Attentional focus research has reliably demonstrated that an external (beyond the body) focus is superior in terms of skill performance, retention and transfer relative to an internal conscious focus on movement mechanics. This thesis extends current knowledge by evaluating the impact of external focus distance on the performance of continuous skills in an applied context. Specifically, two external focus points of different distances were compared to an undirected attention condition. Three separate studies were conducted using different kayak sprinting disciplines; two of these took place in benign environments using relatively closed skills whilst the third was carried out in an open skill context. In all cases a within-participants experimental design was employed with an independent variable of conscious focus and a dependent variable of performance time. In Study 1, using competent, experienced kayakers (n = 20) in a surf ski sprinting task, the distal external condition significantly outperformed both the undirected focus and proximal external conditions (p < .001 in both cases). The undirected focus condition was significantly faster than the proximal external focus condition (p = .003). The effect size was large (ηp2 = .55). Study 2 examined the same attentional points using youth racers in K1 sprint kayaks (n = 16). The undirected focus condition was significantly faster than the proximal external condition (p = .028); the effect size was large (ηp2 = .23). In Study 3 experienced kayakers (n = 27) were tested in a wild water racing task against the same experimental conditions. The distal external focus condition significantly surpassed both the proximal external condition and the undirected focus condition (p < .001 in both cases). The effect size was large (ηp2 = .53). The studies in this thesis show that the distance of a specified external focus is important and can have a significant influence on performance. In contrast to previous work the proximal external focus did not provide a performance advantage relative to an undirected focus condition; in studies 1 and 2 it was actually detrimental. A distal external focus was beneficial compared to both other conditions in two studies and insignificantly different to the undirected focus trial in Study 2. This thesis brings together work on focus distance and skill type in three applied and non-contrived sporting contexts. The main practical implication of this research is that distance of focus should be considered by learners and coaches with a view to optimising conscious attention. A distal external focus appears to be particularly useful in targeting attention on a pertinent point whilst simultaneously excluding cognitive competition, distractions and unnecessary attentional switching which could undermine skilled performance.

Visually focusing on the hole versus the ball in golf has shown some positive effects on putting performance (Heath et al., 2008), yet the reason for these benefits have not been tested. Considering the benefits of adopting an external focus, the purpose here was to examine whether attentional focus mechanisms contribute to the positive effects reported by Heath et al. (2008). Thirty experienced golfers were assigned to either a visual-ball focus or visual-hole focus group. Following warm-up putts, 48 experimental putts, divided equally into 16 putts across three conditions: control, task-relevant, and task-irrelevant, were performed. In the control condition, participants putted under single-task conditions, maintaining their assigned visual focus. In the other two conditions, participants putted under dual-task conditions and were instructed to focus on their wrist angles upon hearing a tone (task-relevant), or to identify an irrelevant sound (task-irrelevant). A questionnaire, designed to represent equal proportions of the ‘distance’ effect (Wulf, 2013; i.e., internal, proximal external, or distal external focus), served as a manipulation check to determine the attentional focus adopted under each condition. Analysis of the manipulation check for the control condition data only showed a significant interaction of Group and Attentional Focus F(2,56) = 4.5, p = .01. Post-hoc showed that participants had a significantly higher proximal external focus in the visual-ball focus group compared to the visual-hole focus group, whereas the visual-hole focus group was significantly higher than the visual-ball focus group for distal external focus. Additionally, an analysis with all three putting conditions indicated that participants had significantly higher internal focus for task-relevant trials, as compared to task-irrelevant or control trials. There were no significant differences found for any of the putting performance measures., however, the main effect of Condition did approach significance for MRE F(2,56) = 2.8, p = .068. This replicates the general finding that putting performance is poorest when golfers self-report using a higher internal focus. In conclusion, these results suggest that visually focusing on the hole results in a more distal external attentional focus in a golf environment than that of a ball-focus, but this does not translate to performance benefits.

The objective of the present study was to; 1) determine if the use of a continuous cognitive task demonstrates distinct characteristics of a more automatic control of posture, compared to an external focus (EF) and feet together (FT) postural task, and to 2) examine which condition, if any, exhibits the characteristics of increased ankle stiffness proposed by Winter et al. (1998), as well as displaying increased ankle muscular co-contractions, which are a suggested neuromuscular mechanism that stiffens posture. Fifteen young adults stood on a force platform and performed 4 separate conditions: FT, EF, single number sequence (SNS), and double number sequence (DNS). Throughout the session, surface electromyography (EMG) signals were collected from the tibialis anterior (TA) and medial gastrocnemius (MG) of each leg. Each testing session consisted of 24 trials, with 6 per condition. Results displayed decreased sway area for SNS and DNS compared to FT. Sway variability in the anterior/posterior (AP) direction SNS and DNS were smaller compared to EF and FT. As well sway variability in the medial/lateral (ML) direction was smaller for SNS and DNS compared to FT. ML Mean velocity (MV) did not differ across conditions, though in the AP direction it was larger for SNS and DNS compared to EF and FT. AP Mean power frequency (MPF) was larger for SNS compared to FT. In the ML direction MPF was larger for SNS and DNS compared to FT. Co-Contraction indices revealed no differences across conditions. Conversely the left TA for DNS revealed increased EMG activation compared to EF and SNS.

No description available.

This thesis examined the influence of support type and support visibility on the effects of enacted social support on performance and a number of key psychological and behavioural variables. It comprises five chapters. Chapter 1 is a general introduction. The next three chapters (outlined below) present the results of four studies. Chapter 5 is a general discussion. Chapter 2 examined how support type and support visibility influenced the effects of natural support exchanges between athletes and their key support providers occurring in the week prior to an athlete’s match. Athletes and key support providers reported respectively the receipt and provision of support during this week. Athletes also indicated their self-confidence and emotional states regarding the upcoming the match. Moderated hierarchical regression analyses revealed that all types of received support predicted athletes’ emotional states and self-confidence regarding the upcoming match. There was no evidence that invisibly providing these support types predicted athletes’ outcomes. For informational support, however, it was found that its provision predicted self-confidence, suggesting that athletes’ levels of confidence may have benefited from advice that they were not always aware of. Chapter 3 employed an experimental paradigm to better examine the influence of the type and visibility of enacted social support. Using a golf-putting task with novices (n = 105), it examined the influence of informational and esteem support provided in a visible or invisible manner by a fellow novice golfer. This fellow novice golfer was in reality a confederate scripted to give one of five support manipulations (visible informational support, invisible informational support, visible esteem support, invisible esteem support, no support) to participants prior to performing the golf-putting task. The results demonstrated that participants given invisible informational support or visible esteem support outperformed those given no support, while participants given visible informational support or invisible esteem support did not. There was no evidence that participants’ self-efficacy or emotional states could explain these effects. Chapter 4 also involved experimental procedures across two separate studies with samples of skilled football players completing a football aiming task. In these studies, esteem and informational support was provided in a visible or invisible manner by a coach with expertise in penalty-taking. In the first of these studies, the players (n = 68) performed better when the expert provided them with informational support than when the expert provided them with esteem support. This effect occurred regardless of whether the support was provided in a visible or invisible manner. Self-efficacy could not explain this effect. Given the lack of effects of support visibility, the second of these two studies was designed as a replication and an extension of the first. It sought to further examine why informational support might be more effective than esteem support for skilled football players (n = 84). Consistent with the first study, kicking performance was again significantly better for players provided with informational support than for players provided with esteem support regardless of whether the support was provided in a visible or invisible manner. There was evidence that players given informational support performed better than those given esteem support, because their attention was focused more externally on the target and less internally on the process of movement execution. This series of studies are important for sport and social psychology: They are the first to explore the effect of support type and support visibility in a sport context; and they are the first to examine the effect of support type and support visibility in relation to performance. The results demonstrate that support type is a crucial factor to consider when exchanging support. However, no support type may necessarily be considered the best under all conditions. In light of explaining the effects of different support types on performance, the final study suggests that attentional focus may be an important underlying mechanism. The results indicate that support visibility may play a role in the exchange of support but its influence depends on the type of support provided and the context in which this type of support is provided. An overriding finding of this thesis is that enacted support can have beneficial effects upon athletes’ psychological states and performance.

Ninety undergraduate students who scored as high or low on the Snyder Self-monitoring Scale participated in an experiment designed to determine the joint effects of self-monitoring and controllable or uncontrollable outcomes upon subsequent performance on three short-term memory tests. High and low self-monitoring subjects were assigned to one of three conditions: (1) controllable feedback, in which subjects received response contingent positive, "correct," and negative, "incorrect," feedback on a word association task; (2) uncontrollable feedback, in which subjects were given noncontingent feedback (70% negative and 30% positive); and (3) no-treatment. Measures of attentional focus were included in order to examine the role of attentional processes in the obtained results. In addition, the joint effects of treatment and self-monitoring on subjects' attributions were investigated. As predicted, the performance of high selfmonitors was significantly impaired by uncontrollability (learned helplessness), while that of low self-monitors was facilitated by controllability (learned competence). Results were discussed as supporting the contention that high self-monitors rely heavily on knowledge of environmental contingencies in order to control their environment. When their typically effective strategy is unsuccessful, "helplessness" is induced. Low self-monitors, who are less concerned with exercising control over environmental events, evidence diminished attention to and utilization of external stimuli. However, when these stimuli are made salient and the low self-monitor is positively reinforced for processing these stimuli, "competence" is induced. Results also suggest that high self-monitors, as compared with low self-monitors, are more likely to employ self-enhancing, defensive strategies. Such strategies may protect self-esteem and decrease the likelihood of long term negative effects.

The advantages of an external focus of attention are very consistent within the motor learning literature. That is, focusing on cues external to the body while performing a task will allow for greater motor skill learning and performance benefits compared to focusing internally. Likewise, there is a vast consistency within the self-regulated learning literature. Individuals that are allowed to alter or adjust a certain characteristic of their practice environment have consistently performed significantly better than individuals following a predetermined practice arrangement mirroring the schedule determined by their self-regulated counterpart. The purpose of this study was to investigate the motor skill learning and performance benefits of choice in attentional focus instructions while executing a golf putt. It was hypothesized that in practice: the self-regulated and control groups will perform similar to each other, but both will perform better than the yoked group; all participants will perform better when focusing externally rather than internally; and a majority of participants within all groups would indicate that focusing externally rather than internally elicited greater performance benefits by the end of practice on day 1. It was also hypothesized that the self-regulated and control groups will perform similar to each other on the retention and transfer tests, but both will perform better than the yoked group; and finally, a majority of participants would indicate that focusing externally rather than internally will elicit greater performance benefits by the end of the retention and transfer tests respectively. The results from this study indicated that the self-regulated and control groups performed similar to each other during practice, retention and transfer, but did not differ significantly from the yoked group. Also, approximately only 40% of all participants believed that adopting an external focus of attention would elicit greater performance benefits than an internal focus during practice, retention and transfer. This study provides practitioners with an increased understanding of how a participant-controlled learning environment affects which focus of attention is adopted by the learner. Since the advantages of an external focus of attention are robust, and there appeared to be no clear preference for using one focus over the other when given a choice, it might be appropriate to suggest that practitioners should continue to promote an external focus of attention in their learning environments until further research investigating the interactions of self-regulated practice and attentional focus are conducted.

Previous attentional focus literature suggests that adopting an external focus (EF) results in greater force production through a variety of mechanisms. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of attentional focus and dual-tasking when performing heavily loaded barbell movements that are specific to strength-based sports. Fifteen resistance-trained males (age = 23.3 ± 3.4 years) reported to the laboratory for three visits. The first visit consisted of a five-repetition maximum (5RM) test on the conventional deadlift. During the subsequent sessions, the participants performed a total of twelve single conventional deadlift repetitions while adopting an internal focus (IF), an external focus (EF), or while performing the cognitive task (COG). The IF and EF consisted of focusing on activating the quadriceps and maintain a straight bar path, respectively. The COG consisted of counting the total occurrence of two single-digits in a sequence of three-digit numbers, separately. Three-dimensional motion capture and force platforms were used to collect kinematic and kinetic data. No significant differences were found between the IF, the EF and the COG for lift duration, peak barbell velocity, peak vertical ground reaction force, area of 95% confidence ellipse, peak hip moments and peak hip powers. Adopting an EF significantly reduced variability of the barbell trajectory and centre of pressure (COP) in the anterior-posterior direction. Mean velocity of COP was also significantly lower for the EF. Our findings suggest that adopting an EF may lead to greater postural stability when performing heavily loaded barbell movements.

The purposes of this study were to examine the (a) attentional focus strategies used by high school distance runners, (b) changes in attentional focus across four laps in three 1.6 km runs, and (c) effects of a pre-performance intervention using motivational and instructional self talk on the attentional focus strategies used by and performance of high school distance runners. Participants (N = 42) completed a background and demographic questionnaire, the Cross Country Attentional Focus Inventory (CCAFI), a motivational and instructional statement survey, and the Self-Motivation Inventory. A series of oneway ANOVAs revealed significant differences in the types of attentional strategies used by each group, as well as fluctuations in use of strategies. The experimental group associated more during the each of the 1.6 km trials, whereas the control group dissociated more throughout each trial. A significant group by week interaction was found, with the experimental group maintaining their performance and the control group slowing from week one to week three.

Background: Evidence indicates that an external focus (EF) of attention on the intended effect of one’s movement results in better motor performance and motor control than an internal focus (IF) on one’s own body. Despite this, an IF is predominantly encouraged through instructions and feedback provided by clinicians during sports and rehabilitation from injuries such as anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Aim: The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the influence of EF and IF on motor control and performance on a bilateral leg extension and flexion task. The secondary aim was to investigate potential differences in the outcomes between a control group and a group with ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Method: Fourteen controls and four individuals with ACLR performed a bilateral leg extension and flexion task with instructions that encouraged either an IF, EF or neutral focus (NF) of attention. The instructions encouraged participants to either keep the individual tubes located on the footplates under the soles of the feet (EF) or the feet themselves (IF) level with each other. A three-dimensional motion capture system was used to record kinematics. Motor control was assessed based on the movement smoothness according to the knee angular velocity profile and performance was assessed based on the absolute mean deviation of the tubes/footplates from parallel. Results: For the control group, IF instructions resulted in significantly better motor control than EF instructions for left knee movement smoothness (p=0.02) and NF instructions resulted in significantly better motor control than EF on a majority of dependent variables. Conclusion: For our task, EF instructions did not result in better outcomes compared to IF instructions which might be explained because the task was proprioceptive demanding with less involvement of the vision. The reason for better motor control with NF instructions compared to EF instructions might be because of differences in angular velocity and instructions between conditions.