Access to this full-text is provided by Frontiers.
Content available from Frontiers in Psychology
This content is subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
published: 02 November 2012
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00468
The movement kinematics and learning strategies
associated with adopting different foci of attention during
both acquisition and anxious performance
Gavin P. Lawrence1*, Victoria M. Gottwald1, Michael A. Khan2and Robin S. S. Kramer 3
1Institute for the Psychology of Elite Performance, School of Sport, Health and Exercise Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
2Department of Kinesiology, Faculty of Human Kinetics, University ofWindsor, Windsor, ON, Canada
3School of Psychology, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
Edited by:
David Marchant, Edge Hill University,
UK
Reviewed by:
David Sherwood, University of
Colorado, USA
Norbert Hagemann, University of
Kassel, Germany
*Correspondence:
Gavin P. Lawrence, Institute for the
Psychology of Elite Performance,
School of Sport, Health and Exercise
Science, Bangor University, George
Building, Holyhead Road, Gwynedd,
Bangor LL57 2PX, UK.
e-mail: g.p.lawrence@bangor.ac.uk
Research suggests that implicit strategies adopted during learning help prevent break-
down of automatic processes and subsequent performance decrements associated with
the presence of pressure. According to the Constrained Action Hypothesis, automaticity of
movement is promoted when adopting an external focus of attention. The purpose of the
current experiment was to investigate if learning with an external focus of attention can
enhance performance under subsequent pressure situations through promoting implicit
learning and automaticity. Since previous research has generally used outcome measures
of performance, the current study adopted measures of movement production. Specif-
ically, we calculated within-subject variability in trajectory velocity and distance traveled
every 10% of movement time. This detailed kinematic analysis allowed investigation into
some of the previously unexplored mechanisms responsible for the benefits of adopting
an external focus of attention. Novice participants performed a 2.5 m golf putt. Following
a pre-test, participants were randomly assigned to one of three focus groups (internal,
external, control). Participants then completed 400 acquisition trials over two consecutive
days before being subjected to both a low anxiety and high anxiety (HA) transfer test.
Dependent variables included variability, number of successful putts and mean radial error.
Results revealed that variability was greater in the internal compared to the external and
control groups. Putting performance revealed that all groups increased performance follow-
ing acquisition. However, only the control group demonstrated a decrement in performance
in the HA transfer test.These findings suggest that adopting an appropriate focus of atten-
tion during learning can prevent choking; with an external focus inhibiting the breakdown
of automatic processes and an internal focus acting as a self-focus learning strategy and
thus desensitizing individuals to anxiety effects.
Keywords: attentional focus, performance pressure, novice performers, motor skills, explicit learning
INTRODUCTION
Previous research suggests that strategies adopted during learn-
ing which direct a performer’s focus of attention away from their
movements can help alleviate performance decrements typically
associated with the presence of pressure (Masters, 1992;Hardy
et al., 1996;Jackson et al., 2006). Performing under pressure is an
integral part of any athlete’s sporting experience, and an inabil-
ity to cope with this can often result in an athlete choking, i.e.,
“performing more poorly than expected, given one’s level of skill”
(Beilock and Carr, 2001, p. 701). The current investigation endeav-
ored to inhibit the undesirable effects of choking during anxious
performance through manipulating attentional focus during the
learning of a golf putt and measuring both movement production
and movement outcome.
Atypical performance under pressure has been accounted for
with both distraction and self-focus theories. Distraction theo-
ries (Eysenck, 1992) suggest that the detrimental effect of anx-
iety on performance is due to worry consuming the central
executive component of working memory, which would normally
be used in information processing. Alternatively, self-focus the-
ories (Baumeister, 1984;Lewis and Linder, 1997) suggest that
stress can cause performers to become self-conscious and focus
on skill mechanics, which can impede performance by disrupting
normally automatic response programming and execution. Early
research by Fitts and Posner (1967) supports this notion, ascer-
taining that conscious control is redundant once skills reach the
autonomous phase of learning and according to Masters’ (1992)
conscious processing hypothesis (CPH) can in fact be detrimental
to performance.
Conscious processing hypothesis (Masters, 1992) accounts for
the stress performance relationship by suggesting that stress can
mediate the reinvestment of conscious control over movements
and interfere with normally automatic response programming,
thus disrupting performance. Masters reasons, that under pres-
sure, self-consciousness initiates the breakdown of larger, inte-
grated chunks of information into separate, smaller units, thus
www.frontiersin.org November 2012 | Volume 3 | Article 468 | 1
Lawrence et al. Attentional focus, variability and anxiety
prolonging information processing. Furthermore, Masters pro-
poses that if automatic processes are encouraged during learning,
through the development of implicit knowledge, then reinvest-
ment of conscious explicit knowledge cannot occur and con-
sequently the breakdown of information units as associated
with the presence of anxiety is less likely to transpire. Previous
research exploring ways of preventing this breakdown in auto-
matic processes, as a means of maintaining performance under
pressure, advocates analogy learning as a successful method of
reducing acquisition of explicit knowledge (Masters, 1992). Holis-
tic imagery, holistic process goals, and modeling are advocated as
ways to encourage automatic processes,through the development
of conceptual representations of skills during learning (Hardy
et al., 1996).
Similarly,the Constrained Action Hypothesis (CAH; Wulf et al.,
2001) suggests the adoption of external focus of attention as
an alternative strategy to reduce the breakdown of automatic
processes. This involves directing attention to movement effects
such as the swinging motion of the club in golf, as opposed to
directing focus to body movements, such as the swinging motion
of the arms (internal focus of attention). Wulf (2007) suggest
that focusing on movements themselves,as opposed to movement
effects, reduces the congruence between planning and action and
disrupts the usually automatic control process. Focusing on the
effects of one’s movement by adopting an external focus, pre-
vents this process, and serves to enhance performance (Wulf et al.,
1998). Support for this hypothesis has been demonstrated across
a variety of domains and populations (for a review, see Wulf,
2007).
However, preceding research has typically adopted outcome
measures of performance such as speed and accuracy and thus
neglected to investigate what specific adjustments may occur in
movement production as a result of adopting differing foci of
attention (Wulf, 2007;Lawrence et al., 2011). One study which has
examined performance kinematics under internal and external
focus conditions is that of Lohse et al. (2010). Here researchers
revealed that shoulder variability at the point of release in a
dart throw was greater under an external compared to internal
focus. Since findings also revealed that the accuracy of the dart
throws were greater in the external compared to internal group,
the researchers suggested that the effect was due to “functional
variability” (see Müller and Loosch, 1999). The suggestion here
is that when a motor skill is performed repeatedly over time,
even to the point of expertise, clear deviations in movement kine-
matics occur regardless of what becomes an extremely consistent
movement outcome. Since performance is consistently high, the
kinematic variability during movement execution is described
as functional as it facilitates consistent and accurate movement
outcomes. This concept is consistent with the work of Bern-
stein (1967) who studied the number of different ways a unit
of control (for example joints, muscles, motor units) is capable
of moving, i.e., “degrees of freedom.” These degrees of freedom
are thought to freeze and release depending on what stage of
learning a performer has reached. For example, in early cog-
nitive stages of learning Fitts and Posner (1967) observe how
movements are often rigid and constrained, where degrees of free-
dom are frozen. Through extensive practice performers are able
to release degrees of freedom, resulting in more fluid and effec-
tive movement execution as observed in the Associative stage of
learning. Once the performer reaches the Autonomous stage of
learning, degrees of freedom are once again re-organized for opti-
mal performance. This economizing of degrees of freedom in both
early and late phases of learning serves two different functions.
During novice performance, degrees of freedom are highly con-
strained because learners are simply unable to control too many
reactive forces. This is in contrast to experts who constrain degrees
of freedom in order to ensure muscles, joints, and motor units
function as an effective and efficient synergy to produce optimal
performance (for a review see Rose and Christina, 2006). The cur-
rent study investigated the effect of differing foci of attention of
movement variability further by utilizing Vicon motion analysis
together with a novel methodology previously designed to inves-
tigate the role of vision in adjusting limb trajectories in upper
body target-directed aiming movements (for a review see Khan
et al., 2006). This method allows researchers to examine the vari-
ability in both distance traveled and velocity at various percentiles
of overall movement time. In line with Lohse et al. (2010) and
Müller and Loosch’s (1999) notion of functional variability, it was
hypothesized that participants who adopted an external focus of
attention during learning would exhibit more consistent move-
ments than those who learned under an internal focus of attention
condition.
Current focus of attention literature (Wulf, 2007) would suggest
that attaining explicit knowledge regarding movement produc-
tion (i.e., internal information), would be more detrimental to
performance comparative to explicit knowledge regarding move-
ment effects (i.e., external information). As such, a secondary
aim of the current study was to investigate this further in an
attempt to understand if it is the acquisition of explicit knowl-
edge in general, which governs anxious performance or whether
it is a specific type of explicit knowledge (i.e., explicit knowl-
edge regarding ones movements or the effects of one’s movements
on the environment). To achieve this participants learnt a golf
putting task under either internal, external, or control conditions
and were then subjected to an anxious performance condition. If
the choking phenomenon is reduced in the external compared
to internal focus of attention condition then one can propose
that reinvestment in explicit knowledge is only detrimental to
performance if that knowledge is centered around movement
mechanics.
Beilock and Carr (2001) analyzed attention during skill execu-
tion by examining the quantity of episodic memories for both
experts and novices and revealed that automaticity of expert
performance results in fewer episodic memories. In addition,
Poolton et al. (2006) suggested that participants who adopt
an internal focus of attention tend to acquire more internal
rules regarding their movements. Thus, it was expected that
those participants who learned under an external focus of
attention conditions would develop fewer explicit rules regard-
ing the movement itself (internal rules) compared to those
who adopted an internal focus of attention and would thus
be less likely to choke under pressure as breakdowns in auto-
matic programming would not occur in the absence of these
rules.
Frontiers in Psychology | Movement Science and Sport Psychology November 2012 | Volume 3 | Article 468 | 2
Lawrence et al. Attentional focus, variability and anxiety
If we consider the underlying theoretical foundations which
underpin both the CAH and CPH, it is surprising that researchers
have not previously considered the two lines of research in
conjunction to a greater extent prior to this investigation. A
principle study by Bell and Hardy (2009), which did examine the
focus of attention literature in line with anxiety literature revealed
that expert performance of golf chipping was enhanced by an
external focus of attention under both low and high anxiety con-
ditions. The current research elected to adopt a learning paradigm
to investigate the effects of anxiety on golf putting performance
when participants have acquired a skill under different attentional
foci conditions. It was hypothesized that learning under an exter-
nal focus of attention would lead to more permanent (learnt)
behaviors that promote action production and execution without
movement centered knowledge, which would result in consis-
tent performance between low and high anxious situations (i.e.,
eliminate the choking phenomenon).
The aim of the current investigation was to fill some of the
more pertinent gaps in the focus of attention and anxiety literature.
Specifically,to examine if explicit learning (regarding movements)
can be minimized through adopting an external focus of attention
during learning and thus prevent performance breakdown under
subsequent anxious conditions. Additionally, a novel variability
methodology was utilized to investigate the effects of different foci
of attention on the entire movement trajectory. Thus, allowing
detailed investigation into the motor production mechanisms that
might account for the outcome performance differences associated
with adopting different foci of attention. To achieve these aims,
performance (as measured by both movement production and
movement outcome) was investigated whilst participants learnt
a golf putting task under either an external focus of attention,
an internal focus of attention or control (no focus), and when
participants were subsequently transferred to both a low anxiety
(LA) and high anxiety (HA) transfer tests.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PARTICIPANTS
Twenty nine participants mean age 22.1 years (SD =4.3); mean
mass 69.3 kg (SD =13.0); mean height 171.2 cm (SD =8.6) with
no previous experience in golf, volunteered to participate1. All
were naïve to the research hypotheses being tested and gave their
informed consent prior to taking part in the investigation. The
experiment was conducted in accordance with the institutions
ethical guidelines for research involving human participants.
TASK AND APPARATUS
The task was a 2.5 m golf putt performed on a Huxley Premier Pro
turf putting green (80×120). The green was set up with a stan-
dard “Huxley incliner” placed under the surface of the green 1m
from the start and positioned just left of the line of the putt. This
created a convex half-sphere with an incline rising to 4.5 cm result-
ing in a left to right breaking putt (see Figure 1D). Participants
putted toward a 10.5 cm hole, consistent with standardized PGA
requirements, using a standard KT25 Prosimmon golf putter and
1Initially 30 participants volunteered to partake in the investigation. However, one
participant dropped out of the internal focus of attention group during testing due
to random reasons. As such, the investigation was completed with unequal group
sizes; N=9 for the internal focus group, and 10 for both the external and control
focus groups.
START POSITION
HOLE
GOLF GREEN
2.5 m
2 m
A
B
D
21cm
4.5cm
BREAK
29.7cm
C
BREAK
FIGURE 1 | (A) Twelve camera Vicon system and putting surface; (B) example screen shot of Nexus software; (C) retro-reflective marker placement on
club-head; (D) schematic of the putting set up and breaker placement.
www.frontiersin.org November 2012 | Volume 3 | Article 468 | 3
Lawrence et al. Attentional focus, variability and anxiety
Slazenger Raw Distance 432 dimple pattern golf ball. A 12 cam-
era Vicon Nexus system (see Figures 1A,B) sampling at 100 Hz
was used to track co-ordinates of three retro-reflective markers
(14 mm diameter). Two markers were placed on the head of the
golf club and the final marker was placed at the lower end of the
shaft (see Figure 1C). The Vicon Nexus system utilized marker
movements in the XYZ plane in order to calculate and plot move-
ments in 3D space. A heart rate monitor (Polar T31 chest strap
model) was placed on the participant and HR (bpm) data was
recorded.
PROCEDURE
At the start of testing, participants were informed that the purpose
of the investigation was to examine the accuracy of golf putting
over a period of practice trials. It was explained that the goal of
the task was to putt the ball as accurately as possible and that task
performance would be assessed by both the number of successful
putts (NSP) and the distance from the hole the ball terminated
on unsuccessful putts. Participants completed a 25-trial pre-test
before being randomized into either an internal focus of attention
group (N=9), an external focus of attention group (N=10),
or a control group (N=10). Participants in the internal focus
group were instructed to putt whilst simultaneously focusing on
the “swinging motion of their arms,” those in the external focus
group were instructed to focus on the “swinging motion of the
golf club” whilst those in the control group were given no focus
of attention instructions. Focus instructions were adopted from
Wulf and Su (2007) and directed participants on “what” to attend
to but not “where” to look. Participants performed 400 acqui-
sition trials which were split into four blocks of 50 trials and
performed over two consecutive days (blocks one and two on
day one and blocks three and four on day two). For all partic-
ipants, their relevant attentional focus instructions were clearly
posted on the laboratory room wall and provided verbally at the
start and mid-point of every block of trials. A simple focus ques-
tion, devised according to each group, was asked following every
trial and served to reinforce focus reminders (see Lawrence et al.,
2011).
At the end of the acquisition trials participants were asked to
leave the testing room and given a short break. Following this, par-
ticipants completed 25 trials under LA before finally completing a
further 25 trials under HA. Participants were not given any atten-
tional focus instructions or reminders during the transfer tests.
After completing the HA test participants reported their episodic
memories. Specifically, participants were asked to describe the last
putt they had taken in enough detail so that a friend would be able
to replicate it (adopted from Beilock and Carr, 2001).
A single (combined) post manipulation questionnaire was car-
ried out at the end of day two following both transfer conditions2.
Participants were asked to state the intensity of their focus on
internal and external foci, revealing the extent to which they were
able to adopt the appropriate focus of attention and also to what
extent they adopted an inappropriate focus of attention.
2Similar to Lawrence et al. (2011), it was decided that administering this manipula-
tion check immediately following the LA transfer condition might act as a reminder
of the focus instructions prior to the HA transfer condition.
ANXIETY MANIPULATION
Anxiety was manipulated by a combination of ego threat and
social evaluation, which has previously been utilized successfully
(Masters, 1992;Beilock et al., 2002). Specifically, participants were
asked to leave the room for a short duration, and informed that
during this time their performance would be discussed by the
two researchers present during testing. Upon their return partic-
ipants were informed that they had been paired randomly with
another participant and that if they both improved their putting
performance by 20% then they would both receive £10. They
were then informed that their partner had already improved their
performance by the required 20% and thus they would need to
do the same in order for both them and their partner to receive
the money. In addition,they were told “if you fail to improve your
performance by the required 20%, your partner will be informed
of your identity and told that you had been unsuccessful and thus
neither of you can now receive the prize money.” Finally, partici-
pants were informed that this final block of trials would be video
recorded and then sent off to an expert golfer for analysis and that if
they missed 75% or more of their putts their name would be added
to a loser-board, posted around the sports science department.
DEPENDENT MEASURES AND ANALYSES
Performance data
The primary measure of performance was the NSP and the sec-
ondary, less dichotomous measure of outcome performance was
Mean Radial Error (MRE). MRE was calculated as the distance
from the ball to the hole, using the following formula:
x2+y20.5
where xis the distance from the hole perpendicular to the direction
of the putt and ythe distance from the hole in the same direction
of the putt.
To ensure there were no significant differences between the
performance of groups prior to testing, the means of pre-test
NSP and MRE performance data were submitted to separate one
way (group) ANOVAs. In order to assess performance from pre-
test to transfer separate 3 group [control (Con), internal (Int),
external (Ext) ×3 block pre-test (Pre), LA, HA] mixed model
ANOVAs were performed on the mean NSP and MRE data. Sig-
nificant between-subject effects were broken down using Tukeys
HSD post hoc tests while significant within-subject effects were
broken down into their simple main effects.
Episodic memory
Measurements of episodic memory were taken to determine both
the number of explicit knowledge/rules acquired, as well as the
qualitative content of this knowledge. A one way ANOVA was
performed on the total number of episodic memories for each
group. To analyze the qualitative content, memories were subjec-
tively categorized as being either internal (e.g., swinging of the
arms; kept arms straight) or external (e.g., lining the club up with
the ball and hole; swinging of the club). This categorization was
performed by two independent researchers and a 3 group (Con,
Int, Ext) ×2 type (internal/external) ANOVA was then performed
on this data.
Frontiers in Psychology | Movement Science and Sport Psychology November 2012 | Volume 3 | Article 468 | 4
Lawrence et al. Attentional focus, variability and anxiety
Motion analysis and variability
Vicon motion analysis was used to calculate co-ordinates of mark-
ers in the x,y, and zplanes of movement. Researchers then
calculated both velocity and distance traveled every 10th percentile
of each trial’s movement time. The within-subject SD of this data
was then calculated and the means of this data provided a mea-
sure of variability throughout movement trajectory. This process
was completed for both the back-swing and forward-swing of the
golf putt up until ball contact and then again for the swing post
ball contact (i.e., the follow through of the club). Thus, we calcu-
lated separate measures of variability in both velocity and distance
traveled every 10% of the movement time for these three putting
phases. To analyze the data, separate 3 group (Con, Int, Ext) ×3
experimental phase (Pre, LA,HA) ×10 position (10, 20, . . ., 100%)
mixed model ANOVAs were performed on resultant XYZ data for
both velocity and distance traveled; these analyses were conducted
for each of the three previously described putting phases result-
ing in a total of six 3 group ×3 experimental phase ×10 position
mixed model ANOVAs.
Anxiety data
The Mental Readiness Form-3 (MRF-3; Krane, 1994) was used to
determine competitive anxiety and was administered prior to both
LA transfer and HA transfer conditions. Additionally, HR gave a
physiological indicator of anxiety and was recorded throughout
LA and HA transfer conditions. This data was submitted to a three
group (Con, Int, Ext) ×2 experimental phase (LA, HA) ANOVA.
RESULTS
ANXIETY (MRF-3 AND HR)
Results of the MRF-3 data revealed a significant main effect
for experimental phase (F1,26 =19.35, p<0.01, η2=0.43) with
anxiety scores significantly increasing from LA to HA transfer
(LA =10.03, SD =4.14; HA =13.76, SD =6.63). The results of
the self-reported anxiety scores were supported by the HR data,
which revealed a significant main effect for experimental phase
(F1,26 =9.68, p<0.01, η2=0.27) with a significant increase in
HR from LA to HA transfer (LA =83.95, SD =9.57; HA =86.66,
SD =10.76). For both variables, main effects for group and
group ×experimental phase interactions were non-significant
(p>0.05).
PERFORMANCE (NSP)
Pre-test
Results at pre-test revealed no significant difference between
the NSP of participants in different conditions (F2,26 =3.24,
p>0.05; internal =3.67, SD =0.83; external =2.70, SD =1.34;
control =4.70, SD =1.25). Thus, any performance differences
cannot be attributed to differences prior to the investigation.
Pre-test, LA, and HA
Results revealed a significant main effect for experimental
phase (F2,52 =16.45, p<0.01, η2=0.39) and a significant
group ×experimental phase interaction (F4,52 =2.80, p<0.05,
η2=0.18). Breakdown of this revealed a significant decrease
in NSP from LA to HA for participants in the control group,
a significant increase in NSP from LA to HA for partici-
pants in the external focus group and no change in NSP from
LA to HA for participants in the internal focus group (see
Figure 2).
PERFORMANCE (MRE)
Pre-test
Results at pre-test revealed no significant difference between the
NSP of participants in different conditions (F2,26 =0.05, p>0.05;
internal =601.67, SD =169.98; external =575.33, SD =130.13;
control =586.11, SD =203.20). Thus, any performance dif-
ferences cannot be attributed to differences prior to the
investigation.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Pre
LA
HA
Number of Successful Putts
Experimental phase
Con
Int
Ext
FIGURE 2 | Performance (NSP) as a function of attentional focus (Con, control; Int, internal; Ext, external) and experimental phase (Pre, pre-test; LA,
low anxiety; HA, high anxiety).
www.frontiersin.org November 2012 | Volume 3 | Article 468 | 5
Lawrence et al. Attentional focus, variability and anxiety
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Pre
LA
HA
MRE (mm)
Experimental Phase
Con
Int
Ext
FIGURE 3 | Performance (MRE) as a function of attentional focus (Con, control; Int, internal; Ext, external) and experimental phase (Pre, pre-test; LA,
low anxiety; HA, high anxiety).
Pre-test, LA, and HA
Results revealed significant main effects for experimental phase
(F1.65,42.81 =33.34, p<0.01, η2=0.56) and group (F2,26 =3.38,
p<0.05, η2=0.21) but no significant group ×experimental
phase interaction (F4,52 =0.97, p=0.43, η2=0.07). Specifically,
MRE significantly decreased as a function of experimental phase
and the control group exhibited significantly greater MRE com-
parative to the external focus group (see Figure 3).
EPISODIC MEMORY: TOTAL NUMBER AND TYPE OF MEMORIES/RULES
Details of the both the number and type of memories reported
are presented in Table 1. Results for the analysis of number
of memories reported revealed no significant group differences
(F2,28 =0.40, p>0.05; mean rules; Control =4.1, SD =3.21;
Internal =5.2, SD =2.10; External =4.3, SD =2.87).
Results of the analysis on the type of memories revealed a signif-
icant group ×type interaction (F2,27 =5.01, p<0.05, η2=0.27).
Breakdown of which confirmed that participants in the internal
focus of attention group acquired a significantly higher number
of internal memories than participants in the control and external
focus of attention groups. Similarly, participants in the external
focus of attention group acquired a significantly higher number
of external memories compared to participants in the control
and internal focus of attention groups. There was no difference
between the amount of internal and external memories reported
by the control group.
VARIABILITY PRE BALL CONTACT
Distance traveled XYZ
Back-swing. Results revealed a significant main effect
for experimental phase (F2,52 =22.70, p<0.01, η2=0.47),
Table 1 | Episodic memories reported; categorized as internal or
external.
Internal External
Feet shoulder width apart Looked at the ball
Bent knees Looked at the hole
Leant forward Lined up putter with target
Right hand below left Putter head square to target
Wrist action Slowly pulled putter back
Straight arms Swing of the club
Pendulum motion of arms Followed through the ball
position (%; F9,234 =269.81, p<0.01, η=0.91), and group
(F2,26 =4.05, p<0.05, η2=0.24). There were also experimen-
tal phase ×position (F18,468 =5.32, p<0.01, η2=0.17), posi-
tion ×group (F18,234 =3.72, p<0.01, η2=0.22), and exper-
imental phase ×position ×group interactions (F36,468 =1.64,
p<0.05, η2=0.11). Specifically,breakdowns confirmed that vari-
ability was greater during the pre-test, and more so during
the second half of the back-swing. This increase in variability
throughout the back-swing was significantly greater for the inter-
nal group compared to the external and control group with this
effect being greater in pre-test and HA compared to the LA (see
Figure 4).
Forward-swing. Results revealed a significant main effect for
experimental phase (F2,52 =19.65, p<0.01, η2=0.43), with vari-
ability significantly decreasing from pre-test to LA and from pre-
test to HA, a main effect for position (F9,234 =518.37, p<0.01,
Frontiers in Psychology | Movement Science and Sport Psychology November 2012 | Volume 3 | Article 468 | 6
Lawrence et al. Attentional focus, variability and anxiety
0
10
20
30
40
50
20
40
60
80
100
Con
Int
Ext
0
10
20
30
40
50
20
40
60
80
100
Con
Int
Ext
0
10
20
30
40
50
20
40
60
80
100
Con
Int
Ext
Variability
Distance
Travelled (mm)
Variability
Distance
Travelled (mm)
MT (%)
Pre-test
LA
HA
MT (%)
MT (%)
Variability
Distance
Travelled (mm)
FIGURE 4 | Variability in distance traveled at every 10% of MT for the back-swing as a function of group (Con, control; Int, internal; Ext, external) and
experimental phase (Pre, pre-test; LA, low anxiety; HA, high anxiety).
η2=0.95), with variability significantly decreasing as a function
of MT percentage, and a main effect for group (F2,26 =4.89,
p<0.05, η2=0.27), with the internal group being significantly
more variable than the control group. Additionally there were sig-
nificant experimental phase ×position (F18,468 =13.69, p<0.01,
η2=0.35) and position ×group interactions (F18,234 =4.38,
www.frontiersin.org November 2012 | Volume 3 | Article 468 | 7
Lawrence et al. Attentional focus, variability and anxiety
p<0.01, η2=0.25). Breakdowns confirmed that pre-test variabil-
ity was greatest at the start of the forward-swing and that this
effect was significantly greater for the internal group compared to
the external and control groups.
Velocity XYZ
Back-swing. Results revealed a significant main effect for
experimental phase (F2,52 =31.53, p<0.01, η2=0.56) with
variability decreasing from pre-test to LA and again from LA
to HA and a main effect for position (F9,234 =191.47, p<0.01,
η2=0.88) with variability increasing during the first 50% of
the back-swing before decreasing during the second 50% of
the back-swing. Additionally there were significant experimental
phase ×position (F18,468 =18.43, p<0.01, η2=0.42) and exper-
imental phase ×position ×group interactions (F36,468 =2.06,
p<0.01, η2=0.14). Breakdowns revealed that variability was sig-
nificantly greater at the mid-point of the back-swing during the
pre-test and that this effect was significantly greater for the internal
and external groups compared to the control group.
Forward-swing. Results revealed a significant main effect
for experimental phase (F2,52 =60.36, p<0.01, η2=0.70)
and position (F9,234 =250.81, p<0.01, η2=0.91), together
with significant experimental phase ×position (F18,468 =26.31,
p<0.01, η2=0.50) and experimental phase ×group interactions
(F4,52 =3.00, p<0.05, η2=0.19). Breakdowns confirmed that
variability was greatest during pre-test for the second half of the
forward-swing and that the external group was significantly more
variable than either the control or internal group at pre-test.
VARIABILITY POST BALL CONTACT
MT XYZ
Results revealed a significant main effect for position
(F9,243 =109.39, p<0.01, η2=0.80). There were also signif-
icant experimental phase ×position (F18,486 =5.00, p<0.01,
η2=0.16) and position ×group interactions (F18,243 =3.21,
p<0.01, η2=0.19). Specifically,variability significantly increased
throughout the forward-swing with this effect being significantly
more pronounced during the pre-test compared to either transfer
test and for the internal group compared to both the external and
control group.
Velocity XYZ
Results revealed significant main effects for experimental phase
(F2,54 =17.62, p<0.01, η2=0.40) and position (F9,243 =81.78,
p<0.01, η2=0.75). There were also significant experimental
phase ×group (F4,54 =3.87, p<0.01, η2=0.22), experimental
phase ×position (F18,486 =15.97, p<0.01, η2=0.37), and exper-
imental phase ×position ×group interactions (F36,486 =2.50,
p<0.01, η2=0.16). Breakdowns revealed a decreasing variability
throughout the forward-swing and over time. Furthermore, vari-
ability of the control group was significantly more pronounced
than either the internal or external groups at pre-test during the
first half of the forward-swing.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the current study was three fold; 1, to investigate
the effects of learning under different attentional focus conditions
on subsequent anxious performance; 2, to determine if the positive
effects of learning with an external focus of attention on anxious
performance could be explained by the nature of the explicit rules
generated during learning; 3, to adopt dependent measures that
allowed investigation into the effects of the different attentional
foci on movement kinematics (a previously neglected performance
variable within the attentional focus literature). Findings revealed
that participants who adopted an external focus of attention
throughout acquisition continued to improve performance (NSP)
when subjected to pressure whereas participants devoid of focus
instructions displayed classic choking behaviors. The results sur-
rounding the explicit rules generated during learning suggested
that the protective effect of practicing under an external focus
of attention can be explained, in part, by the development of
explicit skill rather than movement centered rules. Finally, the
above effects were not represented clearly within the movement
kinematics of the learnt action, since results of the variability pro-
files for both velocity and distance traveled during all phases of the
golf putt (back-swing, forward-swing to ball contact and forward-
swing post ball contact) did not clearly account for why the control
group demonstrated performance decrements under pressure and
the internal and external focus groups did not.
There is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that adopt-
ing differential attentional foci results in performance differences
at retention (Wulf et al., 1999, 2002;McNevin et al., 2003). How-
ever, results of the current investigation revealed no performance
differences following acquisition trials. Nevertheless it is plausible
that there may have been discrepancies in performance earlier in
the acquisition process. For example, previous research revealing
acquisition differences between internal,external, and control foci
of attention conditions have been conducted with notably fewer
acquisition trials (e.g., Wulf and Su, 2007 incorporated just 60
acquisition trials in a novice golf putting task), thus it is reason-
able to suggest that these differences may have been extinguished
after the 400 acquisition trials adopted in the present investigation.
Indeed, Poolton et al. (2006) incorporated a substantial 300 acqui-
sition trial protocol and, similar to that of the current investigation,
found no performance differences at retention.
Despite the null findings in retention, differences in
performance were certainly evident once pressure was induced.
Although relatively low compared to genuine competition anx-
iety, the anxiety manipulation was successful in raising both
self-reported anxiety scores (MRF-3) and HR, between the LA
and HA transfer. Consistent with CPH (Masters, 1992) the con-
trol group’s performance deteriorated as a consequence of ele-
vated performance pressure. CPH accounts for this by proposing
that anxiety instigates the reinvestment of conscious control over
actions, which inhibits normally automatic response program-
ming and thus impedes performance. Hence, performance of the
control group deteriorated to a level similar to early in learning.
However, when adopting an external focus of attention this neg-
ative effect of anxiety on performance was negated. Whilst these
findings are consistent with research by Bell and Hardy (2009),
who illustrated the benefits of an external focus of attention on
expert golf chipping performance under pressure, the theoret-
ical explanations offered for the current findings are different.
The rationale for this is twofold, firstly, the skill levels of par-
ticipants and consequential performance or learning paradigms
Frontiers in Psychology | Movement Science and Sport Psychology November 2012 | Volume 3 | Article 468 | 8
Lawrence et al. Attentional focus, variability and anxiety
adopted by both investigations are very different: Bell and Hardy
utilized expert performers and a performance paradigm whereas
the current investigation utilized novice participants and a learn-
ing paradigm. Secondly, only the current investigation included a
measure to investigate explicit rule generation during skill execu-
tion. The exclusion of this in Bell and Hardy’s research meant
that the CPH and the theory of reinvestment (Masters, 1992)
could not be fully investigated as a plausible explanation for their
findings. Consequently, Bell and Hardy account for their findings
with the distraction hypothesis (Wine, 1971). They suggested that
since skill execution consumes less attentional capacity under an
external focus of attention comparative to an internal focus of
attention (Wulf et al., 2001), the attentional threshold is less likely
to be exceeded when anxiety is present and thus performance is
maintained or even enhanced. If one looks at performance data
alone, distraction is a plausible explanation for the findings of
the current investigation. However, if one looks at these in con-
junction with the results surrounding the amount and type of
explicit rules utilized during transfer, it is more likely that bene-
fits of learning with an external focus of attention on subsequent
anxious performance are due to a learning strategy which pre-
vented reinvestment. Poolton et al. (2006) previously revealed that
participants adopting an external focus of attention accumulate
significantly fewer rules regarding their movements comparative
to those adopting an internal focus of attention. The results of
the current investigation supported these findings, revealing a sig-
nificant difference in the nature but not the number of explicit
rules developed during learning under either the internal or exter-
nal focus of attention groups. Specifically, the external focus of
attention group reported less explicit knowledge regarding move-
ments of their body than both the internal focus of attention
and control groups. As such, when placed into the HA transfer
test the golf putting skill of these participants were less likely to
breakdown as explicit knowledge regarding skill movement was
reduced (Masters, 1992). It should be noted here that whilst the
external focus of attention group reported less explicit knowledge
surrounding the mechanics of their movements compared to the
internal focus of attention or control group, they did not actu-
ally report generating fewer explicit rules during learning. These
results are in line with our second hypothesis suggesting that it is
the type and not the number of explicit rules performers generate
that govern reinvestment under anxious conditions. Consequently,
reinvestment theory should be extended to clarify that tasks are
more likely to break down under anxiety if performers have accu-
mulated accessible and conscious task-relevant knowledge that is
centered around body movements (i.e., the swing of the arms)
and not necessarily around skill movements (i.e., the swing of
the club).
Contrary to expectations, participants adopting internal focus
instructions during learning were able to maintain performance
under pressure. According to the CPH (Masters, 1992) the internal
focus of attention group should have invested explicit movement
knowledge under pressure, resulting in performance decrements.
However, previous research by Beilock and Carr (2001) deter-
mined that self-consciousness training can protect against the
debilitative effects of choking under pressure. Beilock and Carr
had participants practice golf putting under self-focus conditions
and revealed that when these participants were subjected to an
anxiety test they were able to maintain performance, suggesting
that training under conditions of self-consciousness can lead to a
reduction in the choking phenomenon. Similarly, in the current
study, participants adopted an internal focus of attention during
learning and so became familiarized with consciously controlling
movements and thus it is possible that the self-focus induced by
the presence of anxiety did not disrupt performance since par-
ticipants were accustomed to performing under these conditions.
This notion is consistent with Henry’s(1968) sp ecificity of learning
principle, whereby practice conditions that most closely approx-
imate the movements of the target skill and the environmental
conditions of the target context result in the best learning experi-
ences. Thus, if anxiety induces a self-focus then learning conditions
that also prompt a self-focus or internal focus should facilitate
optimal performance in anxiety inducing situations.
In order to further investigate the effects of different foci of
attention on both LA and HA performance, we examined the vari-
ability of both the velocity and the distance traveled throughout
the movement trajectory. This allowed for insights into func-
tional variability (Müller and Loosch, 1999) and how external
and internal foci of attention affect the kinematics of movements,
something that until the current investigation has received lit-
tle research attention. In line with Lohse et al. (2010) it was
expected that movements in the external focus of attention group
would be more variable and result in greater outcome accuracy
(i.e., participants would be releasing degrees of freedom with the
function of allowing exploration of the perceptual-motor work-
space to achieve the most effective and accurate trajectories), than
those in the internal focus of attention group. The rationale was
that adopting an internal focus of attention would constrain nor-
mally automatic movement control leading to less effective actions
and lower movement variability compared to situations where an
external FOA is adopted. Furthermore, in line with the CAH (Wulf
et al., 2001) and the CPH (Masters, 1992) it was expected that
both the internal focus of attention and control groups would
suffer a similar constraining of the action when participants were
subjected to the anxiety transfer test. That is, through the adop-
tion of either a self-focus or through the reinvestment of explicit
movement centered knowledge, normally automatic or procedu-
ralized skills would be constrained and/or broken down into step
by step processes. This over-analysis and breakdown of automatic
movement would manifest itself in ineffective actions and result
in reduced kinematic variability.
The analysis of the variability profiles for both the velocity and
the distance traveled data only revealed significant group differ-
ences at the LA and HA transfer tests in the distance traveled
during the back-swing of the golf putt. Specifically,variability was
greater in the internal focus of attention group compared to both
the external and control groups at the LA and HA tests. Whilst
this finding is not supportive of the above hypothesis, the authors
suggest that the increase in variability is because the internal focus
of attention encourages participants to over analyze movements
which resulted in maladaptive corrections that produced trial to
trial variability. That is, participants were making both online (i.e.,
during action) and offline (i.e., between trials) adjustments to
movements as a result of focusing solely on the internal aspects
www.frontiersin.org November 2012 | Volume 3 | Article 468 | 9
Lawrence et al. Attentional focus, variability and anxiety
of the movement during action (see Lai and Shea, 1999). How-
ever,the NSP data does not suggest that this increase in variability
during the back-swing of the movement trajectory was sufficient
to alter overall performance. Indeed there were no group differ-
ences in NSP at retention (LA test) and only the control group
experienced a decrease in putting performance during the HA
test despite not demonstrating any alterations in the variability
of the movement trajectory. Although the internal focus of atten-
tion group increased variability it is possible that the null effect
of this on putting performance was as a result of the previous
discussed specificity of learning principle. That is, training under
the self-focus condition resulted in a development of a variable
action that at the end of 400 acquisition trials was able to effec-
tively meet the requirements of the task goal. When, conditions
then changed to include anxiety the effect this emotional state
had on the control of movement was similar to that of training
(i.e., movements were performed under self-focus conditions in
both acquisition and anxiety transfer). Thus, both the movement
trajectory and movement outcome performance was comparable
between the acquisition and the HA transfer conditions. In addi-
tion, it seems likely that the adopted markers of variability (i.e.,
variability in the back-swing and forward-swing of the golf club-
head) of the current investigation may not be the most pertinent
predictor of outcome performance. For example, Mullen (2000)
revealed that wrist kinematics significantly predicted outcome
performance in a high anxiety situation. Specifically, individuals
that experienced a decrement in performance as a result of anxiety
displayed reduced variability at the wrist compared to those who
maintained performance levels under anxiety. Thus, in the cur-
rent investigation, it is possible that the movement variability of
the internal focus of attention group was constrained outside the
movement of the golf club. Future research should investigate this
possibility further by exploring variability throughout the action
over the entire body.
One possibility to account for the non-significant change in the
variability of the control group between the LA and HA transfer,
despite the decrement in NSP, may be that trajectories were con-
sistently inaccurate in terms of the line of the putt when under
pressure. This proposal would account for why the variability pro-
files between the control and external focus groups did not differ at
the HA transfer test. That is, whilst the external focus of attention
group produced consistent putts of an accurate nature, the con-
trol group produced consistent putting actions with an inaccurate
outcome. This would result in variability remaining relatively sta-
ble regardless of a decline in performance between LA and HA
retention.
In conclusion, the present investigation demonstrated that
adopting an external focus of attention during learning is ben-
eficial for maintaining performance under subsequent anxiety
conditions. We propose that the protective effect of acquiring
skills under an external focus of attention is due to the nature
of the explicit knowledge developed under these conditions not
being centered around the mechanics of body movements. In
addition and contrary to expectations, it appears that learning
under an internal focus of attention also prevents decrements in
performance typically associated with the presence of anxiety. We
suggest that these effects are due to the specificity of learning
principle, in that acquiring skills under an internal focus pre-
pares individuals for the self-focus conditions that are induced as
a result of the presence of anxiety. Finally, results demonstrated
that if learners are given no explicit focus instructions during
learning they are susceptible to choking under anxious condi-
tions. As such, coaches should endeavor to either minimize the
acquisition of explicit movement knowledge during the learn-
ing process by encouraging an external focus of attention, or
apply the principles of specificity to prevent choking by instruct-
ing participants to adopt a self-focus during long periods of
learning.
REFERENCES
Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking
under pressure: self-consciousness
and paradoxical effects of incentives
on skilful performance. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 46, 610–620.
Beilock, S. L., and Carr, T. H.
(2001). On the fragility of skilled
performance: what governs choking
under pressure? J. Exp. Psychol. 130,
701–725.
Beilock, S. L., Carr, T. H., Macmahon,
C., and Starkes, J. (2002). When pay-
ing attention becomes counterpro-
ductive: impact of divided versus
skill focused attention on novice and
experienced performance of senso-
rimotor skills. J. Exp. Psychol. 8,
6–16.
Bell, J. J., and Hardy, J. (2009).
Effects of attentional focus on skilled
performance in golf. J. Appl. Sport
Psychol. 21, 163–177.
Bernstein, N. (1967). The Co-ordination
and Regulation of Movement. Lon-
don: Pergamon Press.
Eysenck, M. W. (1992). Anxiety:
The Cognitive Perspective. Hove:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fitts, P., and Posner, M. (1967). Human
Performance. Belmont: Brooks/Cole.
Hardy, L., Mullen, R., and Jones,
G. (1996). Knowledge and con-
scious control of motor actions
under stress. Br. J. Psychol. 87,
621–636.
Henry,F. M. (1968).“Specificit y vs. gen-
erality in learning motor skill,” in
Classical Studies in Physical Activ-
ity, eds R. C. Brown Jr. and G. S.
Kenyon(Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-
Hall), 328–331.
Jackson, R. C., Ashford, K. J., and
Norsworthy, G. (2006). Attentional
focus, dispositional reinvestment,
and skilled motor performance
under pressure. J. Appl. Sport Psy-
chol. 28, 49–68.
Khan, M. A., Franks, I. M., Elliot, D.,
Lawrence, G. P., Chua, R., Bernier,
P. M., et al. (2006). Inferring
online and offline processing of
visual feedback in target- directed
movements from kinematic
data. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 30,
1106–1121.
Krane, V. (1994). The mental readi-
ness form as a measure of compet-
itive state anxiety. Sport Psychol. 8,
189–202.
Lai, Q., and Shea, C. H. (1999). Band-
width knowledge of results enhances
generalized motor program learn-
ing. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 70,
79–83.
Lawrence, G. P., Gottwald, V. M., Hardy,
J., and Khan, M. A. (2011). Inter-
nal and external focus of attention
in a novice form sport. Res. Q. Exerc.
Sport 82, 3, 431–441.
Lewis, B., and Linder, D. (1997).
Thinking about choking? Atten-
tional processes and paradoxical
performance. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
23, 937–944.
Lohse, K. R., Sherwood, D. E., and Healy,
A. F.(2010). How changing the focus
of attention affects performance,
kinematics, and electromyography
in dart throwing. Hum. Mov. Sci. 29,
542–555.
Masters, R. S. W. (1992). Knowledge,
knerves, and know-how. Br. J. Psy-
chol. 83, 343–358.
McNevin, N. H., Shea, C. H., and Wulf,
G. (2003). Increasing the distance
of an external focus of attention
enhances learning. Psychol. Res. 67,
22–29.
Mullen, R. H. (2000). State Anxi-
ety,Conscious Processing,and Motor
Performance. PhD thesis, University
of Wales, Bangor.
Müller,H., and Loosch, E. (1999). Func-
tional variability and an equifinal
path of movement during targeted
throwing. J. Hum. Movement Stud.
36, 103–126.
Poolton, J. M., Maxwell, J. P., Mas-
ters, R. S. W., and Raab, M. (2006).
Benefits of an external focus of
attention: common coding or con-
scious processing? J. Sports Sci. 24,
89–99.
Frontiers in Psychology | Movement Science and Sport Psychology November 2012 | Volume 3 | Article 468 | 10
Lawrence et al. Attentional focus, variability and anxiety
Rose, D. J., and Christina, R. W.
(2006). A Multilevel Approach to the
Study of Motor Control and Learn-
ing, 2nd Edn. Pearson: Benjamin
Cummings.
Wine, J. (1971). Test anxiety and direc-
tion of attention. Psychol. Bull. 76,
92–104.
Wulf, G. (2007). Attentional focus and
motor learning: a review of 10 years
of research. Bewegung Und Training
1, 1–11.
Wulf, G., Hö, M., and Prinz, W.
(1998). Instructions for motor
learning: differential effects of
internal versus external focus
of attention. J. Mot. Behav. 30,
169–179.
Wulf, G., Lauterbach, B., and Toole,
T. (1999). Learning advantages of
an external focus of attention in
golf. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 70,
120–126.
Wulf, G., McConnel, N., Gärtner,
M., and Schwarz, A. (2002).
Enhancing the learning of sport
skills through external-focus
feedback. J. Mot. Behav. 34,
171–182.
Wulf, G., McNevin, N., and Shea, C. H.
(2001). The automaticity of complex
motor skill learning as a function of
attentional focus. Q. J. Exp. Psychol.
54, 1143–1154.
Wulf, G., and Su, J. (2007). An exter-
nal focus of attention enhances
golf shot accuracy in beginners and
experts. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 78,
384–389.
Conflict of Interest Statement: The
authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any com-
mercial or financial relationships that
could be construed as a potential con-
flict of interest.
Received: 04 July 2012; accepted: 15 Octo-
ber 2012; published online: 02 November
2012.
Citation: Lawrence GP, Gottwald
VM, Khan MA and Kramer RSS
(2012) The movement kinematics and
learning strategies associated with
adopting different foci of attention
during both acquisition and anxious
performance. Front. Psychology 3:468.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00468
This article was submitted to Frontiers in
Movement Science and Sport Psychology,
a specialty of Frontiers in Psychology.
Copyright © 2012 Lawrence, Gottwald ,
Khan and Kramer. This is an open-
access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits use, distribution
and reproduction in other forums, pro-
vided the original authors and source
are credited and subject to any copy-
right notices concerning any third-party
graphics etc.
www.frontiersin.org November 2012 | Volume 3 | Article 468 | 11
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Vicky Gottwald
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vicky Gottwald on Jul 14, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.