1. Takehiro Iwatsuki* 1 Takehiro Iwatsuki* 1 E-mail : tiwatsuki@springfieldcollege.edu Perry Wright* 2 and Judy L. Van Raalte* 1 Perry Wright* 2 and Judy L. Van Raalte* 1 * 1 Springfield College, * 2 United States Air Force Academy Choking under pressure is a complex phenomenon that results in worse performance than expected given a person’s capabilities and past achievements (Beilock, 2010). Masters (2008) suggested that athletes who focus on the mechanical aspects of motor performance (i.e., movement reinvestment) are more likely to experience “paralysis by analysis” than are other athletes (Jackson et al., 2006; Poolton et al., 2006). Kinrade et al. (2010) suggested that athletes who ruminate and consciously make decisions (i.e., decision reinvestment) suffer performance decrements under pressure. Although movement reinvestment has been well examined, little research has been conducted that examines decision reinvestment. Choking under pressure is a complex phenomenon that results in worse performance than expected given a person’s capabilities and past achievements (Beilock, 2010). Masters (2008) suggested that athletes who focus on the mechanical aspects of motor performance (i.e., movement reinvestment) are more likely to experience “paralysis by analysis” than are other athletes (Jackson et al., 2006; Poolton et al., 2006). Kinrade et al. (2010) suggested that athletes who ruminate and consciously make decisions (i.e., decision reinvestment) suffer performance decrements under pressure. Although movement reinvestment has been well examined, little research has been conducted that examines decision reinvestment. The purpose of this research was to explore the relationships among movement reinvestment, decision reinvestment, and perceived choking with individual and team sport athletes. The purpose of this research was to explore the relationships among movement reinvestment, decision reinvestment, and perceived choking with individual and team sport athletes. IntroductionIntroduction 1. Participants -Male varsity collegiate athletes (n = 84) on tennis, squash, soccer, volleyball, and basketball teams at Division III colleges 2. Instruments Movement-Specific Reinvestment Scale (MSRS) (Masters et al., 2005) -10-item questionnaire with items, such as “I am concerned about my style of moving” and “I reflect about my movement a lot.” -Responses given on a 6-point Likert scale, from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 6 (“strongly agree”) Decision-Specific Reinvestment Scale (DSRS) (Kinrade et al., 2010) -13-item questionnaire with items such as “I’m always trying to figure out how I make decisions” and “I remember poor decisions I make for a long time afterwards.” -Responses given on a 5-point Likert scale, from 0 (“extremely uncharacteristic”) to 4 (“extremely characteristic”). Perceived Choking Scale -1-item (“What is your tendency to choke under pressure in sport?”) on a scale from 1 (“never choke”) to 10 (“always choke”). 3. Procedure -Received Human Subjects Approval from the IRB at Springfield College -Order of questionnaire administration was randomized, and data were collected at one team practice or meeting 4. Data Analysis -Correlation analysis to explore relationships among the MSRS, the DSRS, and the Perceived Choking Scale -MANOVA to examine differences between individual and team sport athletes on perceived choking, MSRS, and DSRS. RELATIONSHIPS AMONG PERCEIVED CHOKING, MOVEMENT REINVESTMENT, AND DECISION REINVESTMENT IN COLLEGIATE ATHLETES DiscussionDiscussion MethodsMethods Results and Discussion The Movement-Specific Reinvestment Scale and the Decision-Specific Reinvestment Scale were significantly correlated with each other (see Table 1). Thus, both forms of reinvestment may play an important role in sport performance. Based on this research it seems that the DSRS can be used to measure the degree of conscious awareness and conscious control among competitive athletes. The Movement-Specific Reinvestment Scale and the Decision-Specific Reinvestment Scale were significantly correlated with each other (see Table 1). Thus, both forms of reinvestment may play an important role in sport performance. Based on this research it seems that the DSRS can be used to measure the degree of conscious awareness and conscious control among competitive athletes. Previous research (Maxwell et al., 2000; Poolton et al., 2006) indicates that the MSRS is related to poor performance under pressure. Although MSRS and DSRS were not correlated with perceived choking in this study, athletes who had higher MSRS and DSRS scores may be more likely to show poor performance in pressure situations. Previous research (Maxwell et al., 2000; Poolton et al., 2006) indicates that the MSRS is related to poor performance under pressure. Although MSRS and DSRS were not correlated with perceived choking in this study, athletes who had higher MSRS and DSRS scores may be more likely to show poor performance in pressure situations. Individual-sport athletes had significantly higher scores than team-sport athletes on the Perceived Choking scale (see Figure 1). Thus, individual-sport athletes may be more likely to choke under pressure. This may be because individual-sport athletes face pressure situations by themselves and therefore are more directly vulnerable to performance pressures. Team-sport athletes may be able to diffuse pressure and responsibility among teammates and therefore, may be less susceptible to choking under pressure. Further research that includes more complex measurement of choking under pressure may be valuable in highlighting relationship between reinvestment and sport performance. Individual-sport athletes had significantly higher scores than team-sport athletes on the Perceived Choking scale (see Figure 1). Thus, individual-sport athletes may be more likely to choke under pressure. This may be because individual-sport athletes face pressure situations by themselves and therefore are more directly vulnerable to performance pressures. Team-sport athletes may be able to diffuse pressure and responsibility among teammates and therefore, may be less susceptible to choking under pressure. Further research that includes more complex measurement of choking under pressure may be valuable in highlighting relationship between reinvestment and sport performance. The findings indicated that, as expected, movement reinvestment and decision reinvestment were positively correlated with each other (see Table 1). To assess conscious awareness and controlled thoughts of either one’s mechanics or decisions to determine whether one is a athlete who is susceptible to choking, both scales can be used. Because individual-sport athletes scored significantly higher on the Perceived Choking scale than team- sport athletes (see Figure 1), future research should consider sport type when exploring relationships between reinvestment and choking. The findings indicated that, as expected, movement reinvestment and decision reinvestment were positively correlated with each other (see Table 1). To assess conscious awareness and controlled thoughts of either one’s mechanics or decisions to determine whether one is a athlete who is susceptible to choking, both scales can be used. Because individual-sport athletes scored significantly higher on the Perceived Choking scale than team- sport athletes (see Figure 1), future research should consider sport type when exploring relationships between reinvestment and choking. ConclusionConclusion ResultsResults As expected, a significant positive correlation existed between MSRS scores and DSRS scores, r =.475, p <.001 (see Table 1). MSRS and DSRS scores were not significantly correlated with Perceived Choking. Results of MANOVA indicated that individual sport athletes had significantly higher Perceived Choking scores (p <.05) than team sport athletes (see Figure 1). Although Individual sport athletes reported higher levels of MSRS and DSRS than did team sport athletes, individual and team sport athletes did not differ significantly in terms of MSRS or DSRS (see Figure 2). As expected, a significant positive correlation existed between MSRS scores and DSRS scores, r =.475, p <.001 (see Table 1). MSRS and DSRS scores were not significantly correlated with Perceived Choking. Results of MANOVA indicated that individual sport athletes had significantly higher Perceived Choking scores (p <.05) than team sport athletes (see Figure 1). Although Individual sport athletes reported higher levels of MSRS and DSRS than did team sport athletes, individual and team sport athletes did not differ significantly in terms of MSRS or DSRS (see Figure 2).