

prove beneficial to test this hypothesis with elite athletes to

confirm that these results generalize to this population. Also,

our warm up was quite brief, consisting of only five putts. Al-

though this was intentional to show that warming up for subse-

quent high-pressure situations need not be extensive, it would

be valuable to determine the ideal length of time of a warm up

(i.e., the dose-response relationship between warming up and

subsequent performance under pressure). Future research

should also assess the combination of the optimal training and

warm up situations that best replicate the experience of

high-pressure competitions and, in turn, improve performance

in actual competitions, thereafter.

REFERENCES

Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness

146

D. MCEWAN ET AL.

and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Jour-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 610-620.

doi:10.1037//0022-3514.46.3.610

Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing

control. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled per-

formance: What governs choking under pressure? Journal of Ex-

perimental Psychology: General, 130, 701-725.

doi:10.1037//0096-3445.130.4.701

Beilock, S. L., & Gray, R. (2007). Why do athletes “choke” under

pressure? In G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of

sport psychology (pp. 425-444). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Lewis, B., & Linder, D. (1997). Thinking about choking? Attentional

processes and paradoxical performance. Personality & Social Psy-

chology Bulletin, 23, 937-944. doi:10.1177/0146167297239003

Masters, R. S. W. (1992). Knowledge, knerves, and know-how: The

role of explicit versus implicit knowledge in the breakdown of a

complex motor skill under pressure. British Journal of Psychology,

83, 343-358. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1992.tb02446.x

Oudejans, R. R. D., & Pijpers, J. R. (2009). Training with anxiety has a

positive effect on expert perceptual-motor performance under pres-

sure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6 2, 1631-1647.

doi:10.1080/17470210802557702

Oudejans, R. D., & Pijpers, J. R. (2010). Training with mild anxiety

may prevent choking under higher levels of anxiety. Psychology of

Sport and Exercise, 11, 44-50. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.05.002