This article was downloaded by:

On: 18 January 2010

Access details: Access Details: Free Access
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Sport Science

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t714592354

A re-examination of choking in sport

Denise M. Hill a; Sheldon Hanton b; Scott Fleming b; Nic Matthews a

a
Faculty of Sport, Health and Social Care, University of Gloucestershire, Gloucester b Cardiff School of
Sport, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK

To cite this Article Hill, Denise M., Hanton, Sheldon, Fleming, Scott and Matthews, Nic(2009) 'A re-examination of

choking in sport', European Journal of Sport Science, 9: 4, 203 212

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/17461390902818278
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17461390902818278

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

European Journal of Sport Science, July 2009; 9(4): 203
212

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A re-examination of choking in sport

DENISE M. HILL1, SHELDON HANTON2, SCOTT FLEMING2, & NIC MATTHEWS1

Faculty of Sport, Health and Social Care, University of Gloucestershire, Gloucester, and 2Cardiff School of Sport, University
of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK

Downloaded At: 16:02 18 January 2010

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to re-examine choking in sport. Using a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967),
qualitative data were gathered from four experts of applied sport psychology, who had published within the stress and
anxiety literature, and worked extensively with athletes who had performed in highly stressful situations. The experts
perceived that the contemporary definitions of choking in sport fail to reflect fully the experiences of chokers, and created
a more detailed definition in response. They considered the choking process to consist of a stress response that culminates in
a significant drop in performance
a choke, which psychologically damages the performer. It was also suggested that the
choking process and its consequences were moderated by individual differences and type of sport. Accordingly, they
recommended interventions that may alleviate choking and, importantly, generated characteristics that can be used to
identify a choker. Such findings offer an extended understanding of choking in sport and provide a framework for future
ecologically valid research.

Keywords: Paradoxical performance, pressure, stress, grounded theory

Introduction
Choking in sport is considered to be a sub-optimal
performance under stressful conditions (Lewis &
Linder, 1997) and has been defined as the occurrence of inferior performance despite striving and
incentives for superior performance (Baumeister &
Showers, 1986, p. 361). However, recent research has
indicated that this definition may fail to reflect fully
the experiences of athletes who have choked (e.g.
Gucciardi & Dimmock, 2008; Mesagno, Marchant, &
Morris, 2008) and it therefore warrants further
attention. It has been suggested that choking should
be a term used to convey an acute performance
failure under pressure (Clark, Tofler, & Lardon,
2005; Wilson, Chattington, Marple-Horvat, &
Smith, 2007) rather than any inferior or sub-optimal
performance. Indeed, the popular media tend to refer
to athletes such as Jana Novotna and Greg Norman as
chokers. Specifically, both have lost in competition
from seemingly unassailable positions because of a
considerable decrement in performance during pressurized periods of play (see Gladwell, 2000).

Although researchers must refrain from re-examining and re-defining terms based on their colloquial
use within the media, it should also be recognized
that an inferior performance, as suggested by
Baumeister and Showers (1986), may not accurately
represent the acute and dramatic deterioration in
performance associated with choking in sport (Gucciardi & Dimmock, 2008). By adopting Baumeister
and Showers (1986) definition, contemporary research has considered any deterioration in performance to be choking, and therefore the suggested
cause and potential mechanisms of choking have
been established through the examination of performances that may have only declined moderately
under pressure. For example, Gucciardi and Dimmock (2008) concluded that choking had occurred
within a group of their participants, when attempts
to putt to a target 3 m away declined under pressure.
However, the absolute error score (total distance
from hole) of the choking participants only
increased by an average of approximately 3 cm per
set of 10 putts. Wilson et al. (2007) also suggested
that their participants had choked under pressure

Correspondence: D. M. Hill, Faculty of Sport, Health and Social Care, University of Gloucestershire, Gloucester GL2 9HW, UK. E-mail:
dhill@glos.ac.uk
ISSN 1746-1391 print/ISSN 1536-7290 online # 2009 European College of Sport Science
DOI: 10.1080/17461390902818278

Downloaded At: 16:02 18 January 2010

204

D. M. Hill et al.

when they experienced processing inefficiency of

task-relevant information within a stressful situation.
Yet, such inefficiency failed to affect performance
standards. Therefore, by regarding any deterioration
of performance as choking, there may have been a
failure in the literature to identify and subsequently
investigate choking in sport, which arguably is a
more acute and significant decline.
The extant choking research does however provide
a valuable insight into the experience of performance
failure, and therefore the findings merit consideration when examining the choking phenomenon.
There is evidence that a deterioration of performance under pressure is a consequence of attentional disturbances caused by heightened anxiety
(for a review, see Beilock & Gray, 2007), with two
sets of contrasting theories proposed to describe the
process. The first set are the distraction theories
(Carver & Scheier, 1981), which maintain that
under stressful conditions, the athletes attentional
capacity will be overloaded by task-irrelevant stimuli
such as worry and self-doubt, resulting in performance decrements. The second set are the self-focus
theories (Baumeister, 1984), which include the
conscious processing hypothesis (Masters, 1992),
and are collectively termed explicit monitoring
(Beilock & Carr, 2001). They state that performance
deteriorates as a consequence of the athlete reinvesting explicit technical information and consciously
monitoring and/or controlling a skill that normally
would be performed automatically.
Beilock and colleagues (Beilock, Holt, Kulp, &
Carr, 2004) suggested that both distraction and selffocus could cause choking, depending on the skill
being performed. They argued that because sensorimotor proceduralized tasks are executed outside the
working memory, they are resistant to distractions but
susceptible to self-focus. However, a complex declarative task requiring high levels of cognitive control
to execute will consume most of the working memory
capacity, leaving it vulnerable to distractions.
It is unsurprising that most choking research within
the sporting domain has offered support for self-focus
theories (e.g. Gray, 2004; Jackson, Ashford, &
Norsworthy, 2006), as well-learnt complex motor
skills are normally sensorimotor and proceduralized
(Beilock & Carr, 2001), but the role of distraction has
not been ruled out (Mullen, Hardy, & Tattersall,
2005). In one study, for example, Hardy and colleagues (Hardy, Mullen, & Martin, 2001) observed
performance deterioration when athletes with high
state anxiety were exposed to conditions designed to
increase their self-focus (i.e. coaches called out
explicit technical cues). Although this appeared
to support the self-focus theories, Hardy et al
proposed that the combination of high anxiety with
additional technical cues may have exceeded the

athletes attentional capacity, and caused choking

through distraction. It is possible therefore that a
sporting situation that places high demands upon an
athletes working memory can provoke a choking
episode through distraction rather than self-focus
(Beilock & Carr, 2001; Beilock & Gray, 2007).
Choking research has also identified several factors
that are thought to moderate performance failure,
including audience effects (Wallace, Baumeister, &
Vohs, 2005), self-confidence (Baumeister, Hamilton,
& Tice, 1985), trait anxiety (Baumeister & Showers,
1986), self-consciousness (Baumeister, 1984), dispositional reinvestment (Masters, Polman, & Hammond, 1993), skill level (Beilock & Carr, 2001), task
properties (Beilock & Carr, 2001), coping strategies
(Wang, Marchant, Morris, & Gibbs, 2004), and
stereotype threat (Chalabaev, Sarrazin, Stone, &
Cury, 2008). Little evidence exists, however, to verify
or explain the extent of their influence. Most research
that has investigated the moderators has focused on
self-consciousness, but even here agreement on its
precise role has yet to be reached (see Beilock & Gray,
2007).
To address the lack of clarity and consensus that
exists within the choking literature, and to develop a
greater appreciation of the choking phenomenon,
there are calls for a move away from the wholly
experimental approach of contemporary choking
research towards a more ecologically valid (Jackson
et al., 2006), idiographic (Clark, 2002), and qualitative methodology (Gucciardi & Dimmock, 2008).
However, developments cannot be achieved unless
researchers are able to identify chokers, and as a
result are unquestionably examining a choking
episode, rather than any performance decrement.
For example, a recent study by Mesagno et al.
(2008) isolated athletes who were susceptible to
choking via self-consciousness, trait anxiety, and
coping style scores. Although the use of subjectively
selected potential choking moderators as a means of
distinguishing chokers may be questionable, the
study has reinforced the importance of correctly
identifying and selecting chokers for future research.
Through qualitative methods, the aims of this
study are to re-examine choking in sport, re-visit the
operational definitions of choking in sport, and
ascertain the characteristics of choking under pressure to identify chokers for future research. This
will facilitate a clearer understanding of the phenomenon, provide a foundation for subsequent choking
studies, and enable the generation of interventions
aimed at alleviating the choke.
Methods
A grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss,
1967) was adopted to address the aims of this

A re-examination of choking
research. The study has an underlying constructivist
epistemology, which follows a growing number of
researchers who have moved grounded theory away
from its objectivist origins (e.g. Charmaz, 2000;
Clark, 2003). A constructivist grounded theory can
generate a comprehensive description and explanation (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) of choking in sport
while also following rigorous and systematic methods (see Bigus, Hadden, & Glaser, 1994).

Downloaded At: 16:02 18 January 2010

Participants
Purposive sampling was used to select participants
who had comprehensive theoretical and applied
knowledge of the choking phenomenon. The participants were four applied sport psychologists who
worked at British universities, and were all considered experts in the field of stress and performance.
Collectively, they had published extensively within
the stress and anxiety literature (i.e. 100 publications) and, over an extended period of time, had also
worked with athletes who had performed in highly
stressful conditions, such as major international
Games and Championships (including team, individual, contact, non-contact, open and closed sports,
and sub-elite, elite, and super-elite athletes). Their
ages ranged from 30 to 43 years and all were male. In
accordance with the British Association of Sport and
Exercise Sciences (BASES) Code of Conduct,
voluntary informed written consent was gained
from each participant. The psychologists were assured of their anonymity within the study and were
informed that their interview transcripts would only
be viewed by the research team. The study was
approved by the Research Ethics Committee at the
lead authors university.
Procedure
All participants took part in a focus group discussion
followed by an individual interview. This protocol is
in line with that found within current qualitative
sports psychology research (e.g. Jones, Hanton, &
Connaughton, 2002, 2007), whereby the focus
group encourages the development of ideas, and
the follow-up individual interviews are used to revisit and expand upon the key issues raised within
the group setting. In accordance with grounded
theory, the preliminary data collected from the focus
group were used to guide further data collection
within the interviews (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
Data collection
The focus group interview guide was divided into six
parts: an evaluation of the contemporary definitions
of choking in sport; the choking process; the

205

consequences of choking in sport; the possible

moderating factors of choking in sport; a consideration of potential interventions that may alleviate
choking in sport; and the identifiable characteristics
of a choker. The interview guide had a clear structure,
but there was also flexibility to allow for further
probing and elaboration if required (see, for example,
Hanton, Fletcher, & Coughlan, 2005). It also followed the recommendations for grounded theory
data collection by using tell me about, how, what
and when questions . . . [and then] buttress them with
queries to elaborate or to specify (Charmaz, 2002,
p. 59).
All follow-up individual interview guides were
designed in line with the recommendations of Patton
(2002) and consistent with studies within recent
sport and exercise psychology literature (e.g. Thelwell, Weston, Greenlees, & Hutchings, 2008; Thomas, Hanton, & Maynard, 2007). Although each
guide had a similar semi-structured design that revisited the central issues raised within the focus
group, each participant also received questions that
were pertinent to them and their views. Each interview guide therefore remained part of an overall
framework but contained individual differences
where required. The in-depth interviews enabled
the construction of an accurate account of choking
in sport from the respondents perspective (Charmaz, 2006). As required within a grounded theory
study, the questions became more focused as the
interview progressed so as to move beyond a thick
description (Geertz, 1973) and develop an explanatory theoretical framework (Holt & Dunn, 2004) of
choking in sport.

Data analysis and coding

Data collection and analysis occur simultaneously
within grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998)
and therefore analysis/coding began during the focus
group discussion and continued throughout and
beyond the individual interviews. The specific steps
taken to analyse and code the data were as follows:
1. All interviews were transcribed verbatim to
increase familiarity with the data and ensure a
thorough appreciation of the participants account of choking (Holt & Mitchell, 2006).
2. Two members of the research team independently completed line-by-line open coding,
which involved breaking the data down into
their component parts (Giacobbi, Hausenblas,
Fallon, & Hall, 2003). Raw data themes were
then identified inductively and labelled with
relevant in vivo codes (Strauss & Corbin,
1998).

Downloaded At: 16:02 18 January 2010

206

D. M. Hill et al.

3. Using constant comparison, all raw data themes

were examined for their causes, conditions,
actions/interactions, and consequences, and
placed within a relevant overarching category
of similar themes (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
4. Through theoretical sampling within the individual interviews (Charmaz, 2006), categories
were continuously constructed, refined, extended, and checked deductively against the
data (Giacobbi et al., 2003). This process
ensured that each theme and category was
constructed directly from the data, rather than
forcing the data into pre-defined categories
(Charmaz, 2002, 2006).
5. Each theme and category was further analysed
by the use of memos (Bringer, Brackenridge, &
Johnston, 2006; Charmaz, 2006), enabling a
full examination of any relationships that existed within and between the categories.
6. Once theoretical saturation of the sample had
been reached, the categories were subjected to
focused or selective analysis (Glaser & Strauss,
1967). This involved the integration of themes
and categories around core categories to produce a framework that described the overall
characteristics of choking in sport. Memowriting was used to expand upon and explain
the relationship between the categories within
the framework, and raised the categories from a
descriptive to an analytical level (Charmaz,
2002; Holt & Dunn, 2004). This framework
provided the foundation for a grounded theory
of choking in sport.
Trustworthiness
Following the recommendations of Lincoln and
Guba (1985) and Sparkes (1998), trustworthiness
was gained through several methods. First, the
participants were able to describe their world in
detail, through the use of open-ended and flexible
interviews. Second, the transcripts were independently coded line-by-line and corroborated by two
researchers, and the transcripts, generated themes,
and categories were sent to the participants for
member checking. Finally, the extensive use of
memos (Charmaz, 2006) and a reflexive journal
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985) throughout the research
process added to the thick description and encouraged the principal researcher to remain selfaware of any bias that may have impacted on the
research process.
Results
By re-examining choking in sport, the participants
offered their perceptions of: the contemporary defi-

nitions of choking in sport; the choking process; the

consequence of choking in sport; the possible
moderating factors of choking in sport; potential
interventions that may alleviate choking in sport; and
identifiable characteristics of a choker. The findings
will be presented in turn.

The contemporary definitions of choking in sport

It was perceived by all participants that extant
definitions of choking in sport (e.g. Baumeister &
Showers, 1986) fail to represent fully the choking
experience. In response, the participants used their
theoretical and applied knowledge to construct an
operational definition that they considered offered a
more accurate reflection of choking in sport. The
definition gained consensus from all participants and
states:
. Choking in sport is a process whereby the
individual perceives that their resources are
insufficient to meet the demands of the situation, and concludes with a significant drop in
performance
a choke.

The choking process

The participants suggested that the choking process
consists of a stress response, whereby the athlete
appraises the demands of a pressurized situation as
beyond their capability to cope. One of the psychologists noted:
Choking [in sport] is where it all goes completely
wrong, because you perceive that you cannot cope
at all with whats going on . . . they suddenly get
this realization that . . . I may not be able to
handle this
so [the] inability to cope . . . is the
process of choking . . . and will cause the choke.
It was agreed by all participants that the choking
process only occurs when the athlete is striving for
success within a situation that they deem to be
important. For example:
The event must be important to the person. I
think if it is not of high importance to them, they
dont really care about it; therefore, they are never
going to get themselves into the state where they
are concerned that they cant cope.
It was recognized, however, that event importance is
dependent on the athletes perceptions and therefore
what is considered a critical point for the coach or
observer may not be a critical point for the person
involved.

A re-examination of choking
The results indicated that the choking process will
normally cause the athlete to experience high state
anxiety, elevated physiological arousal, and ultimately expectations of failure. It was stated that,
the performer can go in with high expectations,
then that realization comes to them that actually . . .
Its all too much for me. I cannot cope with it and
this becomes an expectation of failure. Importantly,
it was emphasized that this choking process will
always end in a significant or catastrophic drop in
performance rather than a mere decline. This was
expanded upon by one of the psychologists:

Downloaded At: 16:02 18 January 2010

If you look at competitive anxiety and competitive

stress . . . you get very nervous and anxious;
perceived demands of the situation are exceeding
the available resources. It doesnt make any
assumptions about how its going to affect the
performance. The difference is that it [the choking
process] is inherently linked with your performance dropping off significantly at the end.

The consequence of choking in sport

It was perceived by all participants that the consequence of choking in sport is a considerable drop in
performance compared with expected standards,
which has a psychologically damaging effect on the
performer. The decline in performance was labeled
the choke, and was suggested to be a crucial
aspect of choking in sport:
Thats the one big thing . . . the fact that it [a
choke] is a significant or catastrophic drop in
performance, against the current literature and
research which suggests any drop . . . we talked
about catastrophe theory and performance decrement and things like that, and it [a choke] was the
extreme end of that.
It was also argued that the choke could only occur
during the task execution, or during the moment
that the task should have been executed. This
finding was elaborated further:
If you take an athlete who is in the toilet cubicles
throwing up before a race because of nerves . . . we
carry him out, put him on the line, [the gun goes]
he trips over his feet. Now you can say he has
choked, because at the time he was meant to be
performing, he has failed . . . if we dont get him
out on to the track, you can still only say he has
choked, at the moment the gun goes.
The participants ascertained that the choking process will normally lead to a discrete singular choke,

207

but if the athlete continued to perceive that the

demands of the situation exceeded their capability
over an extended period of time, then the choking
process remains continuous and, you might see half
a dozen incidents of . . . a choke.
The results indicated that the negative psychological effect that an athlete is likely to experience after
a choke includes lowered self-confidence and dysfunctional thinking (e.g. disrupted concentration
and negative thoughts), and it was expected that
such effects would detrimentally influence performance standards in both the short and long term.
Consequently, the participants agreed that once an
athlete has choked, they are unlikely to regain their
expected high performance levels during that particular performance: If you screw up . . . and have a
complete disaster, how could three minutes rest,
with a towel over your head, make you come back
from that? It was accepted, however, that the extent
of the psychological damage and the possibility of
performance retrieval for that current game or match
were both highly dependent upon the athletes
coping resources and the temporal nature of the
sport being played. For example:
Probably nine times out of ten . . . it [the choke] is
extremely difficult to deal with and hence, nine
times out of ten, performance will stay bad and
they will be annihilated . . . they wont regain
performance . . . however, I think there are some
individual differences and mental toughness issues
going on, when some people can regain their
performance.
Similarly, sports of longer duration (e.g. tennis and
golf) were considered to offer more opportunity for
recovery of overall performance. This aspect was
expanded upon by one participant:
[if] you choke in a swimming final, you dont get a
second chance, . . . it will be irretrievable because
you have been left behind . . . In a tennis game, you
can choke in one set, have a rest and then come
back and win the next three sets.
Finally, the participants perceived that when an
athlete chokes on one element of a game (e.g. rugby
kick, golf putt), the psychological damage caused by
the choke is likely to affect the performance standards of the remaining elements within that game
(e.g. tackling and passing, driving and chipping
respectively). But, it was noted that the detrimental
effect on the other elements are likely to be moderate
so that, you choke on kicking goals, . . . it will have
an effect on your game, whereby you dont play as
well . . . but . . . you can still play these other skills.

208

D. M. Hill et al.

Possible moderators of choking in sport

Downloaded At: 16:02 18 January 2010

The study revealed that individual differences and

type of sport could potentially moderate choking in
sport. It was suggested by the participants that low
levels of mental toughness, self-confidence, and
functional thinking were the key individual difference characteristics that may encourage choking
under pressure. As one participant stated, Is someone predisposed to choke? Yes . . . because they are
lacking in some of these [mental toughness, selfconfidence, and functional thinking] key variables.
It was also agreed that without such psychological
characteristics, the athlete is also more likely to suffer
further reductions in their mental toughness, selfconfidence, and functional thinking after the choke
has occurred. This point was further explained by
one participant:
thats a characteristic of these people . . . they can
fail or have knocks . . . and then carry this as
baggage with them. It will then have a further
knock on effect on them . . . their confidence and
the way that they think about the game, and its a
downward spiral from there.
As a result, it was suggested that this athlete would
be more likely to allow a choke on one element of
their game (e.g. putting) to negatively affect the
remaining aspects of their game (e.g. driving, chipping).
Finally, it was noted by one participant that a
balanced life/sport perspective may also act as an
individual difference moderator of choking in sport.
He argued that, these people who have perspective
and say . . . I dont really care, [can] shrug off things
really well. I think this is a characteristic of mental
toughness . . . and I think its a big thing [missing] in
choking.
The sport type performed during the choking
process was considered by the participants to be a
potential moderator of choking in sport, by influencing irretrievability and transferability. As noted
earlier, the retrieval of a performance after a choke
has occurred is considered challenging, but it is
more likely to occur within a sport that extends over
a period of time, and has intervals away from the task
(e.g. golf, tennis, and snooker). With regards to
transferability, it was suggested that once a choke
had occurred on one particular aspect of the game, it
is unlikely for other elements of the performance to
be affected detrimentally if the psychological demands of each element are different. One participant
explained:
When you have to make a tackle, or . . . when you
have got to kick the ball . . . the skills you require

mentally as an athlete to meet those two demands

are different . . . so you can choke in one scenario
and not in the other.

Potential interventions to alleviate choking in sport

Using their experience of working with elite athletes
who have choked under pressure, the participants
suggested that an individually tailored multi-modal
psychological programme may be offered to alleviate
choking in sport. They stated that the programme
should consist of strategies aimed at encouraging a
positive appraisal of the situational demands and
personal capabilities. One participant clarified the
importance of this approach by explaining that, at
the end of the day, it comes down to appraisal
mechanisms. These guys are appraising these situations as too much and they ultimately have to change
this. As a result, it was stated that the priority of a
practitioner working with chokers is to increase
their self-confidence so that they appraise available
personal resources as sufficient to deal with the
demands. Then . . . you avoid the choke.
Particular techniques suggested to increase athletes confidence were self-talk, imagery, attentional
training, attribution re-training, and especially goal
setting. It was argued that they should be encouraged to focus on less challenging, intermediate goals
that facilitate performance accomplishments, as
choking is caused by high expectations that cant
be realized, which undermines their self-confidence
and coping resources. Finally, it was recommended
that the choking athlete should attempt to gain a
balanced sport/life perspective, and that this perspective should be reinforced by their coach and
significant others. It was stated that:
if we are talking about people who consistently
choke . . . a big thing is perspective. You get
taught, youve got to care about this [sport] so
much, its the most important thing to me in my
life, [they] are the ones that the moment they fail,
they just crumble; and you can see it.

The identifiable characteristics of choking in sport

Through the re-examination of choking in sport, the
psychologists generated several characteristics that
they suggested could be used to identify an athlete
who has choked. The characteristics are presented
and described in Table I. The participants argued
that the choke can be discriminated from other
performance failures under pressure by being significantly below expected standards. It was this
characteristic that was suggested by all participants

A re-examination of choking
Table I. Criteria for the identification of a choker
Choking in sport criteria
Primary indicator
Significant/catastrophic
drop in performance

Description

The level of performance will decline

dramatically from expected/normal
standards. A moderate
under-performance is not considered
a choke

Secondary indicator
Critical moment

Downloaded At: 16:02 18 January 2010

The choke will occur within a situation

deemed important by the athlete, and
where they are striving for success
Stress response
The athlete feels unable to cope with
the pressure situation
Individual characteristics The athlete will lack mental toughness
attributes, self-confidence, functional
thinking, and a lack of sport/life
perspective
Future consequences
The athlete is likely to experience
short-term and long-term negative
psychological affects from the choke

to be the primary indicator of choking. They also

suggested four other secondary and less visible
indicators, which could be used to confirm whether
choking had occurred. The first is that the athlete
will only choke at a critical moment and therefore
the athlete would have been trying to achieve an
important goal. Second, the athlete will have perceived that the demands of the situation were
exceeding their coping capabilities. Third, the athlete is likely to have low mental toughness, selfconfidence, and functional thinking at the time of
the choke. Finally, it is expected that the athlete will
be affected detrimentally in the short and long term
by the choke. It was stressed by the participants that
the secondary characteristics of choking were not in
themselves an indication of choking, but would
accompany a significant drop in performance if a
choke had occurred.
Discussion
This grounded theory study has confirmed that the
current definitions used within contemporary choking literature may not fully reflect the experience of a
choking athlete. As definitions determine the nature
and direction of future research (Cooper, Dewe, &
ODriscoll, 2001), it was necessary to answer the call
within recent choking literature to generate an
enhanced definition of choking in sport (Gucciardi
& Dimmock, 2008). The definition presented within
the Results section attempts to provide a more
detailed operational framework for future choking
researchers and practitioners.
This study revealed that the choking process is
considered to consist of a stress response. According
to Lazarus (1999), a stress response is transactional

209

in nature and thus the athlete will transact with their

environment and appraise continually their capability to meet any demands placed upon them. In this
case, the chokers will perceive themselves as being
unable to cope with the demands of the situation and
will experience negative emotional reactions as a
result. Importantly, it is recognized within the
literature that performance standards can be maintained when an athlete perceives the situational
demands as beyond their capabilities, if they appraise
their emotional reactions to this situation as pleasant
and/or optimizing (Fletcher, Hanton, & Mellalieu,
2006). However, as the choking athlete suffers from
such a catastrophic performance failure, it is possible
that they negatively appraise both their ability to
cope with the demands and their emotional response
to such demands. Clearly, it is necessary to examine
this proposition further, for it may be necessary to
design interventions that encourage the choking
athlete to appraise positively their personal capabilities, as well as their emotional reaction to perceived
pressure, in order to be effective.
It has been recognized within this study that the
choking process will lead to a choke, and thus it is
necessary to understand how a stress response can
lead to such a significant decline in performance. It
has been suggested that the catastrophe model
(Hardy, 1990) may provide an insight, for it illustrates that an athlete with high cognitive anxiety and
rising physiological arousal can experience a significant drop in performance, from which it is difficult
to recover. This psychological state and catastrophic
performance outcome reflects that associated with
choking in sport, and therefore the model may
account for its occurrence (Beilock & Gray, 2007).
However, recent research has indicated that while
some athletes choke when experiencing high cognitive anxiety and physiological arousal, others do not
(see Vickers & Williams, 2007). Consequently, the
tenets of the catastrophe model may not be able to
predict the conditions responsible for all cases of
choking.
Of the psychological theories attempting to explain
the significant performance decline associated with
choking, the findings of this study lend themselves to
both the distraction (Carver & Scheier, 1981) and
self-focus theories (Baumeister, 1984). The processing efficiency theory (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992)
represents the most dominant distraction theory
within the literature, and states that pressure-induced
anxiety causes an athlete to process task-relevant
information inefficiently, unless they engage in compensatory effortful strategies. It also indicates that
regardless of effort, an athlete suffering from very high
levels of anxiety will be unable to overcome such
inefficiency and their performance will decline as a
result (Smith, Bellamy, Collins, & Newell, 2001;

Downloaded At: 16:02 18 January 2010

210

D. M. Hill et al.

Wilson et al., 2007). It has been established within

this study that the choking athlete strives to achieve
their goal, so does exert effort under pressure. Yet
their identified high state anxiety may prevent the
effort counteracting their processing inefficiency, and
a choke may ensue. Conversely, it can also be
suggested that their increased effort under pressure
may encourage choking in sport through self-focus. It
is accepted that raised effort can cause the athlete to
explicitly control a skill that will subsequently break
down if it is normally executed automatically (Jackson
et al., 2006).
Accordingly, this grounded theory is able to present
attentional disturbance as the mechanism of choking
in sport, but to verify whether distraction, self-focus
or both are responsible, it is essential that the choking
process is examined directly from those who have
experienced it. Therefore, the primary and secondary
identifying characteristics of a choker that have been
generated within this study can be used to select such
participants for use within future research.
By finding that the choking athlete exerts effort
while under pressure, this study supports the work of
Baumeister and Showers (1986) and Baumeister
(1997). They indicated that choking is a paradoxical
occurrence that will only take place if the athlete is
striving for success in an event where the outcome
is perceived important enough to affect their ego.
This study therefore provides further evidence for
Baumeister and Showers suggestion that choking is
not a result of a lack motivation.
This study has offered sport type and individual
difference as the key potential moderators of choking
in sport. With regards to sport type, it is acknowledged that a sport that extends over a period of time
and/or contains intervals can moderate the impact of
the choke. Similarly, a choke will have differing
effects on performance, depending on whether the
sport contains elements that are similar or dissimilar
in their psychological demands. Therefore, it will be
necessary for the practitioner to take into account
the temporal structure and multi-skilled nature of
the task when devising appropriate interventions.
The individual differences considered by the
participants to increase susceptibility to choking in
sport were low self-confidence, dysfunctional thinking, a lack of a balanced sport/life perspective, and
low mental toughness. Contemporary choking research has already identified low self-confidence and
dysfunctional thinking as moderating factors, for
they are considered to provoke distraction and selffocus attentional disturbances (see Beilock & Carr,
2001). This is the first study, however, to recognize a
balanced sport/life perspective and mental toughness
as potential moderators, although these finding
can be supported by research from outside the
choking literature. For example, Jones, Hanton and

Connaughton (2002). Jones et al. (2007) found that

those who excel under pressure are able to maintain
a balanced sport/life perspective, despite being
intensely committed to their sport; and Fletcher
et al. (2006) established that a lack of mental
toughness will encourage an athlete to perceive the
situational demands as beyond their capability
a
process reflected within choking.
It is interesting to note that mental toughness
consists of several attributes, including an unshakeable belief, an ability to remain fully focused, and a
capacity to switch sport focus on and off (Jones et al.,
2002, 2007), which mirror all of the individual
differences identified within this study as moderators
of choking. This presents a clear priority for the
practitioner, as increasing an athletes mental toughness should reduce the possibility of choking in
sport. In addition, the study has established that the
choke will have a psychologically damaging effect on
the performer, and therefore can negatively affect
current and future performances, unless the athlete
possesses mental toughness. Therefore, by prioritizing the enhancement of mental toughness, the
practitioner is not only reducing the athletes susceptibility to choke, but increasing their potential of
performance retrieval if the choke does occur.
Therefore, this grounded theory has generated a
range of interventions that have the potential to
alleviate choking, which accordingly can be subsumed within a mental skills package designed to
increase mental toughness. However, further applied
research is required to establish the most effective
method of increasing mental toughness within the
choking population.
By re-examining choking in sport, this study has
provided a grounded theory of the phenomenon and
offered an extended understanding of the experience. However, it is essential that further research is
conducted on varied samples of information-rich
cases, including performers who have experienced
choking first hand. Nevertheless, by generating an
operational definition of choking in sport and
identifying the characteristics of a choker, this study
has offered a foundation for future choking research.

References
Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skilful
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,
610
620.
Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Esteem threat, self-regulatory breakdown, and emotional distress as factors in self defeating
behaviour. Review of General Psychology, 1, 145
174.
Baumeister, R. F., Hamilton, J. C., & Tice, D. M. (1985). Public
versus private expectancy of success: Confidence booster or
performance pressure? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1447
1457.

Downloaded At: 16:02 18 January 2010

A re-examination of choking
Baumeister, R. F., & Showers, C. J. (1986). A review of
paradoxical performance effects: Choking under pressure in
sports and mental tests. European Journal of Social Psychology,
16, 361
383.
Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled
performance: What governs choking under pressure. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 130, 701
725.
Beilock, S. L., & Gray, R. (2007). Why do athletes choke under
pressure? In G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook
of sports psychology (3rd edn.), (pp. 425
444). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Beilock, S. L., Holt, L. E., Kulp, C. A., & Carr, T. H. (2004).
More on the fragility of choking under pressure in mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 133,
584
600.
Bigus, O. E., Hadden, S. C., & Glaser, B. G. (1994). The study of
basic social processes. In B. G. Glaser (Ed.), More grounded
theory methodology: A reader (pp. 38
64). Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
Bringer, J., Brackenridge, C. H., & Johnston, L. H. (2006).
Swimming coaches perceptions of sexual exploitation in sport:
A preliminary model of role conflict and role ambiguity. The
Sport Psychologist, 20, 465
479.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and selfregulation. New York: Springer.
Chalabaev, A. S., Sarrazin, P., Stone, P., & Cury, J. (2008). Do
achievement goals mediate stereotype threat? An investigation
on females soccer performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 30, 143
158.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Constructivist and objectivist grounded
theory. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 509
535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Charmaz, K. (2002). Grounded theory: Methodology and theory
construction. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of the social and behavioural sciences (pp.
6396
6399). Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide
through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clark, A. E. (2003). Situational analysis: Grounded theory
mapping after the post-modern turn. Symbolic Interaction, 26,
553
576.
Clark, R. D. (2002). Evaluating the phenomenon of choking in
professional golfers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 1287
1294.
Clark, T. P., Tofler, I. R., & Lardon, M. T. (2005). The sport
psychiatrist and golf. Clinics in Sports Medicine, 24, 959
971.
Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & O Driscoll, M. (2001). Stress and
work organizations: A review and critique of theory, research and
applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eysenck, M. W., & Calvo, M. G. (1992). Anxiety and performance: The processing efficiency theory. Cognition and Emotion,
6, 409
434.
Fletcher, D., Hanton, S., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2006). An
organizational stress review: Conceptual and theoretical issues
in competitive sport. In S. Hanton & S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.),
Literature reviews in sport psychology (pp. 321
373). Hauppauge,
NY: Nova Science.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic
Books.
Giacobbi, P. R., Hausenblas, H. A., Fallon, E. A., & Hall, C. A.
(2003). Even more about exercise imagery: A grounded theory
of exercise imagery. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15,
160
175.
Gladwell, M. (2000). The art of failure. The New Yorker, 21,
84
92.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.
Chicago, IL: Aldine.

211

Gray, R. (2004). Attending to the execution of complex sensorimotor skill: Expertise differences, choking and slumps. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 10, 42
54.
Gucciardi, D. F., & Dimmock, J. A. (2008). Choking under
pressure in sensorimotor skills: Conscious processing or depleted attentional resources? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9,
45
59.
Hanton, S., Fletcher, D., & Coughlan, G. (2005). Stress in elite
performers: A comparative study of competitive and organizational stressors. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 1129
1141.
Hardy, L. (1990). A catastrophe model of anxiety and performance. In G. Jones & L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and performance in
sport (pp. 81
106). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Hardy, L., Mullen, R., & Martin, N. (2001). Effect of taskrelevant cues and state anxiety on motor performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92, 943
946.
Holt, N. L., & Dunn, J. G. H. (2004). Towards a grounded theory
of the psychosocial competencies and environmental conditions
associated with soccer success. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 199
219.
Holt, N. L., & Mitchell, T. (2006). Talent development in English
professional soccer. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 37,
77
98.
Jackson, R. C., Ashford, J. J., & Norsworthy, G. (2006).
Attentional focus, dispositional reinvestment and skilled performance under pressure. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 28, 49
68.
Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). What is this
thing called mental toughness? An investigation of elite sport
performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 205
218.
Jones, G., Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2007). A framework
of mental toughness in the worlds best performers. The Sport
Psychologist, 21, 243
264.
Lazarus, R. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. New York:
Springer.
Lewis, B. P., & Linder, D. E. (1997). Thinking about choking?
Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 937
944.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Masters, R. S. W. (1992). Knowledge, knerves and know-how.
British Journal of Psychology, 83, 343
358.
Masters, R. S. W., Polman, R. C. J., & Hammond, N. V. (1993).
Reinvestment: A dimension of personality implicated in skill
breakdown under pressure. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 655
666.
Mesagno, C., Marchant, D., & Morris, T. (2008). A preperformance routine to alleviate choking in choking susceptible athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 439
457.
Mullen, R., Hardy, L., & Tattersall, A. (2005). State anxiety and
motor performance: Testing the conscious processing hypothesis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 785
799.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods
(3rd edn). London: Sage.
Smith, N. C., Bellamy, M., Collins, D. J., & Newell, D. (2001). A
test of processing efficiency theory in a team sport context.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 321
332.
Sparkes, A. C. (1998). Validity in qualitative inquiry and the
problem of criteria: Implications for sport psychology. The Sport
Psychologist, 12, 363
386.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research:
Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd edn). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Thelwell, R. C., Weston, N. J. V., Greenlees, I. A., & Hutchings,
N. V. (2008). A qualitative exploration of psychological-skills
use in coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 38
53.
Thomas, O., Hanton, S., & Maynard, I. (2007). A qualitative
investigation of the temporal patterning of athletes

212

D. M. Hill et al.

Downloaded At: 16:02 18 January 2010

pre-competitive symptoms and their use of pre-performance

strategies: The role of facilitative and debilitative anxiety.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 379
397.
Vickers, J., & Williams, M. (2007). Performing under pressure:
The effects of physiological arousal, cognitive anxiety and gaze
control in biathlon. Journal of Motor Behavior, 39, 381
394.
Wallace, H. M., Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2005).
Audience support and choking under pressure: A home
advantage. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 429
438.

Wang, J., Marchant, D. B., Morris, T., & Gibbs, P. (2004). Coping
style and susceptibility to choking. Journal of Sport Behavior, 27,
75
92.
Wilson, M., Chattington, M., Marple-Horvat, D. E., & Smith, C.
N. (2007). A comparison of self-focus versus attentional
explanations of choking. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
29, 439
456.