Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in:

09-03-2024 | Research

Control strategy under pressure situations: performance pressure conditionally enhances proactive control

Auteurs: Zhenliang Liu, Rixin Tang

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2024

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Previous research and theories have demonstrated that attentional control plays a crucial role in explaining the choking phenomenon (i.e., the performance decrements) under pressure situations. Attentional control is thought to function through two distinct control strategies: proactive control (i.e., a sustained and anticipatory strategy of control) and reactive control (i.e., a transient strategy of control). However, little is known about how performance pressure affects these control strategies. The present study was designed to address this issue. Participants were instructed to complete a continuous performance task (AX-CPT40) under pressure situations. The results showed that individuals under high-pressure situations tended to use proactive control rather than reactive control. Moreover, performance pressure resulted in a more liberal response bias following an A-cue, consistent with an increased use of proactive control. Importantly, the proactive behavioral index calculated on RTs showed that the increased proactive control mainly occurred in the short interval between the cue and probe, but not in the long interval. This suggests that individuals under high-pressure situations are unlikely to employ a proactive control strategy in a situation that requires more attentional resources. In summary, our results provide initial evidence that performance pressure conditionally enhances proactive control, which contributes to a deeper understanding of the dynamic adjustment of control strategies under pressure situations.
Voetnoten
1
The independent-samples t-test revealed that participants did not differ in terms of their trait anxiety (t(66) = 0.79, p = 0.431), perceived stress (t(66) =  − 0.17, p = 0.865), attentional control (t(66) =  − 0.25, p = 0.806), self-control (t(66) = 0.20, p = 0.844), and self-consciousness (t(66) = 0.72, p = 0.474) between the pressure and control group. Therefore, the difference in the subsequent experimental results between the pressure and control groups cannot be attributed to the individual differences in these trait variables between the two groups.
 
2
It should be noted that the low-pressure condition preceded the high-pressure condition. This set order was designed to make the low-pressure manipulation as innocuous and inconspicuous as possible, while also avoiding the impact of high-pressure situation on the low-pressure test (Beilock et al., 2004). The set order has been widely employed in previous studies (Beilock & Carr, 2005; DeCaro et al., 2011; Liu & Tang, 2024b; Markman et al., 2006; Mesghina et al., 2022; Sattizahn et al., 2016). Simultaneously, a control group was used to exclude the potential effect of this order manipulation on the study results.
 
3
This formula for response bias is different from the usual formula − 0.5 × (Z(H) + Z(F)). The purpose of the revision is to emphasize that higher positive values mean more liberal target response biases (Gonthier et al., 2016; Richmond et al., 2015).
 
4
As the three-way interaction effects on ACC and RT were not significant, it suggests that the ISI variable did not play a role in the effects of performance pressure on ACC and RT. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity and clarity, we only present the group × test interaction effect in Figs. 2 and 3, while excluding the time interval variable.
 
5
Regardless of the pretest (F(1, 66) = 0.71, p = 0.402) or posttest (F(1, 66) = 1.47, p = 0.230), the pressure and control groups did not significantly differ.
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Beilock, S. L., & Gray, R. (2007). Why do athletes choke under pressure? In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3 ed., pp. 425–444). Wiley. Beilock, S. L., & Gray, R. (2007). Why do athletes choke under pressure? In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3 ed., pp. 425–444). Wiley.
go back to reference Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Keys, B. A., Carter, C. S., Cohen, J. D., Kaye, J. A., Janowsky, J. S., Taylor, S. F., Yesavage, J. A., Mumenthaler, M. S., Jagust, W. J., & Reed, B. R. (2001). Context processing in older adults: Evidence for a theory relating cognitive control to neurobiology in healthy aging. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 746–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.746CrossRefPubMed Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Keys, B. A., Carter, C. S., Cohen, J. D., Kaye, J. A., Janowsky, J. S., Taylor, S. F., Yesavage, J. A., Mumenthaler, M. S., Jagust, W. J., & Reed, B. R. (2001). Context processing in older adults: Evidence for a theory relating cognitive control to neurobiology in healthy aging. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 746–763. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0096-3445.​130.​4.​746CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Braver, T. S., Gray, J. R., & Burgess, G. C. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 76–106). Oxford University Press. Braver, T. S., Gray, J. R., & Burgess, G. C. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 76–106). Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
go back to reference Liu, Z., & Tang, R. (2024a). Choking under pressure: Positive cues can mitigate choking in behavior inhibition and switching [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Department of Psychology, Nanjing University. Liu, Z., & Tang, R. (2024a). Choking under pressure: Positive cues can mitigate choking in behavior inhibition and switching [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Department of Psychology, Nanjing University.
go back to reference Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user's guide (2.th ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user's guide (2.th ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
go back to reference Mesagno, C., Geukes, K., & Larkin, P. (2015). Choking under pressure: A review of current debates, literature, and interventions. In S. D. Mellalieu & S. Hanton (Eds.), Contemporary Advances in Sport Psychology: A Review (pp. 148–174). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Mesagno, C., Geukes, K., & Larkin, P. (2015). Choking under pressure: A review of current debates, literature, and interventions. In S. D. Mellalieu & S. Hanton (Eds.), Contemporary Advances in Sport Psychology: A Review (pp. 148–174). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Metagegevens
Titel
Control strategy under pressure situations: performance pressure conditionally enhances proactive control
Auteurs
Zhenliang Liu
Rixin Tang
Publicatiedatum
09-03-2024
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2024
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01934-z

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2024

Psychological Research 4/2024 Naar de uitgave