Predispositional and situational processes underlying choking under pressure: An application of the Self-Determination Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this dissertation was to use a multidimensional approach to explain choking, via an incorporation of dispositional and situational variables to expand on Baumeister and Showers' (1986) initial conceptualization of choking. This objective was achieved through a series of four studies using the Self-Determination Theory (SDT). In Study 1 (n = 268) we created a taxonomy of pressure contexts using an online survey. Autonomous sport motivation predicted a positive perception of performance under pressure. Study 2 (n = 138) consisted of a laboratory experiment using a 2 (high vs. low motivation) x 2 (self-awareness manipulation) by 3 (performance on basketball arcade game trials) mixed-factorial design. Results revealed that as pressure to perform increased, performance decreased. Participants in the self-awareness condition performed significantly worse than their counterparts. We unexpectedly found that high self-determined participants performed significantly worse across ail three trials compared to low self-determined participants. Study 3 (n = 34) was conducted with swimmers competing at the Canadian Olympic Trials. We found significant relationships between sport motivation and performance whereby autonomous sport motivation was negatively associated with performance decrements in participants' most important events. Study 4 (n = 40) consisted of an online survey with athletes to explore quantitative and qualitative differences between perceived best and worst performances using a within-participant design. In line with SDT, in descriptions of their best performances, participants reported focusing on the task itself, being less distracted, and simply enjoying what they were doing. In contrast, participants' emphases were on being distracted by their environmentlothers, too much/not enough motivation, and lacking confidence/increased anxiety in descriptions of their worst performances. Overall, this program of research extends the original criteria of choking using SDT. Results emphasize the importance of studying skilled athletes and provide insight into the situational variables that increase pressure (e.g., self-awareness, goals, focus). Future research should focus on further developing an integrated model of choking using SDT as a theoretical framework with skilled athletes evaluated over time in order to determine specific dispositional and situational variables that increase the likelihood of choking under pressure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".