1. Focus of attention Conscious processing, effect foci, skill, and skill development.

2. Two goals The current state of attentional focus literature. An example of how research proceeds (and similarities with class objectives).

3. Attentional focus...a typical finding Focus of attention  Wulf, McNevin, & Shea (2001)  “Focus on keeping your feet horizontal.”  “Focus on keeping the board horizontal.” External validity:  Task type?  Novel?  Difficult?  Individual differences  Experience?  Age? Construct validity

4. Other examples... Basketball, volleyball, soccer, golf, weight lifting, vertical jump, long jump, using a pedalo, ski simulator, swimming, dart throwing, novices and experts, older/younger, stroke victims, Parkinson's victims. External validity:  Broad application across tasks?  Broad application across individual differences?

5. The theory (home of the constructs) Action-effect principle (Prinz, 1997)  Actions are planned with reference to their effects  -->use an “effect” focus when learning/performing Constrained action hypothesis (Wulf, Nevin, Shea, 2001)  Focusing on body (internal focus) interferes with automatic processing. Increases conscious or controlled processing.  Focusing on effects:  asserts “effect planning”,  prevents conscious processing,  affords automatic processing See Wulf, McNevin, Shea, 2001, again.

6. Exceptions “prove the rule” [“Prove” used to mean test – so this means exceptions test the rule, or hypothesis in this case] Ford (2005)  Look at instructions & results Fits conscious processing hypothesis Doesn’t fit conscious processing hypothesis

7. Exceptions “prove the rule” So, what changed the results?  Level of learning?  Instructions? Beilock (02), Ford (05)  “De-automotization of skill”  External focus only beneficial when skill is automatic  Internal focus useful when learning skill (cognitive stage – need to think about performance, and no automatic processing present to disrupt performance).

8. Exceptions “prove the rule” But wait... Wulf & Su (2007)  Here it seems Beilock’s idea doesn’t & can’t fit the data... External better than both internal & control

9. Exceptions “prove the rule” Compare Wulf and Su with Ford (05) External better than both internal & control Nothing better than control!

10. Exceptions “prove the rule” Compare Wulf and Su with Ford (05)  Maybe in Ford’s study, the external just doesn’t work?  Ford (and Beilock) simply had people perform an distracting task. They didn’t actually exert an external direct focus on movement outcomes. See how construct validity can make a difference? This one factor of the study which is proposed to change the results is called a moderator variable Searching for moderators (or their absence) is essentially what I’m urging you to do each week and for the midterm

11. Our papers this week Lawrence et al. (2011) Spot the moderator! No sig group differences - anywhere

12. Our papers this week Jackson & Holmes (2011)  Attentional focus vs. task objective  Regular group performance External/board group better Spot the moderator!

13. Our papers this week Jackson & Holmes (2011)  Attentional focus vs. task objective  Instructional consistency Consistent has a trend of being better? No main effect, but an interaction