The Right Side? Under Time Pressure, Approach Motivation Leads to Right-Oriented Bias

Abstract

Approach motivation, a focus on achieving positive outcomes, is related to relative left-hemispheric brain activation, which translates to a variety of right-oriented behavioral biases. In two studies, we found that approach-motivated individuals display a right-oriented bias, but only when they are forced to act quickly. In a task in which they had to divide lines into two equal parts, approach-motivated individuals bisected the line at a point farther to the right than avoidance-motivated individuals did, but only when they worked under high time pressure. In our analysis of all Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup penalty shoot-outs, we found that goalkeepers were two times more likely to dive to the right than to the left when their team was behind, a situation that we conjecture induces approach motivation. Because penalty takers shot toward the two sides of the goal equally often, the goalkeepers' right-oriented bias was dysfunctional, allowing more goals to be scored. Directional biases may facilitate group coordination but prove maladaptive in individual settings and interpersonal competition.

Full text

http://pss.sagepub.com/
Psychological Science
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/11/1403
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0956797611418677
2011 22: 1403 originally published online 17 October 2011Psychological Science
Marieke Roskes, Daniel Sligte, Shaul Shalvi and Carsten K. W. De Dreu
The Right Side? Under Time Pressure, Approach Motivation Leads to Right-Oriented Bias
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Association for Psychological Science
can be found at:Psychological ScienceAdditional services and information for
http://pss.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://pss.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- Oct 17, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Nov 7, 2011Version of Record >>
at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on April 15, 2013pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Psychological Science
22(11) 1403 –1407
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0956797611418677
http://pss.sagepub.com
Approach-motivated humans and nonhumans alike display a
behavioral asymmetry consisting of a right-oriented bias.
When dogs observe their owners, they wag their tail toward
the right (Quaranta, Siniscalchi, & Vallortigara, 2007); when
toads attempt to catch prey, they are more likely to flick
their tongue at prey to their right side than to their left side
(Vallortigara, Rogers, Bisazza, Lippolis, & Robins, 1998);
when humans kiss their romantic partners, they turn their head
to the right twice as often as they turn it to the left (Güntürkün,
2003); and when approach-motivated humans quickly divide a
line into two equal parts, they show a rightward bias (Friedman
& Förster, 2005; Nash, McGregor, & Inzlicht, 2010).
This right-oriented bias in approach-motivated individuals
is associated with left-hemispheric brain activation (Harmon-
Jones, 2003; Nash et al., 2010). Evolutionary theory suggests
that brain lateralization evolved because it enhanced cognitive
capacity and brain efficiency: Lateralization allows each
hemisphere to specialize in specific tasks that can be per-
formed with increased precision and reduced cognitive costs
(Levy, 1977). Groups of individuals presumably benefited
from having the same directionality of brain lateralization
because the sharing of directional behavioral tendencies
increased intergroup coordination. Higher levels of coordination
would increase a group’s likelihood of survival (Vallortigara &
Rogers, 2005) until the directional behavioral tendency
became evolutionarily stable (Ghirlanda & Vallortigara, 2004).
For example, African hunting dogs move together and hunt
in coordinated groups to overpower large prey (Courchamp,
Rasmussen, & Macdonald, 2002). These dogs exhibit an evo-
lutionarily embedded tendency to move in synchronized ways
while they close in on their prey, thereby reducing the effort
required for coordinating their actions and increasing their
likelihood of success.
Humans, like other animals, routinely respond to stimuli in
their environment and calibrate their responses to attain posi-
tive outcomes. However, incorporating relevant situational
cues into one’s actions and decisions requires time and
cognitive resources (Bargh & Ferguson, 2000; Schneider &
Chein, 2003). For example, much guidance is needed to
Corresponding Author:
Marieke Roskes, Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam,
Weesperplein 4, 1018 XA Amsterdam, The Netherlands
E-mail: m.roskes@uva.nl
The Right Side? Under Time Pressure,
Approach Motivation Leads to
Right-Oriented Bias
Marieke Roskes, Daniel Sligte, Shaul Shalvi, and
Carsten K. W. De Dreu
University of Amsterdam
Abstract
Approach motivation, a focus on achieving positive outcomes, is related to relative left-hemispheric brain activation, which
translates to a variety of right-oriented behavioral biases. In two studies, we found that approach-motivated individuals display
a right-oriented bias, but only when they are forced to act quickly. In a task in which they had to divide lines into two equal
parts, approach-motivated individuals bisected the line at a point farther to the right than avoidance-motivated individuals did,
but only when they worked under high time pressure. In our analysis of all Fédération Internationale de Football Association
(FIFA) World Cup penalty shoot-outs, we found that goalkeepers were two times more likely to dive to the right than to the left
when their team was behind, a situation that we conjecture induces approach motivation. Because penalty takers shot toward
the two sides of the goal equally often, the goalkeepers’ right-oriented bias was dysfunctional, allowing more goals to be scored.
Directional biases may facilitate group coordination but prove maladaptive in individual settings and interpersonal competition.
Keywords
right-oriented bias, approach, avoidance, motivation, line bisection, evolution theory, soccer, football, goalkeepers, evolutionary
psychology, brain
Received 2/21/11; Revision accepted 6/26/11
Research Report
at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on April 15, 2013pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

1404 Roskes et al.
overcome the automatic tendency to think in stereotypical
ways (Sassenberg & Moskowitz, 2005; Stewart & Payne,
2008). When time pressure increases and swift action is
required, individuals become exceedingly likely to act on their
initial automatic impulses (Gray, 2001; Tomarken & Keener,
1998). Focusing on situations in which accurate responses to
stimuli are required, we predicted that the right-oriented bias
under approach motivation is especially pronounced when
people have to act quickly and do not have time to calibrate
their behavior. We tested this hypothesis in two ways. In an
experiment, we found that approach-motivated humans
showed a right-oriented bias, but only when they had to act
quickly. Using archival data from the Fédération Internatio-
nale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup, we replicated
this finding. We found that goalkeepers whose team was
behind, and whose role in regaining their team’s chance of
winning the game was thus crucial, were two times more
likely to dive to the right than to the left when the opposing
team shot toward the goal.
Experimental Evidence
In our experiment, we manipulated the motivation of partici-
pants (approach motivation vs. avoidance motivation) and
asked them to accurately divide lines into two equal parts under
either high or low time pressure. We predicted that participants
in the approach-motivation condition would demonstrate a
relative right-oriented bias, but only under high time pressure.
Method
Thirty-eight students (10 men, 28 women; mean age = 21.34
years, SD = 4.36) participated in return for €2.50. They were
randomly assigned to the conditions of a 2 (motivation:
approach vs. avoidance) × 2 (time pressure: high vs. low)
between-subjects design. Participants were asked to look at a
maze in which a cartoon mouse was depicted as either trying
to find a piece of cheese at the end of the maze (approach con-
dition) or trying to escape from an owl that was hovering over
the maze (avoidance condition). They were asked to write a
vivid story from the perspective of the mouse. In the approach
condition, they were instructed to write about “the happiest
day in the life of the mouse” by imagining the mouse getting
closer to the cheese, finding it, and eventually eating it. In the
avoidance condition, they were instructed to write about “the
terrible death of the mouse” by imagining the mouse attempt-
ing to escape the owl and eventually being caught, killed, and
eaten (Friedman & Förster, 2005).
After writing their story, participants completed a line-
bisection task in which they were presented with eight 14-cm
lines that appeared one at a time in different locations on a
computer screen for either 4,000 ms (low-time-pressure con-
dition) or 1,500 ms (high-time-pressure condition); the inter-
stimulus interval was 1,000 ms. Participants were instructed to
divide each line into two equal parts by clicking on it at the
appropriate location and to be as accurate as possible. The
line-bisection task is typically presented as a paper-and-pencil
task in which, after bisecting each line, participants can
directly move on to the next line, finishing the task rather
quickly. The computerized version in our experiment allowed
us to precisely manipulate the time frame for dividing each
line. The 4,000 ms per line allotted to participants in the low-
time-pressure condition gave them ample opportunity to over-
ride automatic behavioral inclinations. Therefore, we expected
to replicate past findings concerning the right-oriented bias of
approach-motivated individuals in the high-time-pressure, but
not the low-time-pressure, condition.
A pilot test of the line-bisection task (N = 18) verified that
participants under low time pressure took more time to bisect
lines (M = 2.19 s, SD = 0.66) than did participants under high
time pressure (M = 1.12, SD = 0.13), t(16) = −4.71, p < .001.
To verify that participants in the two time-pressure condi-
tions of our main experiment were similarly motivated to
perform the task well, we asked participants to indicate their
agreement with two statements: “It was important for me to
do the line-bisection task well” and “I tried to be as accurate
as possible.” Responses were made on 7-point scales (1 =
strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α = .94) and were aver-
aged to form an index of motivation. As expected, partici-
pants in the low- and high-time-pressure conditions were
similarly highly motivated to perform well (low time pres-
sure: M = 6.11, SD = 1.05; high time pressure: M = 6.11,
SD = 0.70), t(16) = 0.00 , p = 1.00. This finding was impor-
tant because our focus was on situations in which people who
are motivated to respond accurately to a stimulus either do or
do not have sufficient time to adjust their behavior by over-
riding automatic biases.
Results
Deviations from the lines’ true midpoints were measured in
pixels and averaged across the eight lines to create an overall
bisection error index; positive values indicate a right-oriented
bias (a rightward deviation from the midpoint). Greater posi-
tive deviations signify greater relative left-hemispheric activa-
tion. On average, people who read from left to right bisect lines
left of their actual centers1; we therefore assessed participants’
right-oriented bias in relative rather than absolute terms
(Friedman & Förster, 2005; Nash et al., 2010). As predicted, a 2
(motivation: approach vs. avoidance) × 2 (time pressure: high
vs. low) analysis of variance predicting bisection deviations
revealed a significant interaction effect, F(1, 34) = 4.136, p = .05,
ηp
2 = .11 (see Fig. 1). A simple-effects analysis showed that
under high time pressure, approach-motivated participants made
more right-oriented judgments (M = 2.61, SD = 2.37) than did
avoidance-motivated participants (M = −5.62, SD = 2.62), F(1,
37) = 5.77, p = .02. No effect of motivational orientation was
found in the low-time-pressure condition, F(1, 37) = 0.35, p = .56.2
at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on April 15, 2013pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Approach Motivation Leads to Right-Oriented Bias 1405
Archival Evidence: Goalkeepers Dive Right
Our experiment supported the hypothesis that approach-
motivated individuals demonstrate a stronger right-oriented
bias than avoidance-motivated individuals do, but only when
they have to act quickly and cannot override their automatic
behavioral tendencies. To substantiate these experimental
findings, we analyzed the diving behavior of soccer goalkeep-
ers during penalty shoot-outs. During penalty shoot-outs,
goalkeepers are motivated to accurately respond to the ball
being shot toward them by diving to the left, diving to the
right, or standing still (the last strategy is rarely used; Bar-Eli,
Azar, Ritov, Keidar-Levin, & Schein, 2007).
Goalkeepers seek clues (e.g., the movements of penalty
takers’ kicking leg and trunk and the position of penalty takers’
hips) regarding the direction toward which the ball will be shot
(Tyldesley, Bootsma, & Bomhoff, 1982; Williams & Burwitz,
1993), but the fast-moving stimulus gives goalkeepers little
time to react (balls shot toward the goal reach speeds of more
than 80 km/hr). However, as German goalkeeper and World
Cup finalist Oliver Kahn explained,
You can read a lot from the body language of the shooter
and where he will be shooting. It is a psychological
game between the goalkeeper and the taker. It has a lot
to do with eye contact and body language. (quoted in
“Goalkeepers Give Shoot-Out Tips,” 2010, para. 4)
Indeed, goalkeepers dive in the correct direction more often
than would be predicted if the direction of their diving were
random (Savelsberg, Van der Kamp, Williams, & Ward, 2005).
They must respond without having much time to calibrate
their response (Bar-Eli et al., 2007), and such speed would
increase the likelihood of their automatic behavioral tenden-
cies taking effect (Schneider & Chein, 2003).
To test our prediction that approach-motivated goalkeepers
would display a right-oriented diving bias, we analyzed data
from all penalty shoot-outs in the history of the FIFA World
Cup. The World Cup is the most widely viewed sporting event
in the world, with revenues exceeding a billion dollars (FIFA,
2010), and winning this competition has far-reaching conse-
quences. Tied knockout-stage matches in the World Cup are
decided by penalty shoot-outs. Five players from each team
alternate in shooting penalties from a distance of 11 m toward
a 7.32-m × 2.44-m goal defended by the other team’s goal-
keeper. If the ball successfully makes it into the goal, the goal
is considered scored; if the goalkeeper intercepts the ball, the
goal is considered saved; if the ball misses the goal completely,
it is considered off target. When the shot is saved or off target,
no point is awarded to the penalty taker’s team. If the score
remains tied, the teams continue to take penalty shots until a
winner is determined.
Because failures to score are rare (71% of World Cup shoot-
out penalties have been scored), humiliating, and generally con-
sidered avoidable, penalty takers focus on not missing more
than they do on scoring. Because penalty takers are avoidance
motivated and have time to strategize about the penalty shot, we
did not expect them to display a right-oriented bias. In contrast,
because a successful defense of the goal has heroic connotations
and is a relatively rare event in World Cup penalty shoot-outs
(only 20% of penalty shots have been successfully saved), goal-
keepers focus on the positive outcome of saving more than they
do on the consequences of failing. As American goalkeeper
Brad Friedel suggested, “I think of penalty kicks as no-lose situ-
ations for a goalkeeper. All the pressure is on the field player,
who is supposed to score” (quoted in Benjamin, 2003, para. 1).
Oliver Kahn explained: “Kickers are the ones that can lose in a
penalty shoot-out; goalkeepers are the ones that can win and
ultimately become the heroes” (quoted in “Goalkeepers Give
Shoot-Out Tips,” 2010, para. 25). This approach motivation
should be even stronger for goalkeepers whose team is behind
and whose role in regaining the possibility to win the game is
crucial (i.e., when a penalty taker from the goalkeeper’s team
has missed a previous penalty; in World Cup history, this situa-
tion applies to 12% of all penalties). Because goalkeepers are
focused on successfully accomplishing their task and have to
respond in a split second, we hypothesized that they should dis-
play a right-oriented bias (i.e., they should dive right) when
their team is behind and their approach motivation is therefore
strong.
Method
We retrieved data for FIFA World Cup matches that ended in
penalty shoot-outs from the FIFA Web site (FIFA, 2011). All
penalties in World Cup shoot-outs (from the first, between
West Germany and France in 1982, to the most recent, between
Uruguay and Ghana in 2010) were coded by three independent
coders for the direction of the penalty taker’s shot (left, mid-
dle, or right), the direction in which the goalkeeper dove (left,
–6
–5
–4
–3
–2
–1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Deviation (pixels)
Time Pressure
Avoidance Motivation
Approach Motivation
HighLow
Fig. 1. Results from the line-bisection task: average deviation from the
center of the line as a function of time pressure and motivation. Negative
numbers indicate left-oriented deviations, and positive numbers indicate
right-oriented deviations.
at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on April 15, 2013pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

1406 Roskes et al.
middle, or right), the score from the goalkeeper’s team’s per-
spective (behind, tied, or ahead), and the outcome of the pen-
alty (score, save, or off-target shot). Coders agreed on 95% of
the cases. Agreement concerning the remaining 5% was
reached by discussion following repeated viewing of those
penalties. In total, 204 penalty shots were used to settle 22
matches; 71% (144) of these penalty shots were scored, 20%
(41) were saved, and 9% (19) were off target (for data for all
penalty shoot-outs, see the Supplemental Material available
online).
Results
As predicted, goalkeepers were more likely to dive to the right
(71%) than to the left (29%) when their team was behind, χ2(1,
N = 24) = 4.17, p = .04, but not when their team was ahead
(right: 48%; left: 51%; χ2 < 1, n.s.) or when the game was tied
(right: 49%; left: 48%; χ2 < 1, n.s.; see Fig. 2). As expected,
penalty takers did not show a right-oriented bias: They shot to
the right and to the left to similar extents whether their team
was behind, ahead, or tied (all χ2s < 1, n.s.; see Fig. 2). Because
penalty takers shot equally to the right and to the left, whereas
goalkeepers dove more than twice as often to the right as to the
left when their team was behind, goalkeepers were almost 3
times less likely to save the shot when their team was behind
(2 of 24 shots saved; 8%) than when their team was not behind
(39 of 180 shots saved; 22%). In situations in which the goal-
keeper’s team was behind, this tendency translated to 90%
(18/20) of on-target shots being scored; in contrast, 79% of
penalty shots were scored (71/90) when the game was tied,
and 73% (55/75) were scored when the goalkeeper’s team was
ahead.
Discussion
A vast body of research has linked approach motivation to
left-hemispheric brain activation (see Davidson, Jackson, &
Kalin, 2000), and a wide range of right-oriented behavioral
biases have been documented among animals (Vallortigara &
Rogers, 2005) and, to a lesser extent, among humans (e.g.,
Güntürkün, 2003). Our analyses of experimental and archival
data reveal that humans are subject to this right-oriented bias
when quick action is required and automatic tendencies pre-
vail over calibrated responses. Our experiment showed that
when approach-motivated individuals act without time pres-
sure, they no longer demonstrate a right-oriented bias. This
finding suggests that having sufficient time to adjust behavior
may reduce or even eliminate habituated behavioral biases.
Our investigation contributes to the discussion of the evo-
lutionary development and social functions of brain lateraliza-
tion. Directionality of behavioral biases presumably evolved
because it facilitates synchronized group behavior. Our archi-
val analysis shows that in situations that do not require group
coordination, goalkeepers rely on their habituated rightward
bias, even when this tendency is dysfunctional. Preparing for
personally relevant approach-related action strengthens left-
hemispheric brain activity (Harmon-Jones, Lueck, Fearn, &
Harmon-Jones, 2006). People may therefore be especially
prone to this directional bias in important situations that
require them to act. Ironically, overriding automatic behav-
ioral tendencies may seem most difficult when overriding such
tendencies matters most, and this difficulty can benefit (and
enable exploitation by) opponents, such as predators or pen-
alty takers in soccer matches.
The prevalence of seemingly dysfunctional directional biases
in individual settings suggests that the human brain may be
wired for group coordination and for preparing people to cooper-
ate rather than to compete (Dawkins, 1976; Vallortigara &
Rogers, 2005). Brain asymmetries, including a right-oriented
bias, may be functional for group coordination, but acting in
accordance with such automatic tendencies may backfire in
competitive situations in which group coordination is not needed.
Acknowledgments
Marieke Roskes, Daniel Sligte, and Shaul Shalvi contributed equally
to this research.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with
respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.
Funding
This research was supported by Grant NWO-400-06-098 from the
Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research to Carsten K. W.
De Dreu and Bernard Nijstad.
Supplemental Material
Additional supporting information may be found at http://pss.sagepub
.com/content/by/supplemental-data
Notes
1. In countries where people read from left to right, people tend
to display a leftward bias on the line-bisection task, whereas in
54%
51%
46%
48%
51%
29%
38%8%
1%
11%
3%
6%
48%
43%
49%
43%
71%
Shot
Dive
Shot
Dive
Shot
Dive
AheadTie Behind
Left Middle Right
Fig. 2. Percentage of goalkeepers’ dives and penalty takers’ shots that were
to the left, middle, and right as a function of whether the goalkeeper’s team
was behind, tied with, or ahead of the penalty taker’s team.
at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on April 15, 2013pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Approach Motivation Leads to Right-Oriented Bias 1407
countries where people read from right to left, people tend to display
a rightward bias (Jewell & McCourt, 2000).
2. These results were not qualified by participants’ handedness (24%
of participants in our sample were left-handed). Past research sug-
gests that handedness and directionality of brain lateralization are
independent factors (e.g., Hopkins & Bennett, 1994; Rogers, 2009).
References
Bar-Eli, M., Azar, O., Ritov, I., Keidar-Levin, Y., & Schein, G. (2007).
Action bias among elite soccer goalkeepers: The case of penalty
kicks. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28, 606–621.
Bargh, J. A., & Ferguson, M. L. (2000). Beyond behaviorism: On the
automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychological Bulletin,
126, 925–945.
Benjamin, J. (2003). Penalty kicks. Retrieved from http://www
.jbgoalkeeping.com/pks.html
Courchamp, F., Rasmussen, G. S. A., & Macdonald, D. (2002). Small
pack size imposes a trade-off between hunting and pup-guarding
in the painted hunting dog Lycaon pictus. Behavioral Ecology,
13, 20–27.
Davidson, R. J., Jackson, D. C., & Kalin, N. H. (2000). Emotion,
plasticity, context, and regulation: Perspectives from affective
neuroscience. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 890–909.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. New York, NY: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Fédération Internationale de Football Association. (2010). FIFA
Financial Report 2010. Retrieved from http://www.fifa.com/
mm/document/affederation/administration/01/18/31/86/fifa_
fr09_en.pdf
Fédération Internationale de Football Association. (2011). Previous
FIFA World Cups. Retrieved from http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/
archive/index.html
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2005). Effects of motivational cues on
perceptual asymmetry: Implications for creativity and analytical
problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
88, 263–275.
Ghirlanda, S., & Vallortigara, G. (2004). The evolution of brain later-
alization: A game-theoretical analysis of population structure. Pro-
ceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 271, 853–857.
Goalkeepers give shoot-out tips. (2010, June 25). IOL Sport. Retrieved
from http://www.iol.co.za/sport/goalkeepers-give-shoot-out-tips-1
.619515
Gray, J. R. (2001). Emotional modulation of cognitive control:
Approach-withdrawal states double-dissociate spatial from verbal
two-back task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 130, 436–452.
Güntürkün, O. (2003). Human behavior: Adult persistence of head-
turning asymmetry. Nature, 421, 711.
Harmon-Jones, E. (2003). Clarifying the emotive functions of asym-
metrical frontal cortical activity. Psychophysiology, 40, 838–848.
Harmon-Jones, E., Lueck, L., Fearn, M., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2006).
The effect of personal relevance and approach-related action
expectation on relative left frontal cortical activity. Psychologi-
cal Science, 17, 434–440.
Hopkins, W. D., & Bennett, A. J. (1994). Handedness and
approach-avoidance behavior in chimpanzees (Pan). Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 20,
413–418.
Jewell, G., & McCourt, M. E. (2000). Pseudoneglect: A review and
meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neu-
ropsychologia, 38, 93–110.
Levy, J. (1977). The mammalian brain and the adaptive advantage
of cerebral asymmetry. Annals of the New York Academy of Sci-
ences, 299, 264–272.
Nash, K., McGregor, I., & Inzlicht, M. (2010). Line bisection as a
neural marker of approach motivation. Psychophysiology, 47,
979–983.
Quaranta, A., Siniscalchi, M., & Vallortigara, G. (2007). Asymmetric
tail-wagging responses by dogs to different emotive stimuli. Cur-
rent Biology, 17, R199–R201.
Rogers, L. J. (2009). Hand and paw preferences in relation to the
lateralized brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences, 364, 943–954.
Sassenberg, K., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2005). Don’t stereotype, think
different! Overcoming automatic stereotype activation by mind-
set priming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41,
506–514.
Savelsberg, G. J. P., Van der Kamp, J., Williams, A. M., & Ward, P.
(2005). Anticipated and visual search behavior in expert soccer
goalkeepers. Ergonomics, 48, 1686–1697.
Schneider, W., & Chein, J. M. (2003). Controlled and automatic pro-
cessing: Behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms. Cognitive
Science, 27, 525–559.
Stewart, B. D., & Payne, B. K. (2008). Bringing automatic stereotyp-
ing under control: Implementation intentions as efficient means
of thought control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
34, 1332–1345.
Tomarken, A. J., & Keener, A. D. (1998). Frontal brain asymmetry
and depression: A self-regulatory perspective. Cognition & Emo-
tion, 12, 387–420.
Tyldesley, D. A., Bootsma, R. J., & Bomhoff, G. T. (1982). Skill level
and eye-movement patterns in a sport oriented reaction time task.
In H. Rieder, K. Bos, H. Mechling, & K. Reische (Eds.), Motorik
und Bewegungsforschung [Motor behavior research] (pp. 290–
296). Schorndorf, Germany: Hofmann.
Vallortigara, G., & Rogers, L. J. (2005). Survival with an asymmetri-
cal brain: Advantages and disadvantages of cerebral lateraliza-
tion. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 28, 575–633.
Vallortigara, G., Rogers, L. J., Bisazza, A., Lippolis, G., & Robins, A.
(1998). Complementary right and left hemifield use for predatory
and agonistic behaviour in toads. NeuroReport, 9, 3341–3344.
Williams, A. M., & Burwitz, L. (1993). Advance cue utilization in
soccer. In T. Reilly, J. Clarys, & A. Stibbe (Eds.), Science and
football II (pp. 239–243). London, England: E & FN Spon.
at UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek on April 15, 2013pss.sagepub.comDownloaded from