It
has all come down to this… The other team is up by one, the final seconds are ticking away, the Cameron Crazies are
screaming, millions of more fans are watching at home, and all of a sudden, with a tenth of a second left, fate once again
provides Duke with the opportunity to turn it all around. There is only one problem: fate has provided Duke with two free
throws. Unfortunately for Duke and many other basketball teams, this blessing has the potential of being a curse in disguise.
The free throw is without question one of the simplest shots in the game, yet time after time, players fail to sink them.
Considering Duke’s legendary basketball program, missing free throws is nothing less than an embarrassment. How could
a basketball player good enough to play for Duke miss such a fundamental and simple shot? The answer is simple: he chokes.
But why does he choke? What psychological effects occur in the process of “choking”? And most importantly, how
can it be remedied? Dr. Thomas Carr and graduate student Sian Beilock of the Michigan State University Psychology Department
believe they have found the answers.
In
Beilock and Carr’s article “On the Fragility of Skilled Performance: What Governs Choking Under Pressure?”
(2001), choking is defined as “…performing more poorly than expected given one’s level of skill” (p.
701). This definition most certainly applies to the missing of free throws. In a game consisting of alley-oops, behind-the-back
passes, and unbelievable feats of graceful acrobatics, free throws should be a walk in the park, an easy couple of points.
However, psychological studies of performance pressure suggest otherwise. Beilock and Carr write that the negative effects
of performance pressure can manifest itself in the form of choking, and choking can be explained by two theories: the “distraction
theory” and the “explicit monitoring theory.”
Beilock
and Carr’s “distraction theory” suggests that people may “choke” when performance pressure causes
them to think about things other than the task at hand such as the consequences of failing or under-performing (p. 701). When
this happens, the brain is working on two or more jobs at the same time, so it cannot fully focus on the desired subject.
This type of choking, according to Beilock and Carr, is more likely to appear in cases involving memory recollection such
as test taking, but it may still appear in physical skills such as free throw shooting.
Beilock
and Carr’s second theory behind choking is known as “explicit monitoring theory,” and it is much more likely
to affect the shooting of free throws and other physical skills (p. 701). This theory suggests that anxiety or self-consciousness
about performing a certain task may cause individuals to over-focus on the task at hand. That is, they devote too much thought
to each step involved in an otherwise fluid procedure. For example, when a basketball player is shooting a crucial free throw,
he may devote too much attention to the position of his hands, the weight of the ball, the bend of his knees, or a variety
of other factors. Because of this excess attention to the details of each step, transitions between the steps lose fluidity,
and the procedure as a whole falls apart resulting in bricks, air balls, and other sad displays of tainted concentration.
Unfortunately,
hours upon hours of shooting practice will not remedy this problem, according to Beilock and Carr. Even if players master
the skill of free throw shooting, their anxiety in a big game can still interrupt their procedural method of shooting, causing
more room for error. The only way to reduce choking is to minimize the performance pressure behind it, and the only way to
minimize performance pressure is to experience it over, and over, and over again. The best way to remedy the problem is situational
experience. On the other hand, it may be argued that the extensive experience in the spotlight of Duke basketball players
should make them phenomenal free throw shooters. However, Duke players, as well as players from other highly ranked teams,
are thrown into the spotlight in their very first games. It is possible that some players, perhaps most, would better benefit
from being more slowly exposed to the public eye.
Just about everyone in the world is susceptible
to choking. From leaders of nations to the almighty Duke basketball team, choking has proven to be a tough obstacle to overcome.
It interrupts thought, destroys procedure, and more often than not, it leads to failure (p. 701). However, like all obstacles,
choking may be triumphed over by one thing: persistence. The victors of battles tend to share the same qualities: positive
attitude, faith in victory, and the will to win. Choking has a much smaller chance of affecting a person with these qualities.
Winston Churchill said it best, “Never, never, never give up.”
Beilock, Sian L. and Carr,Thomas H., “On the Fragility of Skilled Performance:
What Governs Choking Under Pressure?,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
130 (December 2001): 701-725. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.130.4.701