Power point

lable at ScienceDirect

Psychology of Sport and Exercise 19 (2015) 85e94

Contents lists avai

Psychology of Sport and Exercise

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/psychsport

Examining the accuracy and in-game performance effects between pre- and post-performance routines: A mixed methods study

Christopher Mesagno a, *, Denise M. Hill b, Paul Larkin c

a Federation University Australia, Ballarat, Australia b University of Gloucestershire, Gloucester, United Kingdom c University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 18 August 2014 Received in revised form 15 January 2015 Accepted 16 March 2015 Available online 24 March 2015

Keywords: Pre-shot routine Post-shot routine Self-regulation

* Corresponding author. Faculty of Health, Federat Box 663, Ballarat, Victoria 3353, Australia. Tel.: þ61 3

E-mail address: c.mesagno@federation.edu.au (C. M

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.03.005 1469-0292/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Objectives: Researchers have identified that pre-performance routines improve performance under pressure, yet have not investigated the effects of post-performance routines. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to examine whether the type of performance routine training could improve tenpin bowling accuracy and in-game performance. Design: A mixed-method design was adopted, whereby the impact of a performance routine interven- tion on performance accuracy and in-game performance was examined. This was followed by partici- pants completing semi-structured interviews which explored the perceived effect of those routines. Method: Thirty-six experienced tenpin bowlers completed 30 accuracy shots pre- and post-intervention training, with league scores obtained for in-game performance comparison. Four groups (i.e., pre- performance routine [PPR], post-performance routine [POST], combined pre-post routine, and a con- trol group) practiced 12 games across four weeks while listening to the group specific routine instruction on an IPod. Results: It was noted that accuracy improved (albeit non-significantly) for the PPR and combined pre- post routine group, but not the other groups. Critically, all intervention groups (PPR, POST & COMBO) improved in-game performance. The qualitative data indicated that both the PPR and POST was perceived to influence positively performance, attentional and emotional control, self-awareness, self- confidence, motivation. The PPR was also considered to enhance a state of readiness, and perceived control. Conclusions: Results indicate that the PPR training enhanced accuracy and in-game performance, with the POST training acting as a supportive role for in-game performance as evidenced by the qualitative and quantitative data. Future research should continue to investigate the effects of POSTs.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Applied sport psychologists attempt to improve athlete perfor- mance, in part, by educating them to become more aware of per- formance inconsistencies, apply volitional control to reduce negative spontaneous reaction to competitive situations, and use more adaptive self-regulation (Hemmings & Holder, 2009). Self- regulation is the management of cognitive, emotional, motiva- tional, and social processes to make decisions, engage in behaviour, and process stimuli in the pursuit of goals (Cameron & Leventhal, 2003). Baumeister, Vohs, and Tice (2007) explain that self- regulation is any effort by an individual to alter thoughts,

ion University Australia, P.O. 5327 6136. esagno).

emotions, and actions in accordance with his/her desires. There- fore, functional self-regulation facilitates desirable behaviour because the individual resists inappropriate impulses and persists with correct behaviour (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994).

One self-regulation strategy offered by applied sport psycholo- gists to improve their athletes' attentional and emotional control is a pre-performance routine (PPR). Moran (1996) states that a PPR is a sequence of task-relevant thoughts and actions an athlete sys- tematically engages in prior to performance of a sport skill. Moran's definition is the most widely adopted among studies investigating PPRs (see Cotterill, 2010 for a review). To date, PPRs have been adopted predominantly to improve the performance of closed and self-paced tasks (e.g., putting in golf, free-throw shooting in basketball, or executing a ten-pin bowling delivery).

C. Mesagno et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 19 (2015) 85e9486

Researchers have provided equivocal results regarding the effectiveness of PPRs, with novices appearing to benefit the most (Beauchamp, Halliwell, Fournier, & Koestner, 1996; Crews & Boutcher, 1986; McCann, Lavallee, & Lavallee, 2001); while studies involving experienced athletes have indicatedmixed results following PPR training (e.g., Boutcher & Crews, 1987; Cohn, Rotella, & Lloyd, 1990; Kingston & Hardy, 2001; Lobmeyer & Wasserman, 1986; Marlow, Bull, Heath, & Shambrook, 1998). Cohn et al. (1990) for example, examined the effects of a cognitive-behav- ioural PPR intervention on three male collegiate golfers during competition and reported that although the intervention increased PPR adherence, there was no immediate performance increase. During subsequent interviews however, the participants expressed immediate subjective improvements in unobservable mental skills, such as concentration and confidence. Though such perceptions were not directly observable in objective performance scores. Follow-up testing after four months verified an improvement in all three players' performances, with the golfers' interview data indi- cating they believed the PPR was beneficial. These results should be viewed with caution however, for the perceived benefit may be due to other variables such as physical practice. Marlow et al. (1998) also found the penalty shot accuracy of three experienced water polo players increased by between 21% and 28% immediately following the implementation of a PPR. Furthermore, Velentzas, Heinen, and Schack (2011) investigated whether two types of routine methods (i.e., imagery or introduction to a PPR), trained over a 7-week intervention period could improve volleyball serving performance. Velentzas et al. found that both intervention groups improved serving performance from pre-to post-intervention, with the imagery group being the most effective routine training. In addition, it has also been established that PPRs may lower arousal levels (Boutcher & Crews, 1987), increase intrinsic motivation, reduce negative introspection (Beauchamp et al., 1996), and in- crease attention to task (Cohn et al., 1990; Cotterill, Sanders, & Collins, 2010).

A number of researchers (e.g., Anshel, 1995; Bartholomew, 2003; Dale, 2004) have posited that a PPR is a suitable interven- tion to aid athletes in coping effectively with pressure during real- world competition. Mesagno, Marchant, and Morris (2008) employed a single-case design method to demonstrate improved performance under pressure of three “choking-susceptible” (i.e., likely to experience “choking under pressure”) ten-pin bowlers using an extensive PPR. The extensive PPR included modifying or incorporating cognitive and behavioural elements into their pre- existing PPR, such as a deep breath, cue word and behavioural steps. Due to limitations associated with a single-case design, Mesagno and Mullane-Grant (2010) subsequently conducted a follow-up experimental study with a larger cohort, to assess which elements of the PPRweremost effective for improved performance. Participants were assigned into one of five groups: deep breath (i.e., took three diaphragmatic deep breaths); cueword (i.e., developed a cue word to focus attention to the task); temporal consistency (i.e., counted down aloud from five to maintain temporal consistency); extensive PPR (i.e., educated on extensive PPR similar to Mesagno et al., 2008); and control (i.e., no intervention training). Results indicated the extensive PPR group improved performance under pressure more than groups using only independent PPR elements, with the control group decreasing performance. In support of Mesagno and Mullane-Grant (2010), Hill, Hanton, Matthews, and Fleming (2011) demonstrated, in a longitudinal study of elite golfers, that a PPR could alleviate choking under pressure as part of a mental skills program through increased perceived control, lowered debilitative anxiety, and improved focus. Collectively, these studies indicate a PPR may be an effective intervention to improve in-game performance when pressure may be heightened.

Despite the considerable research attention exploring the effectiveness of PPRs on performance, few studies have investi- gated behavioural or psychological routines undertaken after per- formance execution (i.e., post-performance routine). We define a post-performance routine (POST) as a series of behavioural or psychological strategies undertaken after performance execution, yet prior to the PPR of the next performance attempt. Hill, Hanton, Matthews, and Fleming (2010) were the first to identify that the use of POSTs may be a mechanism to improve performance under pressure. Hill et al. interviewed six elite golfers who frequently experienced choking under pressure and five elite golfers who frequently excelled under pressure. They found those golfers who excelled under pressure, performed a consistent POST after each shot, which tended to include constructive task-related reflection, followed by a behavioural response (i.e., removal of glove) that triggered attention to be directed towards the next shot. However, those who experienced choking under pressure appeared to rarely or intermittently complete a POST. Much of the psychological turmoil that athletes encounter during competition may stem from maladaptive thoughts associated with unacceptable shot perfor- mance, which in turn may lead to misdirected concentration and emotional upheaval during the POST. As Hill et al. explained, “participants who excelled under pressure were less self-critical (than “chokers”) after poor performances, as they accepted mis- takes and used negative experiences to improve their game … in- terventions that encourage the “chokers” to accept poor performances … could prove beneficial” (p. 235).

Similarly, Oudejans, Kuijpers, Kooijman, and Bakker (2011) used concept mapping to analyse written responses of seven expert athletes from a range of sports about their focus of attention in high-pressure situations. Concept mapping involves a sequence of group activities focused on qualitative analysis that provides the- matic clusters of aggregated text across participants. Oudejans et al. found that worries related to negative thoughts and uncertainty/ doubt were two of the five clusters with the highest importance rating of cognitions associated with performance under pressure, and thus in-game, real-world cognitions. The Oudejans et al. study did not differentiate when these worries occurred, nevertheless, it would be logical that these worries could be present either prior to, during, or following skill execution within real world (rather than laboratory based) competitions.

From the aforementioned research, using POSTs as an inter- vention could improve coping responses and minimize negative reactions to skill errors that lead to self-deprecating cognitions and performance inconsistency, by providing athletes a central atten- tional focus after performance execution. This could prove partic- ularly helpful for athletes who have a tendency to be highly self- critical (i.e., dysfunctional perfectionists), and who suffer from low confidence and poor attentional control. Thus, it could be inferred that focussing on a routine may decrease negative intro- spection, increase functional self-regulation and improve perfor- mance outcomes (Singer, 2002). Further research on POSTs and their effectiveness for in-game performance (and under pressure) would be advantageous. Such information could help applied sport psychologists augment their psychological skills repertoire to implement empirically tested and validated interventions related to after shot psychological recovery.

Purpose and hypotheses of the current study

Through a mixed-method approach, the purpose of the current study was to examine whether the type of performance routine training (e.g., pre- or post-performance) could improve tenpin bowling accuracy and also in-game performance using real-world competition (i.e., league averages). It was hypothesized that the

C. Mesagno et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 19 (2015) 85e94 87

PPR, POST, and combined (i.e., PPR & POST) training groups would perform more accurately, and would improve in-game perfor- mance after a four-week intervention training period, compared to a wait-list control group. Thereafter, the perceived effects of the PPR and POSTs were explored through individual semi-structured interviews.

Method

Methodology

A mixed-method design was adopted to address the aims of the study, in which inferences and conclusions were drawn from the collection and analyses of both quantitative and qualitative data (Tashakkori & Crewell, 2007). By converging quantitative and qualitative methods in this manner, the strengths of both ap- proaches are maximized and their limitation minimized, to provide a comprehensive analysis of the research problem (Creswell, 2003).

Participants

Thirty-six league bowlers (Mage ¼ 40.50, SD ¼ 14.72), with a reported bowling league average between 142 and 207 (Maverage ¼ 179.03, SD ¼ 17.10) for at least 24 games, participated in the study. A league average of between 140 and 210 was necessary to represent intermediate to sub-elite bowlers because novices (below 140 average) may not be able to apply the POST procedures due to inconsistency, and elite bowlers (above 210 average) were likely to have relatively consistent PPRs and a ceiling performance effect might occur. A demographic questionnaire was completed prior to testing as a screening device for bowling experience (i.e., league average) and sport psychology training. Participants were untrained in sport psychology principles with only six suggesting they had “attended group workshops with a sport psychologist”, though they did not explore/discuss performance routines specif- ically. At least one participant who had received sport psychology training was included in each of the groups (i.e., 2 PPR, 2 POST, 1 combined pre-post performance routine,& 2 control group), and so is unlikely to act as a confounding variable.

Equipment

Standard bowling equipment and facilities similar to Mesagno et al. (2008) were used. The audio recording of the PPR and POST (group specific instructions) was recorded to a “clip on” Apple Ipod shuffle with earphones (2 GB) so it could be attached to the par- ticipant's clothes, and listened to during the intervention training phase.

Measures

Demographics questionnaire. Demographic data including age, gender, tenpin bowling experience (e.g., whether bowling in a sanctioned league, number of leagues per week, and highest league average), and sport psychology training (e.g., worked with a sport psychologists in any capacity) were recorded.

Task and performancemeasure. Tenpin bowlingwas chosen as the experimental task because it is a self-paced closed skill that is conducive to PPRs and POSTs. Furthermore, routines may have a direct influence on performance because the impending shots are taken quickly (if a spare is attempted after the “strike” shot) and only short breaks are allowed between frames. Therefore bowlers are required to perform soon after errors in performance execution.

The accuracy task was identical to that used within theMesagno et al. (2008) study, whereby participants attempted shot attempts

at a target on the bowling lane. Bowlers are usually instructed to focus attention at a target 15 feet (e.g., arrows) rather than 60 feet (i.e., the pins) away for easier identification of targeting and improved accuracy (Wiedman, 2006). Thus, absolute error, in centimeters (cm), from centre of the target to centre of the ball track was examined. Mean absolute error (MAE) for all shot at- tempts was the dependent variable; reduced MAE indicated improved accuracy (the reader is referred to Mesagno et al. for additional details).

Training groups

Participants were randomly allocated into one of four training groups: PPR, POST, combined pre-post-performance routine, or wait-list control. The PPR group involved participants developing, or modifying their existing PPR. Boutcher (1990) advised that PPRs should involve a series of physiological, psychological, and behav- ioural steps. Within the PPR, optimal arousal levels (e.g., deep breaths), behavioural steps (e.g., wiping the ball off with a towel, watching their foot slide into the correct position on the approach, etc.), attentional control (e.g., focussing on a target), and cue words (when needed) were considered for inclusion into the PPR. Since the PPR was personalized for each participant, these steps were possible elements to include, but were not necessarily uniform across all PPR and combined group participants. The first author (a certified tenpin bowling coach and sport psychology consultant) attended the pre-intervention test sessions (see the Procedures section for test session information) and identified appropriate components of the PPR while taking extensive notes on each par- ticipant's routine. Considering each bowler's PPR was individual- ized and existing routines may be more inconsistent for novice compared to experienced bowlers, PPR modifications were tailored to each participant's individual routine with no standardized routine implemented. While developing the behavioural steps for the routine and to ensure understanding, the routine was practiced to the satisfaction of both the participant and the first author, and terminated when the participant performed five repeated “shadow shots” (i.e., shots without the ball) using the PPR.

The POST group used a psychological POST, whereby each participant answered a series of questions, which related to the previously delivered strike shot. The series of questions was developed by elite level coaches (n ¼ 2; average coaching experience ¼ 24.5 years) and the first author. This sequence of questions was perceived by the elite coaches (but has not yet been empirically tested) to help the bowler remain psychologically composed, accept the effectiveness of performance execution, and make appropriate target alignment adjustments to remain closer to the “pocket” (i.e., area at the pins where strikes are more likely).

The series of questions included (in sequential order): 1) Did I execute the shot well? 2) Did I hit the target inwhich I was aiming? and 3) Did the ball hit the “pocket”? If the participant answered “no” to any of these questions, then no target alignment adjustment was made (e.g., move feet, move target, change bowling balls etc., to change angle or direction to the pocket) and better performance execution was attempted on the next strike shot. If the participant answered “yes” to all of these questions, then the question, “Where did the ball hit the pins?” should be answered to identify which type of target alignment adjustment to make. Similarly to the PPR, the POST was explained to the participant in enough detail that he/ she understood the questions, and knew when/how to make possible target alignment adjustments when answering the ques- tion, “Where did the ball hit the pins?” Accordingly, the process adopted within the POST was aligned to the reflection phase of Zimmerman's (2000) self-regulation theory, whereby participants were encouraged to take responsibility for their own learning

C. Mesagno et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 19 (2015) 85e9488

through the use of strategies that encouraged evaluation of their performance.

The combined pre-post performance routine group (hereafter labelled simply as “combined”) completed both the PPR and POST training as described above. The wait-list control group completed the intervention training phase without PPR or POST education.

Procedures

Upon receiving approval from the lead author's University Research Ethics Committee, participants were recruited from tenpin bowling leagues (n¼ 3) in an Australianmajor city, by asking league officials for their consent. Volunteer bowlers were addressed prior to a league competition session/event, and those recruited completed an informed consent form and demographics questionnaire to determine eligibility (i.e., a league average below 210). Participants completed the study independently and took part in three phases: pre-intervention test, intervention training, and post-intervention test phases.

The pre-intervention test phase involved 30 attempts (with a 2- min break between blocks of 10 shots) at a target on the bowling lane to measure accuracy, with an independent research assistant (i.e., blind to the purpose of the study) completing data collection. Immediately following the pre-intervention test, an individualized (but group-specific) routine education session was offered (i.e., participants were educated about his/her individually tailored routine based on the intervention training group in which they were allocated) to each participant in the intervention training groups (i.e., PPR, POST, or combined). Audio recording of each bowler's individual routine was made for the participant to use during the four-week intervention training period. The audio recording provided instructions, at a comfortable speed, of the step-by-step routine for each participant in the intervention groups. After the education session, the recording was transferred to an Apple Ipod shuffle for each participant to use throughout the intervention training phase. During the intervention training phase, participants practiced three games per week over four weeks (12 total games) while listening to their acquired routine on the Apple Ipod.

The post-intervention test phase was identical to the pre- intervention test phase with the exception that participants in the intervention training groups implemented their performance routine training during post-intervention accuracy test.

To investigate in-game performance changes, and therefore real-world performance responses, the 12 competition (i.e., league- based) games prior to the pre-intervention test phase, and 24 competition games immediately following the post-intervention test phases, respectively, were obtained from the league secre- tary. The 24 games post-intervention training were divided into two separate 12 game sets, with the initial 12 games hereafter referred to as post-intervention training and the final 12 games called follow-up intervention training. The follow-up intervention training games were obtained to determine the robustness of the routine training.

Interviews were conducted immediately following the post- intervention test to explore in further detail the perceived impact of the intervention training. No interviews were conducted with the wait-list control group.

Training logbook

During the intervention training phase, all participants completed an intervention training logbook after each week of training and submitted their logbook to the first author. Partici- pants logged the number of bowling games practiced, which

confirmed they completed the required training during the intervention training phase. The logbook also included the num- ber of extra practice games participants completed above the intervention training games, to determine if all participants were practicing, or competing, equally during the training weeks. In addition, participants who received an Ipod answered the ques- tion, How much did you pay attention to the Ipod instructions during the training games? Participants answered the question on a 10- point scale ranging from 1 (I did not pay attention to the Ipod at all during training) to 10 (I paid attention to the Ipod instructions on all shots of training) for each of the four training weeks they used the Ipod.

Individual interviews

An interview guide of open-ended questions was derived from the relevant PPR and performance literature and finalized after consulting two sport psychologists. The purpose of the interview was to explore the perceived emotional, cognitive, behavioural ef- fect of the intervention training on performance accuracy, and perceived in-game (i.e., league average) performance before and after routine training. In line with the recommendations of Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009), the interviews completed within this mixed methods study were semi structured. That is, participants were encouraged to articulate in detail, and from their own viewpoint, the perceived effect of the pre- and/or post-performance routines on their performance. The questions were open ended (i.e., pref- aced by how? why? in what way?) and probes were used to gain further insights where necessary (e.g., can you tell me more about that?). The interview schedule is available on request from the lead author. Interviews were completed by the lead author, and ranged from 16 to 54 min with clarification and elaboration questions stimulating participant responses (Patton, 2002).

Results

Due to injuries to three participants during the study (2 PPR & 1 POST participant), only 33 participants were included in the ana- lyses. Initially, to identify that ability level was similar among groups, a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted on the reported league average prior to study involvement. To strengthen the results of the performance data and rule out other possible confounding variables, separate one-way ANOVAs were conducted for total number of leagues and total extra games bowled during intervention training per week, total games prac- ticed with Ipod during the training intervention phase, and average Ipod use for intervention groups during the intervention training phase. Then, a 4 (Group: combined, PPR, POST, control) � 2 (Test: pre-, post-intervention test) mixed-design ANOVA with repeated measures on the Test factor was conducted for mean absolute error (i.e., performance accuracy). Finally, a 4 (Group) � 3 (Test: pre-, post-, follow-up intervention test) mixed-design ANOVA with repeated measures on the Test factor was conducted on mean league scores of the 12 games collected in each phase. An alpha level of .05 was set for all statistical tests. Partial eta squared (partial h2) was used as an indicator of effect size for ANOVA calculations (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Partial eta squared of 0.01 indicated a small effect size, 0.059 amedium effect size, and 0.138 a large effect size (Cohen, 1988).

Homogeneity of groups

The reported league average indicated no significant Group differences, F(3, 32) ¼ .04, p > .10, partial h2 ¼ .004, indicating that

Table 1 Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) for accuracy (Mean Absolute Error- MAE) and in-game performance scores (league average) pre- and post-intervention for the different groups.

Group Reported league average (SD)

Pre-intervention MAE (SD)

Post-intervention MAE (SD)

Mean (SD)- pre-intervention league

Mean (SD)- post-intervention league

Mean (SD)- follow-up intervention league

Combined 179.00 (16.09) 4.01 (1.62) 3.47(1.43) 177.39 (18.68) 187.36 (17.85) 183.81 (10.69) PPR 179.86 (23.60) 3.40(1.08) 2.69(0.60) 180.10 (29.12) 190.29 (19.84) 191.24 (20.84) POST 177.38 (10.99) 2.97(0.47) 3.24(0.84) 179.38 (6.30) 181.39 (6.06) 185.06 (12.30) Control 179.89 (17.10) 3.54(0.84) 3.30(0.78) 181.26 (22.99) 180.95 (22.35) 179.56 (21.99)

1 All participant names are pseudonyms.

C. Mesagno et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 19 (2015) 85e94 89

groups were equal in initial bowling ability prior to involvement in the study.

Homogeneity of possible confounding variables

The total number of leagues bowled per week indicated no significant Group differences, F(3, 32) ¼ 2.12, p > .10, partial h2 ¼ .18. The total number of games practiced with the Ipod during the training intervention phase indicated no significant Group differences, F(3, 32) ¼ 1.37, p > .10, partial h2 ¼ .12. The total extra games practiced during the training phase also indicated no sig- nificant Group differences, F(3, 32) ¼ 0.64, p > .10, partial h2 ¼ .06. The average Ipod use for the intervention groups during the training phase indicated no significant Group differences, F(2, 23) ¼ 0.15, p > .10, partial h2 ¼ .01. These results indicate that the groups were similar in amount of games bowled during the inter- vention training phase and each group's attention to the Ipod was similar for the intervention training groups and that performance could be equated to the training groups' performance differences.

Performance accuracy

Initial exploratory analysis for performance accuracy indicated that two participants (one in PPR, and one in control group) were outliers in the post-intervention MAE score, thus, those partici- pants were deleted from the performance accuracy analysis. From the remaining participants (n ¼ 31), performance results indicated no significant Group, F(3, 27) ¼ 1.05, p > .10, partial h2 ¼ .10, or Test main effect, F(1, 27) ¼ 2.21, p > .10, partial h2 ¼ .08. There was also no significant interaction, F(3, 27) ¼ 1.41, p > .10, partial h2 ¼ .10. Noteworthy is that the PPR and combined groups improved accu- racy the most (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics).

In-game performance

Analysis of in-game performance, via league scores, indicated no significant Groupmain effect, F(3, 29)¼ .22, p > .10, partial h2 ¼ .02, or significant Group � Test interaction, F(6, 58) ¼ 1.04, p > .10, partial h2 ¼ .10. There was, however, a Test main effect, F(2, 58) ¼ 3.60, p ¼ .03, partial h2 ¼ .11. Pairwise comparisons indicated that league scores in the post-intervention (M¼ 184.76, SD¼ 17.37) and follow-up intervention tests (M ¼ 184.53, SD ¼ 16.76) were significantly different to performance scores in the pre- intervention test (M ¼ 179.50, SD ¼ 19.73), with no significant difference between the post-intervention and follow-up interven- tion tests. The difference in league averages was largely because of the intervention groups improving their average after the inter- vention training in comparison to the control group.

Interview results

The interview data were analysed through qualitative content analysis (see Schreier, 2012 for a review), which is a systematic means of describing a phenomenon, while identifying relationships between concepts. The analytical process broadly followed the

steps advocated by Mayring (2000). That is, interviews were tran- scribed verbatim and read several times to ensure familiarisation. Thereafter, raw data quotations/phrases were extracted from the transcript, providing pertinent examples of the perceived effect of PPR and POST on participants accuracy and in-game performance. Any raw data quotations with similar meaning were subsequently placed into overarching codes, which in turn were organized and collated further into sub-categories to construct an increasingly explicit representation of the participants' experience of the intervention. During the analytical procedure, bracketing was employed. This process involves the researcher becoming aware of any assumptions and predispositions of the subject material they may have, and setting them aside to avoid them unduly influencing the research outcomes (see Giorgi& Giorgi, 2003). Transcripts with the emergent codes/categories were sent to the participants for member checking.

The interviews revealed seven over-arching themes regarding the perceived effect of PPR and five for POST. Several themes were similar for both PPR and POST (see Table 2 and Table 3 for sum- maries), with the effects of the routines independent of whether they were adopted as individual strategies or used in combination (i.e., the combined pre-post performance routine group). The themes included: performance, attentional and emotional control, self-awareness, self-confidence, motivation, a state of readiness (PPR only), and perceived control (PPR only).

Of the 24 participants whowere interviewed [n¼ 7 PPR; 8 POST; 9 combined], 23 perceived the adoption of a routine (i.e., within the PRE, POST, or combined groups) had improved their performance, primarily through increased consistency. For example, Bill1

explained, “I was stringing the strikes together more consistently because of the routine … Instead of getting 2 or 3 strikes in a row, I would be getting 5 or 6”. Indeed, Tom indicated the PPR maintained consistency by preventing catastrophic performances (i.e., a considerable and dramatic decline in performance standard). For participants who had adopted a POST, such consistency was asso- ciated closely with an increased effectiveness of identifying and attending to required technical, target alignment adjustments. As summarized by Carl:

I used to just throw the ball … and if it was wrong just carry on doing the same thing, so it would go downhill from there. Now, I go through the routine. If something was wrong, I think what was wrong? And adjust … I am definitely benefiting.

All participants from each group (i.e., PPR, POST, or combined), who perceived a performance improvement, primarily attributed it to enhanced attentional and emotional control. With regards to attention, the routines enhanced task-related focus. That is, the PPR encouraged an external-narrow focus prior to and during skill execution (i.e., “I was probably more target orientated in the last four weeks then I have been maybe in the last four years … in the past … my measure would be okay, how well did I execute that

Table 2 The perceived effects of the PPR.

Overarching Category Codes

Performance Perceived improvements Increased consistency of performance, thoughts and emotions Negative impact [predominantly short-term]

Attentional and Emotional Control Blocked/alleviated negative emotions Improved task-related focus Relaxation/lowered anxiety

Self-Awareness Increased ability to recognize and correct errors Re-evaluate/recognition of mental training

Self-Confidence Raised performance expectations Performance resilience

State of Readiness Slowed preparation and execution Enabled planned skill execution Emotional regulation

Motivation Increased persistence and effort Perceived Control Over self, emotions an performance

Table 3 The perceived effects of the POST.

Overarching Category Codes

Performance Perceived improvements Increased consistency of performance, thoughts and emotions Effective/efficient technical adjustments Negative impact [short-term]

Attentional and Emotional Control Improved task and process -related focus Blocked/alleviated negative emotions Relaxation/lowered anxiety

Self-Awareness Increased ability to recognize and correct errors Recognize how to self-develop

Self-Confidence Raised performance expectations Constructive post-error reflection

Motivation Increased persistence and effort

C. Mesagno et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 19 (2015) 85e9490

shot”), while the POST initiated a focused reflection on necessary target alignment adjustment after skill execution. This in turn allowed participants to block out distractors that would have pre- viously affected their performance detrimentally (including anxiety-related thoughts and self-presentational concerns). Such enhanced attentional control was considered particularly beneficial after a mental/performance error. For example, Anna explained, “I have the [pre-performance] routine running though my head, so I turn off from everything that's happening around me… Previously, I would be thinking about what's going on around me … and what I'm doing wrong”. Another participant, Danielle suggested that, “[after an er- ror] instead of focusing on being a bad bowler whilst taking the next throw … I'm thinking about the [pre-performance] routine … My thoughts are directed to re-focusing on that”. Similarly, when dis- cussing the POST, Cheryl explained, “I now focus on something other than the emotions I may feel after the shot … So regardless of what's happened, I would think about whether I executed that…whether I hit this … .and that helps me stay focused on the game”.

Furthermore,15 out of 16 participants who received a PPR [n¼ 7 PPR; 8 combined] identified it had improved their attentional control by either preventing the explicit monitoring of skill execution (i.e., directly focusing on the technique and attempting to consciously control the skill execution), and/or enabling re-focus in-between shot attempts. Interestingly, 50% of participants iden- tified their routine had lowered their performance initially, due to the distraction it caused. Thus, for many, perceived improvements only occurred once the routinewas embedded (after approximately two of the four intervention training weeks). Understandably, participants in the combined pre-post performance routine group predominantly (though not exclusively) required a longer period of time before they experienced the associated benefits of the

routines. Notably, some of the combined group participants explained that they focused more on the PPR during the routine training sessions than the POST, which may indicate that the PPR was adhered to more than the POST, leading to the performance differences among groups.

The one participant, Simon, who perceived the PPR did not improve performance, admitted he had not adhered to the PPR, was sceptical about psychological skills training, and was uncomfort- able using the Ipod during training: “… the Ipod thing, it just kept falling out [of my ears], so I just gave up. I just couldn't do what it said. I don't think I've learnt anything to be honest. It's [PPR] nothing that would benefit me.” Curiously, though, Simon improved his league average considerably after the intervention training (by 28 pins).

Concerning emotional control, most participants [n ¼ 5 PPR; 7 POST; 7 combined] suggested the PPR and POST alleviated negative emotions (e.g., frustration & anxiety) while encouraging positive emotional responses (e.g., relaxation). Sam, who adopted a PPR explained: “It helped me re-group and start again. I used to get upset when I messed up, so I'd miss another shot and get worse. Now, I focus on the routine … on what I have to achieve … it helps me stay calm.” Similarly, when recalling the effects of a POST, Bobby suggested, “It deals with my reactions of a strike and non-strike … It calms my emotional side down, so I get back to focusing on asking different questions about what has just happened. It's definitely made me a lot calmer”. Regarding anxiety, a number of participants [n ¼ 5 PPR; 2 POST; 3 combined] recognized the PPR and POST was helpful because it reduced its debilitative effects. Terry explained, “The [pre shot] routine deals with my butterflies… Last night I had two occasions where I got strikes at the end of the game. It [PPR] meant I could screen out those pressures… just execute the shots properly and

C. Mesagno et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 19 (2015) 85e94 91

not worry about the result”. Moreover, the post-shot routine “helped me get on top of those negative thoughts”.

The qualitative data indicated that the routines had affected 14 participants' [n¼ 3 PPR; 6 POST; 5 combined] self-awareness, which enabled an enhanced management of their current performance, while also informing strategies for future self-development. When reflecting on the role of PPR, Steve explained, “It made me think about what I am doing and why; whereas before, I just bowled.” Another participant, Helen, stated, “… the routines made me aware I was not concentrating before. I hadn't realised … .You then take the game more seriously … you then start to analyse yourself to look for improvement.” Such improved self-awareness was particularly evident within the POST group for it specifically encouraged increased awareness of technical errors, “Until using it [POST] I didn't realise I was releasing it [the ball] wrong; [be]cause I was just throwing the ball down. It all makes sense now … and so I am now working on that with my coach”. Similarly, Eddie explained:

So my [post shot] routine makes me notice if I am hitting the specific area of my target. I am now thinking about where I am throwing and how I can hit the pocket … how to improve each shot … I now adjust really quickly … and so learning how to bowl really well and consistently.

Interesting, Cheryl found the POST had initially been, “frus- trating” and “stressful”, for although it enabled her to identify which aspect of performance required adjusting, she did not have the technical knowledge to make those corrections.

The majority of participants [n ¼ 6 PPR; 5 POST; 5 combined] noted they experienced improved self-confidence as a result of the PPR and POST. Such raised confidence emerged from trusting and expecting the routine to encourage successful skill execution. The effect of PPR on confidence was summarized by Terry who explained, “I focus on the pre-shot routine because I know it will get my **** [expletive] together, and so I then know I will strike out”. Such increased confidence was particularly notable after a performance error:

The first time I put a ball in the gutter [a very poor shot] it didn't bother me as much as it would have before, as I realised it must have been a consequence of losing focus. I knew I just had to go back tomy [pre-shot] routine, make sure I follow it. That meant I didn't throw two bad balls … It was really reassuring.

A similar impact was noted with the POST, “I feel so much more confident bowling because I ammaking adjustments when necessary. I step back every time, and think about my shot, and have a clear plan of action as a result”. Importantly, it was recognized that the POST enabled constructive reflection after a performance error, which minimized participants' self-criticism and so protected their self- confidence.

It was also reported by nine participants that the PPR and POST led to raised motivation. With regards to the PPR, it was suggested by Helen that, “If I had thrown a few bad balls in the past, I would have given up, because I didn't have any base to go back to. Now I have the routine to go to and it keeps me going”. A similar example was offered from Carl within the combined group, “Thing is, I can actually do things to make it better … so by focussing on it [POST] and knowing I can make it better, I'm not going to give up”.

Several participants [n ¼ 8] also acknowledged the PPR encouraged a state of readiness prior to the task. It fostered a slower and more considered/planned approach for skill execution, and the opportunity to self-regulate emotions. As explained, “I'm taking the deep breath, and then really thinking about my shot, and looking at my target. Instead of just getting up and bowling and throwing bad

shot after bad shot. It slowed me down.” Likewise, Terry reported, “If I'm a bit anxious, I tend to rush and that's when I miss. A pre-shot routine stops this”.

Of the seven participants within the PPR group, five identified their performance had been affected as a result of the routine raising their levels of perceived control. Sam offered a summary of this process:

The routine is a set of rules to achieve a goal. You just focus on applying those rules every time. It's like a protocol manual. No matter what the circumstances… or the lane conditions… that is the procedure. It is the best thing mentally… as you just focus on this … It makes me feel I am in control of what I am doing. I now know what I need to do, and if I do it repeatedly, I'll have a good game.

Moreover, it was suggested that when a performance/mental error occurred, returning to focus on the PPR tended to increase levels of perceived control over the situation, emotions, and sub- sequent performance.

Finally, the data revealed that most participants within the PPR group also adopted their own POST that was predominantly an evaluation of their PPR and shot execution. Likewise, participants who were assigned to the POST group often developed a PPR that attended to the outcome of their POST reflection (i.e., they focused on technical adjustments). Accordingly, the qualitative data indi- cated a blurred line between the three participant groups, though recognizes the independent perceived impact of a PPR and POSTon the participants and their performance.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of a pre- and post-performance routine on experienced ten-pin bowlers' accu- racy and in-game performance. The findings indicated an increase (albeit non-significantly) in performance accuracy from pre-to post-intervention training for groups using the PPR. Critically, all intervention groups' in-game performance improved, in contrast to the control group. The in-game and performance accuracy of the PPR and combined groups improved more than the POST group, inferring that the PPR may hold primary responsibility for the performance effect, with the POST offering a supplementary sup- porting role. Thus, the findings offer further, ecologically valid, empirical evidence that a PPR can enhance athletic performance in a real world setting (Cotterill, 2010), and reinforce the preliminary suggestion that POST contributes to optimal performance (Hill et al., 2010).

Quantitative performance differences

For performance accuracy, those groups that were provided with the PPR training (in isolation or in combinationwith the POST) improved accuracy the most from pre-to post-intervention training, whereas the POST and control groups showed minimal accuracy changes. These findings are similar to other PPR studies (e.g., Marlow et al., 1998) who found that using a PPR improved accuracy on water polo penalty shooting accuracy. In their single- case design, Marlow et al. found percentage improvements, rather than statistical significance, for the participants who used the PPR. In the current study, where statistical significance could be obtained, the PPR groups did not show significant changes in ac- curacy. However critically, the intervention training had improved in-game performance from pre-to post-intervention, and also to the follow-up intervention test. Immediate in-game performance improvements were found in the current study with further effects

C. Mesagno et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 19 (2015) 85e9492

occurring at the four week follow-up intervention test. Cohn et al. (1990) however, found no immediate improvements in perfor- mance but delayed improvements four months later. The current research was the first to investigate the retention effect of routines to determine the robustness of the training on in-game perfor- mance using a larger sample, irrespective of performance measure (i.e., accuracy or in-game), rather than a single-case design. In combination, using a PPR appears to help improve performance accuracy and enhance in-game performance, as it acts as a mech- anism for athletes to focus attention for accuracy and within competition.

Qualitative effects

The quantitative results may be explained through the qualita- tive data, which indicated that although the PPR and POST affected performance through similar mechanisms (i.e., attentional and emotional control, self-awareness, self-confidence, andmotivation) the exceptions were that the PPR (only) engendered a state of readiness and perceived control. As such, the PPR specifically pre- vented the participants from rushing the execution of their skill, enabled the planning of their response to the task, and allowed appropriate emotional adjustments to be made. Thus, as explained through Baumeister's (1997) work, the PPR in particular, affords athletes an opportunity to self-regulate, and organize the thoughts, feelings and actions required for optimizing psychological state and performance outcome. Moreover, the PPR was exclusively found to increase the participants' sense of perceived control prior to the task. This result is important, for a sense of perceive control over emotions and the environmental demands (see Chen & Singer, 2002) is known to encourage clutch performance (Otten, 2009), alleviate performance failure (Hill et al., 2011), and may allow athletes to manage their anxiety symptoms more effectively (Hanton, O'Brien, & Mellalieu, 2003). All of which are apparent in this study.

Irrespective of group allocation, participants perceived the PPR and POST enhanced in-game performance as a result of improved consistency. That is, fluctuations in performance levels were minimized, and there appeared to be less ‘catastrophic’ perfor- mances. Therefore, although the study does support the claim that performance routines are effective in improving performance un- der perceived pressure, it identifies this may be achieved princi- pally through the maintenance of expected performance standards throughout the game/competition.

The qualitative data revealed that for the most part, perfor- mance effects were perceived to be due to enhanced attentional control. That is, the PPR and POST enabled the athletes to focus on the task at hand, re-focus in between shots/games, and block dis- tractors (e.g., organizational and competitive stressors). Such pos- itive performance effects for the current study support other researchers (e.g., Cohn et al., 1990; Cotterill et al., 2010) findings regarding attentional control. Critically, the PPR was also consid- ered to encourage an external-narrow focus on the target, which is necessary for optimizing performance (Wulf, Shea, & Park, 2001). Moreover, the PPR also prevented certain participants from focus- sing on, and adjusting their technique during skill execution. With explicit monitoring associated strongly with choking under pres- sure (see Beilock & Gray, 2007), this finding indicates that a PPR may be of use to athletes vulnerable to choking (Hill et al., 2011; Mesagno et al., 2008; Mesagno & Mullane-Grant, 2010). Using a PPR to prevent choking via the explicit monitoring hypothesis is a new suggestion/finding to current theory matched choking inter- vention research, which indicates that a PPR should mainly be used for athletes who experience choking through distraction-based models (Mesagno et al., 2008; Mesagno & Mullane-Grant, 2010).

While the POST preserved a task focus during performance, it was identified as being a particularly important tool in the maintenance of attention after a performance error. This finding is similar to Hill et al. (2010), who also found that a POST enhanced attention after a performance error within their sample of golfers.

Several participants however, found implementing the perfor- mance routines distracting during the first two weeks (approxi- mately) of competition, and so initially, the performance routines were perceived to influence performance detrimentally. This was particularly relevant for the combined group because the infor- mation being learned was twice that of other groups. Accordingly, having to learn both routines simultaneously might have been overwhelming for the athletes. This is similar to Hill et al. (2011), whose participants took approximately four weeks to implement fully a pre- and post-performance routine, along with several other strategies (e.g., imagery). In contrast, however, Mesagno and col- leagues (Mesagno et al., 2008; Mesagno & Mullane-Grant, 2010) found immediate performance accuracy under pressure for par- ticipants who were only provided a short (i.e., less than 30 min) performance routine training session. It is possible that in the current study, the use of a recorded message on an Ipod (to prompt completion of the performance routine), may have been distracting initially, and caused a delayed learning response. Practitioners should therefore, remain mindful of this response when intro- ducing performance routines to athletes, and ensure the strategy is embedded fully prior to competition. Moreover, other forms of routine delivery should be considered that may include an imagery script or video observation.

Both the PPR and POST were considered by participants to facilitate emotional control, which contributed to their improved in-game performance under perceived pressure. Both routines appeared to encourage positive affect andminimize negative affect. Namely, the PPR was effective in lowering participants' arousal levels and increasing relaxation (Boutcher & Crews, 1987), while also reducing the intensity of their anxiety symptoms by promoting a task-focus that blocked anxiety-related cognitions/emotions (see Hazell, Cotterill, & Hill, 2014). Importantly, however, this study identified the critical role that the POST plays in controlling emo- tions effectively after a performance error, by preventing frustra- tion in particular. As such, an immediate constructive reflection of errors may improve performance, not just as a result of informing relevant technical adjustments required, but also through the maintenance of emotional control.

The PPR was perceived to improve participants' performance within the current study through perceptions of enhanced self- confidence, which supports other researcher's findings (e.g., Cohn et al., 1990). The PPR and POST both led to raised expectations of successful performance as participants began to trust the routines would facilitate effective in-game performance. Subsequently, it appeared that participants became more focused on executing the routines during performance, and less concerned with the perfor- mance outcome. It can be inferred therefore, that the PPR and POST may have afforded higher levels of confidence as a result of the sense of control gained over their performance, through achieving a more process, rather than outcome focus (see Kingston &Wilson, 2009). In addition, similarly to Hill et al. (2010), this study found the POST protected the participants' self-confidence, by ensuring the reflection of errors was constructive, and so self-criticism was minimized.

With the exception of Beauchamp et al. (1996), the impact of performance routines on motivation has received limited research attention. The findings from this study offer an indication that both the PPR and POST may enhance athletes' levels of motivation, which manifests itself with increased persistence after errors. In this case, participants chose to persist, rather than withdraw effort

C. Mesagno et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 19 (2015) 85e94 93

after mistakes because the routine provided themwith a focus they considered could help regain performance standards.

Finally, an interesting finding was that several participants acknowledged that the routines, and in particular the POST, encouraged a greater level of self-awareness. They were able to recognize, through constructive reflection, the reasons for perfor- mance errors, and thus their technical adjustments were more effective and performance improved subsequently. This finding appears to align with Zimmerman's self-regulation theory (2000), which suggests there are three cyclical phases of self-regulation; namely, a forethought phase (goal setting and planning), a perfor- mance phase (using strategies to improve learning), and a reflec- tion phase (adopting strategies to evaluate different parts of the performance after learning). It is acknowledged that each phase will encourage individuals to become increasingly self-aware, goal- oriented, and problem-focused, and more likely to achieve their goals as a result. Thus, whilst the POST was designed initially to encourage reflection (only) within the current study, it would appear it also stimulated participants to engage with the fore- thought and performance phase, and thereby encourage effective self-regulation and the development of sporting expertise (see Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2002).

As an aside, while it may be suggested that raised self-awareness can induce choking through explicit monitoring, it was not found to be the case within this study (indirectly from the interviews). As summarized by Carr (in press), post-performance reflectionmay aid the performance of an established (i.e., automatic) skill, if it is aimed specifically at repairing technical and/or performance errors. Moreover, and critically, the post-performance routine adopted within the current study was designed to encourage focus on target alignment adjustments prior to the skill execution, and therefore was unlikely to interfere with skill execution.

Limitations and future research

We attempted to control for confounding variables, however, we understand there may be some limitations, which researchers should consider when exploring the effect of routines on athletic performance in future. Firstly, the number of league games obtained may not provide an accurate determination of league averages. Tenpin Bowling Australia guidelines indicate that 24 games is an appropriate number of games to establish a reliable league average, however,wedecidedon12gamesbecausewewanted thenumberof leaguegamesand interventiongames tobe consistent. Secondly, it is possible that the use of an Ipod with a recorded message of the performance routine(s) from the lead author, may have delayed participant learning and encouraged distraction initially. Re- searchers should consider asking participants to generate their own voice recording to prompt each stage of their PPR and POST to decrease distraction. Thirdly, it became apparent during the in- terviews that participants within the PPR and POSTgroups had also spontaneously adopted POST and PPR's, respectively. Indeed, it is highly likely that the control group also contained individuals who possessed their ownPPRandPOST. Therefore, it remains challenging to establish objectively and with certainty, the extent/size of effect that each discrete routine had on performance. However, in this study, the qualitative data identified a distinctive perceived effect the PPRandPOSThadonperformance, reinforcing the advantages of the mixed method approach adopted. Finally, prior to data collec- tion, an a priori power analysis was conducted using G-Power 3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang,&Buchner, 2007) todetermine the sample size necessary for adequate statistical power. To gain a medium effect size (0.25) with 80% power and alpha level of .05, a total of 40 par- ticipants were required. Due to logistical reasons (and injuries dur- ing the study), however,wewereunable to recruitmoreparticipants

than included in the current study. Since some statistical tests (especially related to performance) were non-significant with a moderate to large effect size (Cohen, 1988), a post-hoc power anal- ysis was conducted to assess the statistical power with the reduced sample, which indicated that for an effect size of 0.25, with a sample of 33 participants, 70% power was obtained. While this does not reach the desirable 80% power level, we feel that the results still provide an indication of the practical effects of the routines in this study, however,weunderstand that future research is neededwith a larger sample to further verify these results.

Future research should continue to investigate PPR, but also expand the POST literature For example, a clearer understanding of whether POST are used (and their function) in sport generally to differentiate their benefits. Furthermore, it is not possible to generalize these POST findings, and to assume the same routine can impact athletic performance within other sports, considering this was a bowling specific POST. Thus, future research could differen- tiate between the effectiveness of other POSTs such as those using behaviours, other cognitions, or emotional regulation. It is also conceivable that pre-and post-performance routines should be individualized further, in order to achieve optimal benefit.

Summary and conclusion

The current study was the first to investigate quantitative and qualitative differences in PPR and POST training on accuracy and in- game performance. This unique mixed-method design contributes considerably to the extant literature by providing further evidence that both PPR and POST training can improve performance stan- dards within real-world (arguably more pressurized) situations. Furthermore, we have extended the PPR literature to include POST training as a means of improving in-game performance, even though this sport-specific PPR did not improve accuracy. We found additional evidence that PPR are effective in improving, but extended this to confirm that in-game performance was improved through an improvement in increased accuracy. The qualitative data has provided an indication of the mechanisms which were responsible for this effect. That is, both the PPR and POST enhanced performance through increased consistency, which was the result of improving the participants' focus, emotional control, self- confidence, motivation and self-awareness. Accordingly, the find- ings of this study can be of considerable value to practitioners working with athletes who perform under competitive pressure.

Acknowledgements

This study was financially supported by a grant approved by the Association for Applied Sport Psychology (AASP). We would like to thank AASP for their financial support of this project and also thank Ashlee Brown, Alex Culvenor, and Mitch Murray for helping with data collection and Rachel Gilbert for data entry assistance.

References

Anshel, M. H. (1995). Anxiety. In T. Morris, & J. Summers (Eds.), Sport psychology: Theory, applications and issues (pp. 29e62). Brisbane, Australia: John Wiley & Sons.

Bartholomew, J. B. (2003). Attaining peak performance under pressure. Ames, IA: Champonline Sports Videos and Books.

Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Esteem threat, self-regulatory breakdown, and emotional distress as factors in self-defeating behavior. Review of General Psychology, 1, 145e174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.1.2.145.

Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing control: How and why people fail at self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self- control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 351e355.

C. Mesagno et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 19 (2015) 85e9494

Beauchamp, P. H., Halliwell, W. R., Fournier, J. F., & Koestner, R. (1996). Effects of cognitive-behavioral psychological skills trainingon themotivation, preparation, and putting performance of novice golfers. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 157e170.

Beilock, S. L., & Gray, R. (2007). Why do athletes choke under pressure? In G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed.). (pp. 425e444). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Boutcher, S. H. (1990). The role of performance routines in sport. In G. Jones, & L. Hardy (Eds.), Stress and performance in sport (pp. 231e245). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Boutcher, S. H., & Crews, D. J. (1987). The effect of a pre-shot attentional routine on a well-learned skill. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 18, 30e39.

Cameron, L. D., & Leventhal, H. (2003). Self-regulation, health, and illness: an overview. In L. D. Cameron, & H. Leventhal (Eds.), The self-regulation of health and illness behaviour (pp. 1e14). London: Routledge.

Carr, T. H. (2015). Strengths and weaknesses of reflection as a guide to action: pressure assails performance in multiple ways. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11097-014-9401-z (in press).

Chen, D., & Singer, R. N. (2002). Self-regulation and cognitive strategies in sport participation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 277e300.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawerence Erlbaum Associates.

Cohn, P. J., Rotella, R. J., & Lloyd, J. W. (1990). Effects of a cognitive-behavioral intervention on the preshot routine and performance in golf. The Sport Psy- chologist, 4, 33e47.

Cotterill, S. T. (2010). Pre-performance routines in sport: current understanding and future directions. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 3, 132e153.

Cotterill, S. T., Sanders, R., & Collins, D. (2010). Developing effective pre- performance routines in golf: why don't we ask the golfer? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 51e64.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crews, D. J., & Boutcher, S. H. (1986). Effects of structured pre-shot behaviors on beginning golf performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 291e294.

Dale, G. A. (2004). Becoming a champion athlete: Mastering pressure situations. Ames, IA: Champonline Sports Videos and Books.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: a flexible sta- tistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sci- ences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175e191.

Giorgi, A., & Giorgi, B. (2003). The descriptive phenomenological psychological method. In P. M. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 243e273). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hanton, S., O'Brien, M., & Mellalieu, S. D. (2003). Individual differences, perceived control, and competitive anxiety. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 39e55.

Hazell, J., Cotterill, S. T., & Hill, D. M. (2014). An exploration of pre-performance routines, self-efficacy, anxiety and performance in semi-professional soccer. European Journal of Sports Science, 14(6), 603e610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 17461391.2014.888484.

Hemmings, B., & Holder, T. (2009). Applied sport psychology: A case-based approach. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Hill, D. M., Hanton, S., Matthews, N., & Fleming, S. (2010). A qualitative exploration of choking in elite golf. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 4, 221e240.

Hill, D. M., Hanton, S., Matthews, N., & Fleming, S. (2011). Alleviation of choking under pressure in elite golf: an action research study. The Sport Psychologist, 25, 465e488.

Kingston, K., & Hardy, L. (2001). Preperformance routine training using holistic process goals. In P. R. Thomas (Ed.), Optimising performance in golf (pp. 264e278). Brisbane, Australia: Australian Academic Press.

Kingston, K. M., & Wilson, K. (2009). The application of goal setting in sport. In S. D. Mellalieu, & S. Hanton (Eds.), Advances in applied sport psychology: A review (pp. 75e123). Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Kitsantas, A., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Comparing self-regulatory processes among novice, non-expert, and expert volleyball players: a micro-analytic study. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 91e105.

Lobmeyer, D. L., & Wasserman, E. A. (1986). Preliminaries to free throw shooting: superstitious behavior? Journal of Sport Behavior, 9, 70e78.

Marlow, C., Bull, S. J., Heath, B., & Shambrook, C. J. (1998). The use of a single case design to investigate the effect of a pre-performance routine on the water polo penalty shot. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 1, 143e155.

Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:de:0114-fqs00033204.

McCann, P., Lavallee, D., & Lavallee, R. M. (2001). The effect of pre-shot routines on golf wedge shot performance. European Journal of Sport Science, 1(5), 1e10.

Mesagno, C., Marchant, D., & Morris, T. (2008). Using a pre-performance routine to alleviate choking under pressure in “choking-susceptible” athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 439e457.

Mesagno, C., & Mullane-Grant, T. (2010). A comparison of different pre-performance routines as possible choking interventions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 343e360.

Moran, A. P. (1996). The psychology of concentration in sport performers: A cognitive analysis. London: Taylor & Francis.

Otten, M. (2009). Choking vs. clutch performance: a study of sport performance under pressure. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31, 583e601.

Oudejans, R. R. D., Kuijpers, W., Kooijman, C. C., & Bakker, F. C. (2011). Thoughts and attention of athletes under pressure: skill-focus or performance worries? Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 24, 59e73.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Singer, R. N. (2002). Pre-performance state, routines and automaticity. What does it take to realize expertise in self-paced events? Journal of Sport & Exercise Psy- chology, 24, 359e375.

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.

Tashakkori, A., & Crewell, J. W. (2007). The new era of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 3e7.

Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Velentzas, K., Heinen, T., & Schack, T. (2011). Routine integration strategies and their effects on volleyball serve performance and players' movement mental repre- sentation. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23, 209e222.

Wiedman, D. (2006). Bowling: Steps to success. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Wulf, G., Shea, H., & Park, H. (2001). Attention in motor learning. Preferences for and

advantages of an external focus. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 335e344.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation. A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekarts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13e39). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.