Abstract
There is a widespread view that well-learned skills are automated, and that attention to the performance of these skills is damaging because it disrupts the automatic processes involved in their execution. This idea serves as the basis for an account of choking in high pressure situations. On this view, choking is the result of self-focused attention induced by anxiety. Recent research in sports psychology has produced a significant body of experimental evidence widely interpreted as supporting this account of choking in certain kinds of complex sensorimotor skills. We argue against this interpretation, pointing to problems with both the empirical evidence and the underlying theory. The experimental research fails to provide direct support for the central claims of the self-focus approach, contains inconsistencies, and suffers from problems of ecological validity. In addition, qualitative studies of choking have yielded contrary results. We further argue that in their current forms the self-focus and rival distraction approaches both lack the theoretical resources to provide a good theory of choking, and we argue for an expanded approach. Some of the elements that should be in an expanded approach include accounts of the features of pressure situations that influence the psychological response, the processes of situation appraisal, and the ways that attentional control can be overwhelmed, leading to distraction in some cases, and in others, perhaps, to damaging attention to skill execution. We also suggest that choking may sometimes involve performance-impairing mechanisms other than distraction or self-focus
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11097-014-9395-6
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 64,262
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Just Doing What I Do: On the Awareness of Fluent Agency.James M. Dow - 2017 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 16 (1):155-177.
Skilled Action.Wayne Christensen - 2019 - Philosophy Compass 14 (11).
Anti-Intellectualism for the Learning and Employment of Skill.Daniel C. Burnston - 2021 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 12 (3):507-526.

View all 13 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Consciousness and Choking in Visually-Guided Actions.Massimiliano Cappuccio - 2015 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14 (2):333-348.
Consciousness and Choking in Visually-Guided Actions.Johan M. Koedijker & David L. Mann - 2015 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14 (2):333-348.
Know-How, Procedural Knowledge, and Choking Under Pressure.Gabriel Gottlieb - 2015 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14 (2):361-378.
Choking RECtified: Embodied Expertise Beyond Dreyfus.Daniel D. Hutto & Raúl Sánchez-García - 2015 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14 (2):309-331.
Choking RECtified: Embodied Expertise Beyond Dreyfus.Massimiliano Cappuccio - 2015 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14 (2):309-331.
Know-How, Procedural Knowledge, and Choking Under Pressure.Massimiliano Cappuccio - 2015 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14 (2):361-378.
Choking and The Yips.David Papineau - 2015 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14 (2):295-308.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-04-14

Total views
12 ( #789,120 of 2,455,641 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,205 of 2,455,641 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes