Contents

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

Self-efficacy 


Briefly mentioned earlier, Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (1977)  accounts for human behaviour through their beliefs in their ability to execute behaviour to affect their surroundings or achieve goals. This affects motivation, performance accomplishments and mental health (Bandura, 2010). Individuals with high levels of self-efficacy view challenges as opportunities for growth and are not afraid of them, while inefficacious individuals view the same challenges as threats and shun away from them as they are afraid of failure (Bandura, 1997).


Self-efficacy is seen to be determined by four sources (Bandura, 1997):


Enactive Mastery Experiences

Enactive mastery experiences refers to the past performance experiences and it provides vital information as to the likelihood of success or failure for future challenges. Bandura explains that through perseverance and overcoming obstacles, individuals show greater self-efficacy when facing future adversities. However, if successes were easily achieved previously, they will expect the same in the future and will be disheartened by failures. Such performance experience is dependent on their expectation of abilities, how difficult the task seems, effort needed, help received, performance circumstances, pattern of successes and failures, and how one perceives and remembers past experiences.


Vicarious Experience

Vicarious experiences refers to the process in which one’s self-efficacy level is affected by their abilities in relation and comparison to others. Such experiences promote higher self-efficacy when the individual perceives his experiences to be more successful than their peers while degrading their efficacy levels when they feel that their performance is below the normative average.


Verbal Persuasion

Verbal persuasion sways efficacy levels through the approval and reinforcement of the individual’s abilities. Through demonstration of optimism from a trusted and respected third person, one is likely to exercise perseverance and tenacity in the face of adversities. Verbal persuasion might be in the form of performance feedback as well.


Physiological and Affective States

Physiological and affective states refer to the condition of an individual’s physical fitness and mental state. The effect of how healthy and physically capable, as well as not having severe mental and physical reactions to stress can affect one’s self-efficacy level. However, the way one perceives arousal also affects their self-efficacy levels. Bandura (1997) notes that being frightened, being happy or having intense exercise all result in a faster heart rate and “pre-existing cognitive bias” will lead one to perceive the same increase of heart rate differently from another individual.


However, out of these four sources, Bandura (1997) argues that enactive mastery experience was the most dominant factor in determining self-efficacy as past successes or failures were the most genuine proof for an individual in believing in their abilities to succeed in future endeavours.


Implicit vs Explicit Learning


To address the issue of “choking”, the term that describes regression of motor skill when succumbed to pressure, Masters (1992) came up with the controlled processing hypothesis to explain this phenomenon. 


It was hypothesised that if implicit methods were used in the learning phase, when put under stress, the lack of conscious information of motor performance will prevent the conscious thinking of execution, and instead, allow the body to operate freely. Implicit learning refers to the gaining of knowledge non-consciously and non-verbally, while explicit learning refers to learning being clearly outlined and explained. On the other hand, when explicit learning was utilised, it was predicted that under stress, due to the declarative method of learning, the individual begins to think about the skill execution and controls the automatic processes of the body. This phenomenon was termed as “reinvestment” and was used to explain “choking”.


To test this hypothesis, Masters carried out an experiment to investigate the impact of stress on motor performance when learnt implicitly or explicitly. Participants who learned explicitly were given specific instructions on how to putt a golf ball. For the implicit learning group, in order to suppress explicit learning, Masters used a secondary task of calling out a random letter when an electric metronome clicked while performing the putting task. It was shown that the implicit learners had no regression of performance under stress, unlike their explicit counterparts.


However, Hardy, Mullen and Jones (1996) noted that in Masters’ 1992 experiment, the implicit group did not perform the secondary task when put under stress. They hypothesised that the improvement in performance under stress was due to the offload of the secondary task. And so they set out to replicate Master’s 1992 study but with an extra group that performed the secondary task while under pressure. The results that they obtained were similar to that of 1992, in which implicit learners improved in their performance under stress, as opposed to a regression in the explicit group. 


Explicit learners have been seen to practice more frequently, resulting in increased self-focus. This leads to poor performance, and they are more predisposed to being stressed when they receive feedback on such performances (Maxwell, Masters, & Eves, 2000). 

 

Explicit learning lends support to the Wulf et al. (2016) claim about the minimalistic approach to instruction giving. More importantly, it encourages a more intuitive (instead of verbal) approach to practising. This also supports the idea of external focus, where less specific instruction is needed to produce the same result. While van der Kamp, Duivenvoorden, Kok, and Van Hilvoorde (2015) acknowledged that external focus was a “contentious” method of implicit learning due to the substantial amount of verbal cues, they drew similarities between implicit learning and analogical learning due to the “similar low amount of declarative knowledge”. Analogical learning benefits complex movements through the condensation of instructions into a single metaphor and could therefore be the key in unlocking implicit learning through external focus.


[Next: Other Lines of Research on External Focus]

3.2

Literature Directly Related to the OPTIMAL Theory

Other Lines of Research on External Focus


The OPTIMAL theory presents the general function and benefits of external focus, as well as the advantages of a distal external focus. By tapping on research on external focus since the 2016 study, it might provide a more informed method of using external focus to maximise the benefits it brings to motor learning and performance.


Imagery

In the same line as the analogical instructions as suggested by van der Kamp and colleagues (2015), a study by Yamada, Raisbeck and Porter (2020), compared the effects between using imagery to induce external focus and external focus itself on a standing long jump task. It was found that participants, when asked to jump towards a cone (external focus) or to jump towards an imagined cone at the same location (imagery), produced further jump distance as compared to the group with internal focus instructions. Although when comparing between the external focus and imagery groups, no significant difference was observed, it provides the basis for using imagery to encourage external focus. Furthermore, through using imagery, less instructions and therefore, a greater tendency towards implicit learning can be induced.


Focal length of external focus

Despite the numerous research pointing to the benefits of distal external focus, it does not always yield better results in all circumstances. In a 2020 study by Singh and Wulf, the benefits of external focal distance on low and high skilled volleyball players performing a passing task were investigated. Results showed that the lower skilled players were more accurate when the focal length was closer to their body while the higher skilled players fared better when the focal was more distant. Wulf and Prinz (2001) also proposed that a focus on technique, instead of external focus, was more important for learning and performing novel complex movements. When individuals start out learning a new motor skill, it is necessary to guide the body towards the most efficient usage of the body. With unsound technique, the body is not optimal in maximising its potential, even with the best usage of external focus. Looking back to the OPTIMAL theory, this will put the individual at the expense of reduced expectancies when receiving negative normative feedback when compared to peers who learnt the skill through a more efficient technique.


In the same line of investigating the benefits of focal length of external focus, a study by Lotfi in 2018 sought to find out the effects of four differing points of external focus (0.5, 2.5, 4 and 8 metres from the start line) when athletes were performing a standing long jump task. The results pointed out that the optimal point of focus was 4 metres. At the focal point of 8 metres, participants showed lower performance than the group that focused on the 4 metre mark. Despite the study by Singh et al. (2020) showing that distal external focus provides enhanced highly skilled performance, Lotfi’s 2018 study begs the question of how far would be the most optimal point for external focus for such highly skilled performers.


Holistic focus

Mullen and Hardy’s study (2010) as well as a follow up study by Becker, Georges and Aiken (2018) proposed an adapted approach to attentional focus - holistic focus. Holistic focus was explained as the concentration of a general feeling of a movement (Becker et al., 2018). In the 2010 study, the holistic focus was in the form of goals (i.e. holistic goals), which had one word summarising a movement goal and compared with a group that received part process goals, with two words describing a subcomponent of the same movement goal. Through three experiments of different motor tasks (standing long jump, basketball shooting and golf putting), it was shown that the group with holistic goals consistently fared better than the group with part process goals when under stress.


In the 2018 study, the comparison was made between groups receiving instructions such as “focus on extending your knees as quickly as possible” (internal focus), “focus on jumping as close to the orange cone as possible” (external focus) and “focus on making your movement feel explosive” (holistic focus). The results showed that while the holistic and external focus groups fared notably better than the group with internal focus cues, there were no significant differences between the holistic and external focus groups.


Holistic goal setting, as seen in the 2010 study, lends support to the notion of the minimalistic approach to instruction-giving that Wulf et al. (2016) had proposed. On the other hand, with holistic focus instructions of the 2018 study, it shows that focus does not always have to be directed towards a distance as a focus on the feeling of the intended movement could also provide similar results. Furthermore, the 2018 study was the landmark study in comparing holistic focus with the two “traditional” types of external focus and future studies are required to fully ascertain the benefits (or lack thereof) of holistic focus through applying it to different tasks and of varying skill levels.


The idea of focusing on feeling can also draw support from the controlled processing hypothesis (Masters, 1992). Even with external focus, there is a certain degree of explicit learning since there is a strong use of verbal or instructional cues to induce such an attention. However, with holistic focus or goal, there is a stronger element towards the implicit learning side of the spectrum. Although verbalisation is still needed for holistic focus, the focus is more implicit in nature since it is focused on a feeling, as compared to external focus, that is usually induced when focusing on a specific, quantifiable goal or object.


Associative and Dissociative Focus of Attention

An associative focus of attention refers to the concentration on a task with a strong correlation to the intended movement. On the other hand, a dissociative focus of attention implies that the concentration is on a task that has completely no relation to the intended movement.


In another landmark study, Aghdaei, Farsi, Khalajib and Porter (2021) sought to explore associative and dissociative with different focus on attention on running economy (through measuring oxygen consumption). Before running on the treadmill for 6 minutes, four groups of participants were prescribed different permutations of focus through four different instructions: to count their steps (associative-external attention), to focus on the muscles in their feet (associative-internal focus), to watch a video clip of a basketball game on a monitor at eye level (dissociative-external focus) and a mental calculation task of starting with a random number, continuously subtracting by three every thirty seconds and announcing it (dissociative-internal attention). The results revealed that the dissociative groups consumed less oxygen, with the dissociative-external attention group being the most efficient in oxygen usage. This proved that dissociative-external focus would be the most beneficial type of attention when seeking endurance in motor performance. Furthermore, it was interesting that the group with dissociative-internal attention fared better than the group with associative-external attention. 

Aghdaei et al. (2021) acknowledged that further research has to be done to corroborate their findings.


Concluding Remarks on “Other Lines of Research on External Focus”

 

Since the publication of the theory 2016, it is interesting to note the various developments in the way external focus has been approached. Through scrutinising attentional focus beyond the “traditional” two of external and internal foci, new developments have been seen in recent years to support the notion that there are more dimensions in what was once mostly thought of as binary. Although more research has to be done, the idea of the multifaceted nature of attentional focus seems to be growing and it will be interesting to note the developments in the years to come.


[Next: Chapter 3.3 - Flow State]

First established in 1975, the concept of “flow” was first introduced by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. It describes the phenomenon where an individual is in a state of total immersion and pleasure while performing a task. It was also theorised as an influencing factor on intrinsic motivation, as well as happiness and one’s satisfaction with life (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). 


Csikszentmihalyi (1990) also noted the five conditions of a parent-child relationship in the growth of the child which mirrored the conditions of flow:


a) Clarity of goals

b) Feedback

c) Feeling of control

d) Concentration of the task at hand

e) Intrinsic motivation

f) Challenge


It is worth noting the similarities these conditions have with the three tenets of the OPTIMAL theory: autonomy (feeling of control), enhanced expectancies (clarity of goals, feedback, intrinsic motivation, challenge) and external focus (concentration of the task at hand). Interestingly, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) also termed the phenomenon described earlier as a result of flow as an “optimal experience”.


The flow experience was also theorised to enhance performance and was explained by the following diagram:


Figure 4

(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p.74)


Csikszentmihalyi analogically explained the diagram through a typical learning scenario, more specifically in this case, tennis. However, in the following quoted scenario,” tennis” can very well be replaced by “an instrument”, which will allow the example to make sense in a music learning context:


“The letter A represents Alex, a boy who is learning to play tennis. The diagram shows Alex at four different points in time. When he first starts playing (A1), Alex has practically no skills, and the only challenge he faces is hitting the ball over the net. This is not a very difficult feat, but Alex is likely to enjoy it because the difficulty is just right for his rudimentary skills. So at this point he will probably be in flow. But he cannot stay there long. After a while, if he keeps practicing, his skills are bound to improve, and then he will grow bored just batting the ball over the net (A2). Or it might happen that he meets a more practiced opponent, in which case he will realize that there are much harder challenges for him than just lobbing the ball—at that point, he will feel some anxiety (A3) concerning his poor performance. 


Neither boredom nor anxiety are positive experiences, so Alex will be motivated to return to the flow state. How is he to do it? Glancing again at the diagram, we see that if he is bored (A2) and wishes to be in flow again, Alex has essentially only one choice: to increase the challenges he is facing. (He also has a second choice, which is to give up tennis altogether—in which case A would simply disappear from the diagram.) By setting himself a new and more difficult goal that matches his skills—for instance, to beat an opponent just a little more advanced than he is—Alex would be back in flow (A4). 


If Alex is anxious (A3), the way back to flow requires that he increase his skills. Theoretically he could also reduce the challenges he is facing, and thus return to flow where he started (in A1), but in practice it is difficult to ignore challenges once one is aware that they exist.


The diagram shows that both A1 and A4 represent situations in which Alex is in flow. Although both are equally enjoyable, the two states are quite different in that A4 is a more complex experience than A1. It is more complex because it involves greater challenges, and demands greater skills from the player.


But A4, although complex and enjoyable, does not represent a stable situation, either. As Alex keeps playing, either he will become bored by the stale opportunities he finds at that level, or he will become anxious and frustrated by his relatively low ability. So the motivation to enjoy himself again will push him to get back into the flow channel, but now at a level of complexity even higher than A4.”


Csikszentmihalyi uses motivational factors (i.e. anxiety and boredom) to account for the cyclical aspect of flow theory in the process of motor learning and performance. Once again, there is remarkable resemblance in which the two theories describe the cyclical nature of motor skill procurement, the involvement of motivation in motor learning, as well as the interdependency of motivation and increased motor performance.


Wulf et al. (2016) briefly mentioned that flow could account for the enhanced expectancies to “produce the effortlessness, automaticity, and task focus seen in effective high-level performance”, establishing a causal relationship. 


However, this current research would like to propose that instead of viewing flow as a determinant of enhanced expectancies, it could be seen as a by-product of enhanced motor performance. This could then be used to explain two aspects of the OPTIMAL theory: 


a) The link from enhanced motor performance back to enhanced expectancies, as seen in Figure 1. With improved motor performance, the flow state occurs more often, allowing for greater pleasure when performing the motor task, therefore enhancing expectancies through positive affect.


b) The link from enhanced motor learning to enhanced motor performance in Figure 2.1. With enhanced motor learning, the flow state is easily attainable, allowing the individual to perform tasks with greater automaticity and thus enhancing motor performance.


Wulf et al. (2016) explains the mechanisms of the link through a neuroscientific approach. However, flow might be able address this in a psychological perspective and enhance the explanation of mechanisms of this link. Furthermore, it might also be able to account for the phenomenon of ease and skill automaticity brought about by implicit learning.


Harris, Vine and Wilson (2018) also acknowledged that the convergence between flow and the OPTIMAL theory is significant. They saw that enhanced expectancies had a correlation to both flow and performance, as well as noting that there was a parallel between flow and enhanced expectancies in the positive effects of challenge, as well as their connection to concentration. 

 

More importantly, Harris et al. (2018) study was the first ever to establish a causal relationship of an external focus on flow. They hypothesised that external focus, through enhanced motor performance, would promote a greater sense of flow. Participants were to perform a simulated car racing game after being given external and internal foci instructions. It was conclusive that the external focus instructions led to a sizable increase in participants’ self-reported flow, confirming the causal relationship of external focus on flow.


[Next: Chapter 3.4 - Research in Music Making Relevant to the OPTIMAL Theory]

3.3

Flow state