Counter-Intentional Errors of Basketball Free Throw Shooting Under Elevated Pressure: An Educational Approach of Task Instruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this experimental study was to test Wegner’s (1994) theory of ironic processes in a basketball free throw task under pressure. More specifically, Wegner (1994) predicts that when instructed not to perform in a certain manner performers’ performance will break down where it is least desired way which is the main hypothesis of the current study. More specifically, it was hypothesized that when basketball players were instructed “not to throw the ball’’ into the certain zone on the backboard would decrease their performance in ironic fashion especially under manipulated high-anxiety condition. The sample of the present study comprised 37 male (Mage=22.30, SD=2.89) experienced university basketball players. Participants’ anxiety was measured using MRF-3 (Krane, 1994). In a basketball free-throw task; the numbers of targets, non-target non-ironic balls and ironic error balls were counted and overall performance was also calculated in order to measure participants’ performance. Based on the scoring system, participants gained +5 points for throwing into the target, scored -5 points making an ironic error and 0 points for throwing the ball to anywhere (except the target and non-target ironic error zone) on the backboard. Results revealed that when instructed not to throw in a certain zone, performers’ overall performance changed in ironic fashion across anxiety conditions. Findings suggest that understanding the mechanism of ironic processes of mental control theory may be a useful theoretical framework for examining the relationship between anxiety and performance in sport, physical education and motor control studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".