The impact of evaluative pressure and higher working memory capacity on sensorimotor skill performance.

Underperformance in high-pressure situations, commonly known as choking under pressure, has been well-documented in the literature. For well-learned sensorimotor skills, such as sports, choking is thought to occur because individuals devote explicit attention to the steps of the skill, which disrupts performance. The current study examines how the type of pressure situation an individual experiences, and individual differences in working memory capacity, influence choking on a sensorimotor skill. Participants (N = 96) performed a Sensorimotor Reaction Time Task (SRTT) either under monitoring pressure, outcome pressure, or no pressure (control). High working-memory individuals performed significantly worse while completing the SRTT under monitoring pressure relative to outcome pressure. Low working-memory individuals performed marginally better than high working-memory individuals under monitoring pressure. These findings demonstrate that high working-memory negatively impacts sensorimotor skill performance in monitoring pressure situations. Furthermore, these results show how monitoring pressure leads to decreases in performance in high working-memory individuals due to enhancing the amount of attention these individuals direct to task execution. PRESSURE AND WORKING MEMORY ON SKILL PERFORMANCE 3 The Impact of Evaluative Pressure and Higher Working Memory Capacity on Sensorimotor Skill Performance Situations in which an individual experiences high pressure are inevitable throughout life. One oft-cited example is how standardized examinations are required in order for individuals to advance their career trajectories. The results of these exams often have significant consequences, whether it is being accepted to a university or obtaining a job certification. However, highpressure situations are not limited to traditional examinations. Performing well in a job interview or a high-stakes athletic performance can be just as critical for success. Interestingly, it is during instances such as these that individuals often perform beneath their usual capabilities. This phenomenon of underperforming during moments of high pressure is commonly referred to as choking under pressure (Beilock & Gray, 2007). Out of the various explanations on how pressure impacts performance, the distraction and explicit monitoring theories are the most prominent within the current body of literature. Theories of Choking Under Pressure According to the distraction theory, individuals underperform in high-pressure situations because their attention is diverted from the task at hand by irrelevant thoughts. Rather than being able to apply the necessary amount of attention to successfully complete the task, distracting thoughts or worries cause individuals to perform worse than they normally would in a lowpressure situation (Beilock & Carr, 2001, 2005; DeCaro, Rotar, Kendra, & Beilock, 2010; Wine, 1971). Notably, the most support for this theory is found in the realm of academic performance (e.g., Beilock & Carr, 2005). For example, Beilock, Kulp, Holt, and Carr (2004) had participants solve math problems of varying difficulty under both high and low pressure. As hypothesized, PRESSURE AND WORKING MEMORY ON SKILL PERFORMANCE 4 performance on the math problems that required the greatest amount of attention was the most negatively affected when participants were placed under high pressure. In contrast, the explicit monitoring theory states that individuals in a high-pressure situation become increasingly self-aware of the steps they are taking to complete a skill. This increased attention hinders performance by interrupting the execution of well-learned, proceduralized processes that operate outside of attentional control (Beilock & Carr, 2001). The majority of support for this theory comes from the realm of sensorimotor skills such as sports. For example, Gray (2004) demonstrated that highly skilled division I intercollegiate baseball players performed lower in a high-pressure condition than their baseline performance. However, they were able to judge the direction their bat was moving at specified intervals more accurately than during the baseline measurement. These results demonstrate that pressure causes individuals to be more aware of their movements, but in turn impairs their performance (Gray, 2004). Both the distraction and explicit monitoring theories incorporate the idea that variations in the focus of attention can lead to choking under pressure (DeCaro, Thomas, Albert, & Beilock, 2011). This concept of attention is a fundamental attribute of working memory. Working memory is simultaneously responsible for blocking out irrelevant details and maintaining a limited amount of information relevant to a task (Engle, 2002; Miyake & Shah, 1999). According to the distraction theory, underperformance is caused by attention being diverted away from the task in a high-pressure situation such as taking an exam. In contrast, explicit monitoring theory suggests that when individuals are under pressure, they will increase their attention to skill execution to ensure optimum performance (Beilock & Carr, 2001; DeCaro et al., 2011). Types of Pressure Situations PRESSURE AND WORKING MEMORY ON SKILL PERFORMANCE 5 Although explicit monitoring and distraction theories differ in their explanations for choking under pressure, they are both applicable depending on the type of situational pressure the individual is being placed under. DeCaro and colleagues (2011) identified two types of situational pressure an individual can be placed under: outcome pressure and monitoring pressure. When individuals are placed under outcome pressure, they become very aware that a desirable result depends upon their performance of a particular task. Within psychological research, outcome pressure is often induced through the experimenter telling each participant that he or she has been paired with a partner and that, if each individual improves his or her score by a certain amount, each person in the pair will receive a monetary award. Each participant is then told that his or her partner already improved by the necessary amount. This therefore leaves it solely up to the participant to perform well enough to obtain the monetary award for both himself or herself and his or her partner (an important outcome). Outcome pressure is connected to the distraction theory in that the amount of working memory each individual is able to employ while solving problems is reduced, since the individual’s attention is being diverted by worries of not performing well enough to receive the reward. Thus, outcome pressure is most likely to impact performance on tasks that require attention, such as academic skills (DeCaro et al., 2011). In contrast, individuals under monitoring pressure become more self-conscious of their own actions while their performance is being evaluated. The use of an audience, video camera, or a mirror can all induce this particular kind of pressure situation (Carver & Scheier, 1978; Davis & Brock, 1975; Duval & Wicklund, 1972; Geller & Shaver, 1976). An example of how monitoring pressure is implemented in a laboratory setting is when an experimenter tells participants that they will videotape and watch their performance, so that others can evaluate PRESSURE AND WORKING MEMORY ON SKILL PERFORMANCE 6 how they perform the task. Due to the combination of the experimenter watching them and the video camera being nearby, the participants place more attention on the correct execution of the task than they normally would. Monitoring pressure relates to the explicit monitoring theory in that the individual becomes extremely self-conscious of his or her skill execution under highpressure. This self-consciousness is due to the skill execution being watched or evaluated. Thus, monitoring pressure is most likely to impact performance on well-learned sensorimotor skills that operate better without careful attention to the steps of performance, such as certain sports skills (DeCaro et al., 2011). Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity Thus, research on these different kinds of pressure shows that pressure can have varying effects on the performance level of individuals depending on the attentional demands of the task being performed (DeCaro et al., 2011). It is also possible that individual differences in the ability, or tendency, to devote attention to a task may impact whether choking occurs. Specifically, individuals differ in their working memory capacity—some individual devote more attention to a task, whereas other devote less attention (Engle, 2002). Research has shown that individuals with higher working-memory capacity are impacted differently by outcome pressure on academic skills such as math (Beilock & Carr, 2005; Beilock & DeCaro, 2007). These studies found that individuals with high working-memory typically perform at a higher level, and are more likely to choke under pressure when distracted by thoughts or worries. Their results support the proposition that high working-memory individuals have more to lose under pressure. More specifically, their results posit that the magnitude of the drop in performance is larger for high working-memory individuals relative to low workingmemory individuals. PRESSURE AND WORKING MEMORY ON SKILL PERFORMANCE 7 However, research has not investigated how individual differences in working memory capacity impact the likelihood that individuals will choke in monitoring-pressure situations. Specifically, those with higher working memory might perform differently than those with lower working memory on sensorimotor skills, depending upon the kind of pressure situation they are placed in. As noted above, although more attention-demanding performance strategies usually lead to higher accuracy, this is not always the case. Indeed, sometimes a simpler approach is the best route to performing a task. With increased expertise, certain tasks (su