Influence of attentional focus on learning a swing path change

Full text

35
International Journal of Golf Science, 2014, 3, 35-49
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ijgs.2014-0001
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Christina is Emeritus Professor of Kinesiology and Dean of the School of Health and Human Sciences at
the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Alpenfels is the Director of Instruction of the Pinehurst
Golf Academy, Pinehurst Resort and Country Club, North Carolina. Address author correspondence to
Bob Christina at rchristina@uncg.edu.
Influence of Attentional Focus on Learning
a Swing Path Change
Bob Christina
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Eric Alpenfels
Pinehurst Golf Academy
The learning and retention of a swing path change (movement form performance)
of a six iron (Study 1) and a driver (Study 2) as a function of attentional focus
was studied to determine if the facilitating effect of external focus of attention
on movement outcome performance also held for movement form performance.
Study 1 ndings revealed that the instructor-selected external cue group learned
and retained more of an inside-out swing path with a six iron than either the
instructor-selected internal cue group or participant-selected cue group. Study
2 results showed that both the instructor-selected external cue and participant-
selected cue groups learned and retained more of an inside-out swing path with a
driver than the instructor-selected internal cue group. These ndings provide two
lines of evidence that reveal the benet of using an instructor-selected, external
focus of attention cue when teaching experienced players to learn to change
(improve) their swing path.
Keywords: attentional focus, external focus, internal focus, golf learning, swing
path
There is ample evidence (e.g., Al-Abood, Bennett, Hernandez, Ashford, &
Davids, 2002; McNevin, Shea, & Wulf, 2003; Wulf, Lauterbach, & Toole, 1999;
Wulf, McNevin, & Shea, 2001; Wulf, Mercer, McNevin, & Guadagnoli, 2004; see
Wulf, 2007a, 2007b for a review; Wulf, McConnel, Gärtner, & Schwartz, 2002;
Totsika & Wulf, 2003; Southard, 2011; McNevin, Weir & Quinn, 2013) revealing
that an instructor-selected external focus of attention (performer’s attention is focused
on the effects of his/her body movement) facilitates the improvement of movement
outcome performance (e.g., accuracy of a golf shot) more than an instructor-selected
internal focus of attention (performer’s attention is focused on his/her body movement
Official Journal of WSCG
www.IJGS-Journal.com
ARTICLE

36 Christina and Alpenfels
itself) for both inexperienced (novice) and experienced (skilled) performers (Bell
& Hardy, 2009; Wulf & Su, 2007). Whether this facilitating effect also holds for
improving movement form (e.g., golf swing) is still a matter of some uncertainty
because only a few studies have addressed it and the ndings that exist do not clearly
support it. One of these studies (Wulf et al., 2002) found the facilitating effect for
the movement form of a volleyball serve to hold during acquisition practice for
advanced players and external feedback groups, but that effect was not retained.
This nding suggests that improvements in movement form produced by an external
focus of attention in acquisition practice may be a function of skill level, but may be
temporary. Another study (Southard, 2011) found that increasing velocity was most
effective for improving the throwing form of novices and retaining that improve-
ment, with an external focus of attention more effective than and internal focus. A
third study (Lawrence, Gottwald, Hardy, & Khan, 2011) investigated the learning,
retention and transfer of the movement form of a novel gymnastics routine, but failed
to nd any evidence in support of either an external or internal facilitating effect.
Taken together, the ndings emanating from two of these three studies provide at
least enough evidence (albeit minimal) in support the facilitating effect of an external
focus of attention on movement form to warrant further investigation, which was the
target of the present research. More specically, the purpose of the present research
was to extend the research of the previous three studies by investigating the extent
to which the facilitating effect of external focus of attention on movement outcome
performance also holds for movement form performance.
The action-effect principle (Prinz, 1997) and the constrained action hypothesis
(CAH; Wulf et al., 2001; Wulf, Shea, & Park, 2001) have been advanced to explain
the facilitating effect of an external focus of attention on movement outcome perfor-
mance. The action-effect principle maintains that body movements are planned and
controlled in relation to their effects (outcomes). And, CAH proposes that focusing
attention on movement effects (external focus) rather than the body movements
that produce the effects (internal focus) provides congruence between movement
planning and control, and the desired effects. Congruence optimizes the efciency
of centrally planning and controlling the many degrees of freedom in performing
the movements (Wulf, Höb & Prinz, 1998). It allows for the usual noncognitive,
automated processes to plan and control the movements, which results in move-
ment coordination proceeding “naturally” in relation to the desired effect (Wulf,
2007a, 2007b). Conversely, focusing attention on the body movements that produce
the desired effect diminishes this efciency because the congruence of movement
planning and control in relation to the desired movement effect is reduced. More
specically, attending to the certain aspects of body movements often leads to cog-
nitively intervening with control processes that disrupt or interfere with the “natural”
or usual automated control processes involved in planning and controlling move-
ments in relation to their effects. As a result, movement coordination is prevented
from proceeding “naturally” in relation to the desired movement effects, which
negatively affects the movement-effect performance. Based on the action-effect
principle and CAH explanation, it seems reasonable to expect that the facilitating
effect of an external focus of attention on movement effect performance would also
hold for movement form performance if the latter was, in fact, either a movement
effect (e.g., form of a dive, gymnastic or ice skating skill) or a much higher priority
than the movement effect (e.g., pay most of your attention to improving the form

Attentional Focus 37
of your golf swing and very little to the shot outcome). Since movement form and
movement effect are the same or nearly the same, the congruence between move-
ment planning and control, and the desired effect would be maximum or a little
less, which would allow for the usual noncognitive, automated processes to plan
and control the movements. As a result, movement coordination would proceed
“naturally” in relation to the desired effect because movement form and movement
effect are the same or nearly the same.
It is common, when teaching students (beginners or experienced) at the outset
of learning to improve the movement form of their golf swing, to verbally instruct
them to focus their attention completely on the specics of the movement pattern
during practice swings (without hitting balls). In this context, movement form of
the swing itself would be considered the movement effect. For instance, verbally
instructing students to focus their attention on movement specics (e.g., drop your
right arm to your right side on the downswing) during each practice swing would
be an internal focus while directing them to focus on the movement of the clubhead
(e.g., swing the clubhead on an inside-out path to contact the ball) would be an
external focus. However, since the ultimate purpose of improving the movement
form of a golf swing is to produce more effective golf shots, the improved form
needs to be practiced and learned while hitting a ball to a target, which is the context
of the present research. Typically, the practice routine that accompanies or follows
a lesson involves one or more practice swings followed by an actual swing in which
a ball is hit to a target. Moreover, when using a routine like this, it is common for
teachers to verbally instruct students to focus all or most of their attention on their
movement form and little or none on hitting the ball to the target (movement effects).
This practice context and routine, and direct verbal manipulation attentional focus
approach was used in both studies of the present research to investigate the extent
to which the facilitating effect of an external focus of attention found for movement
effect performance also holds for movement form performance when the latter was,
in fact, a much higher priority than the movement effect (e.g., focus on improving
the form of your golf swing and don’t worry about the shot outcome).
Both studies in the present research used experienced golfers for two reasons.
One reason was to extend the previous work of Wulf et al. (2002) who found evi-
dence for the facilitating effect of external focus on movement form with experi-
enced volleyball performers in acquisition, but not in retention. And other reason
was that the problem of learning to change a well-learned swing is pervasive for
experienced golfers who always seem to be striving and struggling to learn to
improve the form of their swing, especially the swing path, to improve their shots.
And, any research, including the attentional focus studies of the present research that
attempts to reveal useful information about more effective conditions for learning
to change well-learned movements and the retention of that learning is justied.
The present research also studied the movement form of two somewhat different
swings produced by hitting balls to a target with two different types of golf clubs
to be certain that any attentional focus effects found were not swing specic. A six
iron swing in which the ball was hit off an articial turf mat was investigated in the
rst study and a driver swing in which the ball was hit off a tee was examined in
the second study. Thus, present research studied the learning and retention of the
golf swing path change (movement form performance) of a six iron (Study 1) and
a driver (Study 2) as a function of experienced golfers’ attentional focus.

38 Christina and Alpenfels
Study 11
Method
Participants and Dependent Measures. A total of 45 adult male, experienced
golfers (mean age = 65 years; SD = 7.79) with an average handicap of 18.34 (SD
= 5.09) volunteered to participate. All golfers swung the club right-handed. Each
golfer received a $25 gift certicate for participating in the study.
Swing path was the dependent measure of movement form and it was calcu-
lated from swing video recordings using a JVC Digital and JC Video system. The
swing path measure on each swing was the difference between the participant’s
set-up angle position and his downswing angle at waist height. A line was drawn
up the shaft of the club at address to determine the set-up angle. The downswing
angle was determined when the clubhead reached waist height. Swing path also was
considered the main dependent measure of movement effect because participants
were verbally instructed to focus their attention on improving their swing path and
to not worry about or focus their attention on the quality of the clubface contact
with the ball or where the ball went in relation to the target (shot outcome). Thus,
movement form and movement effect were nearly one and the same.
A shot-outcome measure that was of special interest in this study was carry
distance of the ball because it has been shown to be increased with improved swing
path (e.g., Alpenfels, Christina & Anderson, 2004) when other factors (e.g., clubhead
speed, vertical launch angle) known to affect it remain essentially the same. Carry
distance and the other major factors of which it can be a function were measured
by a Flight Scope launch monitor and analyzed in relation to carry distance and
attentional focus. These factors included smash factor (ball speed divided by club-
head speed), clubhead speed, ball speed, and vertical launch angle.
Each dependent measure for each participant on the pretest, posttest, and
retention test was the average of the three measures taken on each test. Poorly
struck and missed shots were excluded and repeated. Only shots that were judged
by the participant and tester to be representative of his typical six-iron shots were
measured and recorded.
Study Design and Procedures. A 3 × 3 (Groups × Tests) design was used in
which focus of attention Groups were external, internal and control, and Tests were
pretest, posttest and retention test. Participants were randomly assigned to the three,
focus of attention groups with the restriction that there be 15 golfers per group
and that the groups be balanced in terms of handicap. Participants in the external
group were verbally instructed to focus their attention on a teacher-determined
external cue while those in the internal group were told to focus their attention on
a teacher-determined internal cue. Golfers in the participant-selected cue group
were verbally instructed to select their own cue on which to focus their attention.
Before the pretest, participants in each group were asked to identify the cue(s)
on which they focus their attention to help them effectively perform their swing.
Next, each participant warmed-up by stretching the way he ordinarily did before
hitting balls and then by taking eight practice swings with his own six iron without
hitting a ball. After warm-up, a pretest was given in which three, six-iron shots were
measured by a launch monitor and recorded by the video system. Following the
pretest, each participant was asked to identify the cue(s) on which he focused his

Attentional Focus 39
attention to help him perform each of the three swings. Next, a 15-minute lesson
was given showing (via video) and explaining each student’s current swing path
in relation to the desirable swing path based on his three pretest swings hitting
six-iron shots. Specically, the participant’s swing path was compared with a more
desirable swing path, and the path change (correction) that needed to be learned
was clearly pointed out verbally and visually. At this point, any questions or points
of clarication regarding contents of the lesson were addressed. The lesson was
provided by a qualied PGA Master Professional Instructor who has over 25 years’
experience and is one of Golf Magazine’s Top 100 Teachers.
Next, an alignment rod was placed on the target line for participants in all three
groups during instruction and the practice session to serve as an aid in helping them
properly line up to the target and also learn to swing on an inside-out path relative
to the target-line alignment rod. Depending on the experimental group to which
each participant was randomly assigned, he was verbally instructed to use a (a)
teacher-selected external attention cue, (b) teacher-selected internal attention cue,
or (c) self-selected attention cue. The external cue group was verbally instructed
to swing the clubhead parallel to a swing-path alignment rod that was positioned
on an inside-out path from 8:00 o’clock to 2:00 o’clock relative to the target-line
alignment rod, which was at 12:00 o’clock. The internal cue group was verbally
instructed to bring their right elbow to their right side on the rst part of the down-
swing to help them learn to swing on an inside-out path relative to the target-line
alignment rod. The participant-selected cue group not given a cue, which allowed
them to select and use whatever cue they preferred (self-selected cue) to learn to
swing on an inside-out path relative to the target-line alignment rod. Next, each
participant took three practice swings, which were video recorded, trying to use the
cue to which he was randomly assigned while the teacher provided participants in
each group with instructional feedback to ensure that they were correctly using the
cue to which they were assigned to learn to change his swing path. Any remain-
ing questions or points of clarication about the using the cue to which they were
assigned were addressed at this time.
A structured practice session began immediately after the lesson. It involved
each participant taking a practice swing with his own six iron followed by an
actual swing in which he hit a ball the target trying to apply the attention cue to
which he was assigned and taught in the lesson. This practice swing-actual swing
cycle was repeated a total of 36 times resulting in 36 practice swings and 36 actual
swings. A three-minute rest break was given after the 12th shot and the 24th shot.
The practice swing was made anyway (i.e., slow motion, half speed, in parts, etc.)
each golfer preferred with the provision that it must help him specically focus his
attention on applying the cue to which he was assigned and taught in the lesson.
No instructional feedback was provided during the practice session.
The posttest, which was the same as the pretest excluding the warm-up, was
administered within three minutes after the last practice session shot. A retention
test, which was the same as the pretest and posttest, was administered about 24
hours after the posttest. The warm-up procedures for the retention test were the same
as those used for the pretest. Immediately after the posttest and the retention test,
each participant was asked to identify the cue(s) on which he focused his attention
to help him effectively perform his swing. Alignment rods were present during the
lesson and practice session, but not during the pretest, posttest and retention test.

40 Christina and Alpenfels
Results and Discussion
Cues on Which Participants Reported Focusing. Eighty percent or 36 of the 45
participants reported focusing on one or more internal cues to help them perform
what they thought was an effective swing path at the outset of the study (before
and after the pretest). This nding indicates that the majority of the participants
relied more on internal than external cues before the study began. Following the
posttest and retention test, 100% of the 15 participants in the instructor-selected
external cue group reported focusing their attention on swinging the clubhead
inside-out along an imaginary alignment rod to hit the ball, while 100% of the
15 participants in the instructor-selected internal cue group reported focusing on
dropping their right elbow to their right side on the downswing. Indeed, these are
the two cues on which the participants in each group were verbally instructed to
attend in this study. About 53% or 8 of the 15 golfers in the participant-selected
cue group reported using the same cue that was used by the external group while
the other 47% or 7 participants reported using the cue that was used by the internal
group. Thus, about half of the participants in the participant-selected cue group
relied on an external cue and the others on an internal cue.
Swing Path. Thirty percent of all of the shots taken on the pretest, posttest
and retention test for each group had to be repeated because they were poorly
struck shots that were not measurable and/or judged not to be representative of
each participant’s typical six-iron shots. For the swing path measure to be valid,
set-up angle had to be unaffected by the attention cues manipulated in this study
and hence, remain essentially the same from pretest to posttest to retention test.
Conversely, downswing angle had to be free to vary as a function of these atten-
tion cues. If this was the case, swing path, as measured by the difference between
set-up and downswing angles, would reect any inuence the attention cues had
on it. To determine if this was indeed the case, a 3 × 3 (Groups × Tests) ANOVA
with repeated measures on the second factor revealed that set-up angle remained
the same for each group from pretest to posttest to retention test, and that there
were no appreciable, set-up angle differences or interaction among groups (p > .05).
Table 1 presents the actual swing path means (in degrees) along with their
standard deviations and the swing path means that were adjusted by the pretest
(covariate) along with their standard deviations on each test for each group. Posi-
tive means indicate that the downswing angle was above the set-up angle reecting
more of an outside-in swing path relative to the target line, whereas negative means
indicate that the downswing angle was below the setup angle reecting more of an
inside-out swing path. Positive and negative means approaching zero indicate that
the downswing angle was close to the set-up angle revealing more of an inside-out
swing relative to the target line. Inspection of the actual means revealed that the
downswing angle of all three groups was above their set-up angle on the pretest
reecting more of an outside-in swing, but that it was reduced on the posttest fol-
lowing instruction and practice with the external group improving the most. All
three groups retained much of their improvement from the posttest to the retention
test with the instructor-selected internal cue and participant-selected cue groups
showing a slight improvement on the retention test. Examination of the standard
deviations reveals that participants’ swing path in each group varied considerably
about their pretest group mean. To adjust for the pretest swing-path differences

Attentional Focus 41
among participants within and between groups at the outset of the study, each
participant’s average pretest swing-path measure was used as a covariate in a 3 ×
2 (Groups × Tests) ANCOVA to determine the effects of the attention cues on the
posttest and retention test swing-path data.
Adjusted swing path means and standard deviations of the three groups over the
posttest and retention test are shown in Table 1. Inspection of the adjusted means
reveals a pattern similar to that displayed by the actual means on the posttest and
retention test. Swing path performance between posttest and retention test (Tests)
was not signicant, F (1, 41) = .01, p = .91, ηp2 = .00, nor was the Groups × Tests
interaction, F (2, 41) = .21, p = .82, ηp2 = .01. This indicates that in spite of the
differences observed in the adjusted means from posttest to retention test for each
of the three groups, they were due to chance and hence, essentially the same. Thus,
the swing path performance achieved by each of the groups on the posttest follow-
ing instruction and practice was retained on the retention test.
The Groups effect was signicant, F (2, 41) = 9.83, p < .01, ηp2 = .32. The
Bonferroni post hoc test at the .01 level revealed that the external cue group (M
= 1.00, SD = 5.96) signicantly learned and retained more of an inside-out aver-
age swing path than the internal cue group (M = 5.33, SD = 8.22, p < .01) and
the participant-selected cue group (M = 3.62, SD = 5.79, p < .01). Interestingly,
the participant-selected cue group had more of an inside-out swing path than the
internal cue group, but that difference was not signicant (p = .77). Taken together,
these ndings indicate that an instructor-selected external attention cue was more
effective than an instructor-selected internal attention cue and a participant-selected
attention cue in learning to improve swing path of a six iron.
Table 1 Swing Path Means and Standard Deviations on the Three
Tests for the Three Groups
Actual Means
Adjusted Means Based
on Pretest
Groups Pretest Posttest Retention Test Post Retention Test
Internal
M10.49 6.74 5.82 5.73 4.93
SD 10.83 10.29 9.26 4.73 4.87
Participant
M7.37 3.05 1.75 4.34 2.90
SD 10.83 7.88 8.05 4.74 4.88
External
M9.49 - 0.61 - 0.87 0.88 1.12
SD 8.97 7.44 6.73 4.72 4.86
Note: Means are in degrees. Positive means indicate that the downswing angle was above the set-up
angle reecting more of an outside-in swing path relative to the target line whereas negative means
indicate that the downswing angle was below the setup angle reecting more of an inside-out swing
path. Positive and negative means approaching zero indicate that the downswing angle was approach-
ing the set-up angle.

42 Christina and Alpenfels
Carry Distance. Each participant’s average pretest carry distance was used as
a covariate in a 3 × 2 (Groups × Tests) ANCOVA to determine the effects of the
attention cues on the posttest and retention test carry distance performance. Carry
distance performance between posttest and retention test (Tests) was not signicant,
F (1, 41) = .73, p = .40, ηp2 = .02, nor was the Groups × Tests interaction, F (2,
41) = 1.46, p = .24, ηp2 = .07. This indicates that the average carry distance of the
ball from posttest to retention test for each of the three groups was essentially the
same, which means that the carry distance performance achieved on the posttest
following instruction and practice was retained on the retention test.
The Groups effect was signicant, F (2, 41) = 5.28, p < .01, ηp2 = .21. The
Bonferroni post hoc test revealed that the external cue group (M = 124.44, SD =
11.31) learned and retained signicantly (p = .008) more average carry distance
than the participant-selected cue group (M = 113.53, SD = 11.34). As expected, this
carry distance effect reected the swing path effect, which suggests that the different
swing paths of the two groups contributed, at least in part, to their respective carry
distances. Specically, it is possible that the better swing path of the external cue
group enabled them to produce a faster ball speed, which resulted in more carry
distance than the participant-selected cue group because they were more efcient
at translating clubhead speed into ball speed. If this was the case, then differences
in swing paths would reect differences in ball speed provided that there was no
difference between groups in clubhead speed, which was the case (p > .05). The
signicant Groups effect for ball speed, F (2, 41) = 4.80, p = .013, ηp2 = .13, and
the Bonferroni post hoc test revealed that ball speed was appreciably (p = .024)
faster for the external cue group (M = 94.75 mph) than it was for the participant-
selected cue group (M = 90.56 mph) and essentially the same as the internal cue
group (M = 95.20 mph). This ball speed nding is also consistent with the smash
factor means, which measure the golfers’ ability to translate clubhead speed into
ball speed. Smash factor for the external cue group (M = 1.30) was more efcient
(better) than it was for the participant-selected cue group (M = 1.26). These ball
speed and smash factor ndings suggest that the better swing path of the external
cue group enabled them to produce a faster ball speed, which resulted in more carry
distance than the participant-selected cue group because they were more efcient
at translating clubhead speed into ball speed. Usually, being more efcient means
making better contact with the ball, that is, impact position of the ball on the club-
face that is more centered.
A similar relationship between swing path and carry distance also was found
for the external and internal cue groups. The external cue group did have more
carry distance than the internal cue group (M = 120.37, SD = 11.32) which was
expected, but this effect was not signicant (p > .05) while it was for swing path.
This nonsignicant effect was unexpected because the swing path for the external
cue group was considerably more inside-out (better) than it was for the internal
cue group, which should have produced a substantial difference in carry distance
between the two groups. Further, it is unclear why the carry distance for the internal
cue group was longer than it was for the participant-selected cue group when the
swing path for the internal cue group was less inside-out (worse) than the partici-
pant-selected cue group. It seems counterintuitive to think that the centeredness of
impact of the ball on the clubface was better for the internal cue group than it was
for the participant-selected cue group when the latter group had a better swing path,

Attentional Focus 43
but the ball speed, smash factor and clubhead speed data suggest that it was. The
signicant Groups effect for ball speed, F (2, 41) = 4.80, p = .013, ηp2 = .13, and
the Bonferroni post hoc test revealed that ball speed was signicantly (p = .024)
faster for the internal cue group (M = 95.20 mph) than it was for the participant-
selected cue group (M = 90.56 mph) and essentially the same as the external cue
group (M = 94.75 mph). Smash factor was better for the internal cue group (M =
1.29) than it was for the participant-selected cue group (M = 1.27), but not quite as
good as for the external cue group (M = 1.31). There were no signicant (p > .05)
differences in clubhead speed (in mph) for the three groups (internal M = 72.99;
participant-selected M = 72.19; external M = 73.36) or in vertical launch angle (in
degrees) for the three groups (internal M = 20.26; participant-selected M = 18.70;
external M = 20.17). These results indicate that in spite of having a worse swing
path than the participant-selected cue group, the internal cue group was better at
translating clubhead speed into ball speed to produce more carry distance. This
nding demonstrates that swing path was not the sole determiner of the extent to
which the ball is impacted on the center of the clubface. Other factors such how
the clubhead is released at impact to square-up the clubface with the ball in rela-
tion to the target and the timing of that release relative to the swing path are also
important, and may have been involved to produce this unexpected carry distance
nding. In spite of the longer than expected carry distance generated by the internal
cue group, all of the other ndings clearly indicated that the instructor-selected
external attention cue was more effective than a participant-selected attention cue
on increasing the ball’s average carry distance using a six iron.
Study 22
The ndings of Study 1 are based on a practice session in which no instructional
feedback was provided. It is possible that the swing path and carry distance effects,
especially the unexpected carry distance effects, would have been different if par-
ticipants had instructional feedback during the practice session. In addition, it is
also possible that differences between six iron and driver swings could differentially
inuence one’s ability to learn to change well-learned swing path as a function
of attentional focus. A driver swing is a longer and more forceful swing that also
generates more clubhead speed than a six iron swing. In addition, hitting a ball off
of an articial-turf mat with an iron is somewhat different than hitting a ball of a
tee with a driver. Thus, the purpose of Study 2 was to determine the extent to which
the swing path ndings and the expected and unexpected carry distance effects
of Study 1 also hold for a driver swing when instructional feedback is provided
during the practice session.
Method
Participants and Dependent Measures. A total of 39 adult male, experienced
golfers (mean age = 64 years; SD = 15) with an average handicap of 18 (SD = 4.11)
volunteered to participate. None of them participated in Study 1. All golfers swung
the club right-handed. Each golfer received a $25 gift certicate for participating
in the study. The dependent measures and the procedures used to obtain them were
the same as in the rst study.

44 Christina and Alpenfels
Study Design and Procedures. The design was the same as in Study 1 except
that participants were randomly assigned to each group with the restriction that
there were 13 rather than 15 golfers per group. The same instructor that gave the
lesson in Study 1 was used in Study 2. The procedures were the same as in Study
1 with the following exceptions. Warm-up involved taking four practice swings
with his own driver instead of eight practice swings with his own six iron. A
structured practice session began immediately after the lesson as in Study 1, but
the session was slightly different in that follow-up instructional feedback with
video review was provided after the 12th and 24th shot in place of a three-minute
rest break. The follow-up instructional feedback emphasized the same swing
path fundamentals that were taught to them in the opening 15-minute lesson. The
pretest, posttest, and retention test were the same as in Study 1.
Results and Discussion
Cues on Which Participants Reported Focusing. About 70% or 27 of the 39
participants reported focusing on one or more internal cues to help them perform
what they thought was an effective swing path at the outset of the study (before
and after the pretest). This nding indicates that the majority of the participants
relied more on internal than external cues at the outset of the study. Following the
posttest and retention test, 100% of the 13 participants in the external cue group
reported focusing their attention on swinging the clubhead inside-out along an
imaginary alignment rod to hit the ball, while 100% of the 13 participants in the
internal cue group reported focusing on dropping their right elbow to their right
side on the downswing. Indeed, these are the two cues to which the participants
in each group were verbally instructed to attend in this study. About 62% or 8 of
the 13 participants in the participant-selected cue group reported using the same
cue that was used by the external group while approximately 39% or 5 participants
reported using the cue that was used by the internal group. Thus, more of the
golfers in the participant-selected cue group relied on an external cue.
Swing Path. For both swing path and carry distance measures, 30% of all of
the shots taken on the pretest, posttest and retention test for each group had to be
repeated because they were poorly struck shots that were not measurable and/
or judged not to be representative of each participant’s driver shots. Swing path
was measured as it was in Study 1. To determine if set-up angle remained essen-
tially the same from pretest to posttest to retention test, a 3 × 3 (Groups × Tests)
ANOVA with repeated measures on the second factor revealed that set-up angle
remained essentially the same for each group from pretest to posttest to retention
test, and that there were no appreciable, set-up angle differences or interaction
among groups (p > .05).
Table 2 presents the actual swing path means (in degrees) for each group on
each test along with their standard deviations and the swing path means that were
adjusted by the pretest (covariate) along with their standard deviations. Positive
means indicate that the downswing angle was above the set-up angle reecting
more of an outside-in swing path relative to the target line, whereas negative means
indicate that the downswing angle was below the setup angle reecting more of an
inside-out swing path. Positive and negative means approaching zero indicate that
the downswing angle was close to the set-up angle revealing more of an inside-out

Attentional Focus 45
swing path relative to the target line. Inspection of the actual means revealed that
the downswing angle of all three groups was above their set-up angle on the pretest
reecting more of an outside-in swing path, but that it was reduced on the posttest
following instruction and practice with the external group improving the most. All
three groups retained much of their improvement from the posttest to the retention
test. Examination of the pretest standard deviations reveals that participants’ swing
path in each group varied considerably about their pretest group mean. To adjust for
the pretest swing-path differences among participants within and between groups at
the outset of the study, each participant’s average pretest swing-path measure was
used as a covariate in a 3 × 2 (Groups × Tests) ANCOVA to determine the effects
of the attention cues on the posttest and retention test swing-path data.
Adjusted swing path means and standard deviations of the three groups over
the posttest and retention test are shown in Table 2. Inspection of the adjusted
means reveals a pattern similar to that displayed by the actual means on the post-
test and retention test. Swing path performance between posttest and retention test
(Tests) was not signicant, F (1, 35) = .01, p = .91, ηp2 = .00, nor was the Groups
× Tests interaction, F (2, 35) = .69, p = .51, ηp2 = .01. This indicates that in spite
of the differences observed in the adjusted means from posttest to retention test
for each of the three groups, they were essentially the same. Thus, the swing path
performance achieved by each of the groups on the posttest following instruction
and practice was retained on the retention test.
The Groups effect was signicant, F (2, 35) = 8.68, p < .01, ηp2 = .33. The
Bonferroni post hoc test revealed that both the external cue group (M = 0.06, SD =
Table 2 Swing Path Means and Standard Deviations on the Three
Tests for the Three Groups
Actual Means
Adjusted Means Based
on Pretest
Groups Pretest Posttest Retention Test Post Retention Test
Internal
M12.86 5.66 6.47 4.47 5.26
SD 12.61 7.28 7.97 3.46 3.68
Participant
M7.72 0.68 -0.32 2.08 1.10
SD 7.02 4.88 4.42 3.47 3.69
External
M10.89 0.18 0.35 - 0.03 0.14
SD 8.97 5.55 5.63 3.43 3.64
Note: Means are in degrees. Positive means indicate that the downswing angle was above the set-
up angle reecting more of an outside-in swing path relative to the target line whereas negative
means indicate that the downswing angle was below the setup angle reecting more of an inside-out
swing path. Positive and negative means approaching zero indicate that the downswing angle was
approaching the set-up angle.

46 Christina and Alpenfels
2.98, p < .001) and participant-selected cue group (M = 1.59, SD = 2.77, p < .029)
signicantly learned and retained more of an inside-out average swing path than
the internal cue group (M = 4.86, SD = 3.02). Although, the external cue group
had more of an inside-out swing path than the participant-selected cue group, that
difference was not signicant (p = .61). The participant-selected cue group having
a similar swing path to the external group and an appreciably better swing path than
the internal group was not found in Study 1 in which the swing path of the external
group was better than the other two groups with no appreciable difference between
the internal and participant-selected cue groups. One possible explanation for this
nding could be rooted in the fact that the percentage of golfers who reported rely-
ing on an external cue in Study 1 (53%) was less than it was in Study 2 (62%). It is
possible that the higher percentage of golfers in the participant-selected cue group
who reported relying on the external cue in Study 2 essentially made this group
more like the external than the internal group, which would explain the similarity of
the swing path ndings for these two groups. However, further research is needed
before the validity of this explanation can be ascertained. Taken together, these
ndings clearly indicate that both the instructor-selected external attention cue and
participant-selected attention cue were more effective than the instructor-selected
internal attention cue in learning to improve swing path of a driver.
Carry Distance. Each participant’s average pretest carry distance was used as
a covariate in a 3 × 2 (Groups × Tests) ANCOVA to determine the effects of the
attention cues on the posttest and retention test carry distance performance. Carry
distance performance between posttest and retention test (Tests) was not signicant,
F (1, 35) = .21, p = .65, ηp2 = .006, nor was the Groups × Tests interaction, F (2,
35) = 0.56, p = .95, ηp2 = .003. This indicates that the average carry distance of the
ball from posttest to retention test for each of the three groups was essentially the
same, which means that the carry distance performance achieved on the posttest
following instruction and practice was retained on the retention test.
The Groups effect was marginally signicant, F (2, 35) = 2.67, p = .08, ηp2 =
.13. The Bonferroni post hoc test revealed that the external group (M = 179.33, SD
= 16.42) produced signicantly (p = .027) more average carry distance than the
internal cue group (M = 164.53, SD = 15.51). It is likely that the better swing path
of the external cue group, as compared with the internal cue group, was an important
contributor to the external group’s longer carry distance because the smash factor
for the external group (M = 1.391) was better than it was for the internal group (M
= 1.358), which resulted in a faster ball speed for the external group (M = 119.46
mph) than the internal group (M = 116.56 mph). There were no signicant (p > .05)
differences in clubhead speed (in mph) for the three groups (internal M = 85.49;
participant-selected M = 86.35; external M = 86.09) or in vertical launch angle (in
degrees) for the three groups (internal M = 14.01; participant-selected M = 14.32;
external M = 16.72). The external cue group also had more carry distance than the
participant-selected cue group (M = 170.83, SD = 15.79), but that difference was
not signicant (p = .20); nor was the difference between the participant-selected
and internal cue groups (p = .30). Taken together, these results indicate that the
instructor-selected external attention cue was more effective than the instructor-
selected internal cue on increasing the ball’s carry distance with a driver.

Attentional Focus 47
General Discussion
The ndings of Study 1 and 2 extended the previous research on movement form
(Wulf et al., 2002; Lawrence et al., 2011; Southard, 2011) by revealing that the
facilitating effect of external focus of attention on movement outcome performance
also holds for movement form performance. The results of Study 1 revealed that the
instructor-selected external cue group learned and retained more of an inside-out
swing path with a six iron than either the instructor-selected internal cue group or
participant-selected cue group. Study 2 results showed that both the instructor-
selected external cue group and participant-selected cue group (62% selected the
external cue) learned and retained more of an inside-out swing path with a driver
than the instructor selected internal cue group. Study 2 results also revealed that
letting experienced players select their own cue on which to focus their attention
was as or more effective than an instructor-selected internal cue when teaching
experienced players to learn to change their driver swing form. It is likely that the
latter nding was the result of 62% of the players in the participant-selected group
choosing an external cue, which made that group more like the external group and
less like the internal group. Taken together, the ndings of both studies provide two
lines of evidence that clearly support the advantage of using an instructor-selected,
external focus of attention cue when teaching experienced players to learn to change
(improve) the swing form of a six iron and driver. And lastly, the results of both
studies indicated that teaching experienced players to focus their attention on an
instructor-selected internal cue was least effective in helping them to learn to change
(improve) their swing form within the scope of one lesson and practice session.
The swing path ndings of the present research were consistent with the
prediction of action-effect and CAH explanations. As predicted, the facilitating
effect of an external focus of attention on movement effect performance holds for
movement form performance when the latter is, in fact, either a movement effect
(e.g., form of a dive, gymnastic or ice skating skill) or a much higher priority than
the movement effect (e.g., pay most of your attention to improving the form of
your golf swing and very little to the shot outcome). Since movement form and
movement effect were nearly the same in the present two studies, the congruence
between movement planning and control, and the desired effect were maximum
or a little less, which allowed for the usual noncognitive, automated processes to
plan and control the swing path movements. As a result, movement coordination
proceeded quite “naturally” in relation to the desired effect because movement
form and movement effect were nearly the same.
A secondary interest of the present research was the carry distance of the ball,
which can be increased with improvements in swing path when other factors (e.g.,
clubhead speed, vertical launch angle) remain essentially the same. Study 1 revealed
that the instructor-selected external cue group, which had more of an inside-out
(better) swing path than the participant-selected cue group, produced signicantly
more average carry distance of the ball with a six iron than the participant-selected
cue group. And, Study 2 showed that the instructor-selected external cue group,
which had more of an inside-out (better) swing path than the instructor-selected
internal cue group, generated appreciably more carry distance of the ball with a
driver than the instructor-selected internal cue group. These ndings were expected

48 Christina and Alpenfels
and reect the inuence of the swing path (movement form) improvements on the
carry distance of the ball (movement effect). The ball speed and smash factor data
suggest that the better swing path of the instructor-selected external cue group
enabled them to generate more carry distance than the participant-selected cue
group because they were more efcient at translating clubhead speed into ball
speed. This efciency usually means making better contact with the ball, that is,
impact position of the ball on the clubface that is more centered.
Essentially, the pattern of carry distances for the three groups reected the
pattern of swing paths for the six iron and driver with one exception. The six iron
swing path for the instructor-selected internal cue group was the more outside-
in (worse) than the participant-selected cue group, but unexpectedly had more
carry distance than the latter group. It is unclear why the carry distance for the
internal cue group was longer than it was for the participant-selected cue group
when the swing path for the internal cue group was less inside-out (worse) than
the participant-selected cue group. It seems counterintuitive to think that the
centeredness of impact of the ball on the clubface was better for the internal cue
group than it was for the participant-selected cue group when the latter group
had a better swing path, but the ball speed, smash factor and clubhead speed data
suggest that it was. The internal cue group had a ball speed that was appreciably
faster than the participant-selected cue group, but essentially the same as the
external cue group. Moreover, smash factor, which is a measure of the ability to
translate clubhead speed into ball speed, was more efcient for the internal cue
group than it was for the participant-selected cue group, but not quite as ef-
cient as the external cue group. And, clubhead speed as well as vertical launch
angle was essentially the same for the three groups. These results indicate that,
in spite of having a worse swing path than the participant-selected cue group,
the internal cue group was better at translating clubhead speed into ball speed
to produce more carry distance. This nding demonstrates that swing path was
not the sole determiner of the extent to which the ball is impacted on the center
of the clubface. Other factors such as how the clubhead is released at impact to
square-up the clubface with the ball in relation to the target and the timing of that
release relative to the swing path are also important, and may have been involved
in producing this unexpected carry distance nding. In spite of the longer than
expected carry distance generated by the internal group, all of the other ndings
clearly indicated that the instructor-selected external attention cue was more
effective than a participant-selected attention cue on increasing the ball’s average
carry distance using a six iron.
Notes
1. Support for Study 1 was provided by a research contract from Education Department of the
PGA of America.
2. Support for Study 2 was provided by a research contract from Golf Magazine. Some of the
data from Study 2 were previously presented in a 2013 Golf Magazine article (volume 55, pages
92–95) titled “The Ultimate Slice Fix!”.

Attentional Focus 49
References
Al-Abood, S.A., Bennett, S.J., Hernandez, F.M., Ashford, D., & Davids, K. (2002).
Effects of verbal instructions and image size on visual search strategies in bas-
ketball free throw shooting. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 271–278. PubMed
doi:10.1080/026404102317284817
Alpenfels, E., Christina, R.W., & Anderson, L. (2004). New golf science: Another path to
power. Golf Magazine, 46, 66–78.
Bell, J.J., & Hardy, J. (2009). Effects of attentional focus on skilled performance in golf.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 163–177. doi:10.1080/10413200902795323
Lawrence, G.P., Gottwald, V.M., Hardy, J., & Khan, M.A. (2011). Internal and external
focus of attention in a novice form sport. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
82, 431–441. PubMed doi:10.1080/02701367.2011.10599775
McNevin, N.H., Shea, C.H., & Wulf, G. (2003). Increasing the distance of an external focus
of attention enhances learning. Psychological Research, 67, 22–29. PubMed
McNevin, N., Weir, P., & Quinn, T. (2013). Effects of attentional focus and age on supra-
postural task performance and postural control. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 84, 96-103.
Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. The European Journal of Cognitive Psy-
chology, 9, 129–154. doi:10.1080/713752551
Southard, D. (2011). Attentional focus and control parameter: Effect on throwing pattern
and performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 652–666. PubMed
doi:10.1080/02701367.2011.10599802
Totsika, V., & Wulf, G. (2003). The inuence of external and internal foci of attention on
transfer to novel situations and skills. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74,
220–225. PubMed doi:10.1080/02701367.2003.10609084
Wulf, G. (2007a). Attentional focus and motor learning. A review of 10 years of research.
Bewegung Und Training, 1, 1–11.
Wulf, G. (2007b). Attention and motor skill learning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Wulf, G., Höß, M., & Prinz, W. (1998). Instructions for motor learning: Differential effects
of internal versus external focus of attention. Journal of Motor Behavior, 30, 169–179.
PubMed doi:10.1080/00222899809601334
Wulf, G., Lauterbach, B., & Toole, T. (1999). Learning advantages of an external focus of
attention in golf. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70, 120–126. PubMed
doi:10.1080/02701367.1999.10608029
Wulf, G., McConnel, N., Gärtner, M., 7 Schwarz, A. (2002). Enhancing the learning of
sport skills through external focus feedback. Journal of Motor Behavior, 34, 171–182.
PubMed doi:10.1080/00222890209601939
Wulf, G., McNevin, N.H., & Shea, C. (2001). The automaticity of complex motor skill
learning as a function of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
54A, 1143–1154. PubMed doi:10.1080/713756012
Wulf, G., Mercer, J., McNevin, N.H., & Guadagnoli, M.A. (2004). Reciprocal inuences of
attentional focus on postural and supra-postural task performance. Journal of Motor
Behavior, 36, 189–199. PubMed doi:10.3200/JMBR.36.2.189-199
Wulf, G., Shea, C., & Park, J.H. (2001). Attention in motor learning: Preferences for and
advantages of an external focus. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72,
335–344. PubMed doi:10.1080/02701367.2001.10608970
Wulf, G., & Su, J. (2007). An external focus of attention enhances golf sot accuracy in begin-
ners and experts. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78, 384–389. PubMed
doi:10.1080/02701367.2007.10599436