Preperformance Phase

Regardless of the performance area, performers of all types possess an array of specific skills and personal abilities, and these skills and abilities are likely to differ based on age, competitive/work level, and type of activity. Yet an individual’s level of performance is not simply based on whether the individual possesses the right combination of traits, physical capacity, and skill sets. If that were the case, many more people would be considered experts, and the term expert would not evoke such respect and admiration. In addition to physical skills and personal abilities, the performer is also impacted by internal dispositional characteristics, environmental stimuli, and performance demands.

Performance Phase

With dispositional characteristics (developed from one’s learning history), environmental stimuli, and performance demands in place, the individual performer will experience some degree of physiological arousal and cognitive activity related to his or her performance (and performance evaluation) when confronted with a performance situation. Optimally, individuals will metacognitively (automatically) attend to relevant aspects of their own behavior and systematically utilize reference points to evaluate and adjust their behavior to meet established standards. This process is often referred to as discrepancy adjustment (Carver & Scheier, 1988; Wells, 2000). This process of discrepancy adjustment is somewhat analogous to the cruise control mechanism in a motor vehicle. The vehicle notes changes in road conditions and adjusts the speed accordingly to maintain a predetermined desired speed. From a human performance perspective, an individual will note personal cues and cues in the environment and make performance adjustments to attain or maintain a predetermined performance standard.

Yet to engage in discrepancy adjustment during a performance-related task, the individual must self-monitor (attend to) his or her own behavior to determine how it conforms to these preset standards. In all areas of human performance—whether performing surgery, tackling an opponent, or performing in a recital—slight adjustments to one’s behavior will occur even if the individual is not fully aware of the adjustment. Similar to the cruise control example, these relevant behaviors will be slightly adjusted in a seemingly automated, metacognitive manner, with the intent to meet preset performance standards (Carver & Scheier, 1988; Sbrocco & Barlow, 1996). Failure to correctly read the demands of the performance situation and appropriately evaluate one’s current level of performance will result in failure to make necessary personal adjustments and maintain an effective performance state. Thus, the metacognitive process of self-monitoring, self-evaluation, and corrective action is central to effective behavioral self-regulation and, ultimately, task execution. Although this process may sound daunting, it typically occurs naturally and operates smoothly and automatically for most individuals, thereby leading to generally stable functional performance.

However, for many individuals, performance schemas and environmental disruptions confound this process by creating unreasonable standards or altering existing skill sets. For example, the perfectionist performer with unrelenting performance standards will compare her real or perceived performance with unrealistic and possibly unattainable standards and is thus unable to engage in adaptive discrepancy adjustment. If the presence of rigid preexisting schemas is added to the situation, the performer is unlikely to be amenable to a logical analysis of her exaggerated standards. Similarly, a recently injured athlete whose skill level has temporarily been altered may be unable to make necessary corrective adjustments and may respond with a dysfunctional spiral. In each of these examples, as with all self-regulatory disruption (Sbrocco & Barlow, 1996), there is a deleterious shift from effective behavioral self-regulation based on subtle metacognitive and automatic processes, to a greater utilization of the controlled, effortful verbal-linguistic cognitive processes that often interrupt effective performance. In essence, when the process is automatic, the individual is able to remain essentially task-focused, and when the process becomes overly cognitive, the result is excessive self-focused attention.

Of particular importance is the degree to which the performer shifts from task-focused attention to self-focused attention. Of course, to engage in the naturally occurring self-adjustment process noted above, one must focus on the self to some degree. However, the performer exhibiting functional performance experiences a nonjudging, metacognitive mindful absorption in the task, whereas an individual experiencing dysfunctional performance typically focuses on inflexible rule systems (i.e., thoughts about what he or she can or cannot do, should or should not do, etc.), perceived deficits, self-doubts, efforts to control thoughts and emotions, and ramifications of possible failure. During these periods, less attention is placed on the environment (task-focused attention), and attention is placed instead on internal processes such as thoughts and emotions. The concept of metacognition used here is congruent with the definition of what has been referred to as mindfulness. Mindfulness, a core feature of this text, has been defined as “paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally” (Kabat-Zinn, 1994, p. 4). The concept of mindful (present-moment, nonjudging) task absorption as a foundation of functional performance is an extension of similar descriptions of flow or peak experiences as described by Csikszentmihalyi (1990) and our previous work (Gardner & Moore, 2004a).

The accumulated empirical evidence has led to similar findings in studies across many forms of human performance (Barlow, 2002). For example, research in academic test performance suggests that most individuals experience similar physiological arousal during an academic test. However, when equating for academic preparation, those with self-doubts and an attentional focus on task-irrelevant cues during the exam perform most poorly (Rich & Woolever, 1988). This finding is similar to past research in athletic performance that suggested that athletes who interpret somatic arousal as facilitative maintain task-relevant focus and perform adequately, while those who interpret arousal as debilitative focus more on internal processes, which subsequently interfere with competitive performance (Jones, Hanton, & Swain, 1994; Jones, Swain, & Hardy, 1993; Swain & Jones, 1996). The literature on human sexual performance has described similar findings. Individuals who engage in functional sexual performance focus on task-relevant erotic cues, while those experiencing sexual dysfunction focus on task-irrelevant cues such as self-doubts, sexual inadequacies, and exaggerated self-implications regarding performance failures (Jones, Bruce, & Barlow, 1986).

As can be seen in numerous areas of human performance, performers enter into situations—even situations requiring elite activity—with markedly different expectations about their performance, and these expectations typically become the driving force for their performance-relevant behavioral responses (Barlow, 1986; Vealey, 1986). Due to a combination of dispositional characteristics and personal performance histories, functional performers typically expect positive performance outcomes, and dysfunctional performers typically expect negative performance outcomes. Over time, these beliefs become strongly held and difficult to change. In addition, these belief sets can become self-fulfilling because they affect how the performer interprets challenge or threat in performance situations (Sbrocco & Barlow, 1996). For example, in studies comparing sexually dysfunctional and functional individuals, sexually functional participants who were told that they were ingesting a pill (placebo) that would negatively affect sexual arousal responded to this experimental condition as a challenge and demonstrated greater sexual arousal. Conversely, sexually dysfunctional individuals interpreted this same condition as a threat and responded with significantly lower levels of sexual arousal (Cranston-Cuebas, Barlow, Mitchell, & Athanasiou, 1993). In a study yielding a similar result, sexually functional individuals demonstrated no increase in arousal when presented with a “performance enhancement” pill (which was a placebo) because they believed their performance did not need enhancement and had little expectation that the pill would enhance their performance. Conversely, sexually dysfunctional individuals responded with greater arousal, because they expected enhanced sexual performance from use of the pill (Cranston-Cuebas & Barlow, 1995).

In each of these studies, outcome expectancies mediated performance demands and impacted performance outcomes by leading to different performance behaviors among participants. These results are consistent with the findings of Gould, Weiss, and Weinberg (1981), who found that confidence was the most stable and consistent factor differentiating highly successful from less successful athletes. Performers who believe that their skills and abilities match performance demands are likely to perform better, and performers who question their skills and experience and are overly concerned with outcome are likely to perform more poorly.

Postperformance Response Phase

The postperformance response phase typically follows one of three paths. The performer (1) sustains involvement in his or her competitive performance; (2) reengages as required following a brief dysfunctional period; or (3) disengages from the activity covertly (mental disengagement through worry or distraction) or overtly (physical disengagement by feigning illness, skipping practice, or full termination).

When human performance follows a functional trajectory, the performer’s ongoing and future performance behavior remains committed, approach-oriented, and directly linked to personal values. That is, the performer tolerates short-term discomfort related to any given poor performance and continues to approach performance cues and demands with committed preparation, training, and practice. Approach behavior may include additional practice or preparation time, additional work with coaches and managers on technical or tactical development, and additional conditioning and learning. With functional performers, motivation remains strong (because goal-directed behavior is reinforced at a relatively high rate), and positive outcome expectations evolve and strengthen. Appropriate focus on performance cues intensifies, which further promotes ongoing skill development. Positive performance outcomes then reinforce the earlier components of the self-regulatory process (such as appropriate discrepancy adjustment) and increase the likelihood of future successful behavior.

Of course, many people would like to think that elite performers have reached that level because they have never experienced adversity, have never had to struggle to learn a skill, or have been handed their elite status. The fact is that, whether performing at elite or subelite levels, all performers experience adversity. Yet, even when faced with performance adversity, the individual with a positive learning history of performance who does not hold extreme maladaptive performance schemas, who has maintained reasonably positive outcome expectations, and who is generally experientially accepting is not likely to overinterpret the personal meaning or future ramifications of any specific negative performance or become unwilling to experience short-term discomfort in the pursuit of his or her goals and values. This performer thus reengages in the performance task as the cues and demands of the competitive situation dictate, even when experiencing less-than-optimal performance. In this situation, negative performance is typically viewed as an isolated episode and does not interfere with adaptive coping (approach) behaviors. This type of individual effectively problem solves and focuses on skill development or on enhancing technical and tactical aspects of performance with a minimum of negative affect.

Some performers, however, respond much differently to negative performances, and a chronic or debilitating performance trajectory may occur. In some performers, discrepancy adjustment difficulties can negatively affect performance, but the performers quickly recover because of adaptive dispositional characteristics; a high trait level of experiential acceptance (i.e., willingness to experience internal events); and/or positive outcome expectancies that isolate the temporary dysfunction as situational, nonthreatening, and tolerable. However, for other performers, changing external circumstances such as a higher level of competition or a new, possibly less supportive organization can trigger preexisting performance schemas, problematic levels of experiential avoidance (i.e., avoidance of the experience of negative internal processes such as thoughts, feelings, and sensations), and skill disruption. Such individuals often respond with persistent performance dysfunction that may be temporary (a slump) or chronic and pervasive.

A study by Klinger, Barta, and Glas (1981) provides some support for this conceptualization of functional and dysfunctional performance. Utilizing thought sampling with college basketball players, their study suggested that, in response to decrements in team performance or a strong challenge from the opposing team, athletes often shift attention from game-related contextual (external) cues and demands to excessive self-focus on both behavior and internal experiences. It can be hypothesized that athletes who hold generally positive outcome expectancies maintain a committed, approach-oriented coping style when faced with performance adversity; continue to engage in the athletic task; and eventually find their way back to functional performance through effective problem solving or coaching. This approach-based coping strategy is likely to result only in brief, time-limited performance decrements.

Chronic performance dysfunction, however, is much more likely to be associated with an avoidant coping style. This style may be overlearned from childhood or develop gradually in response to the repeated failure of more adaptive efforts toward successful performance reengagement. These may be true negative experiences in which poor outcomes occurred, or they may be negative experiences in which premature cessation or termination of performance occurred due to an unwillingness to experience the increase in negative thoughts, emotions, or physiological sensations associated with performance situations. Consistent with social-cognitive models of motivation and goal seeking behavior (Carver & Scheier, 1988), individuals typically remain task-engaged as long as they reasonably believe that positive outcomes are likely, and they disengage when negative outcomes (broadly defined) are consistently anticipated. From this perspective, the performer experiencing chronic or persistent performance dysfunction is likely to respond with either behavioral or cognitive avoidance.

Introduction to the Acceptance-Based Approach

Traditional models of human performance have often focused on negative emotions and distorted or dysfunctional content of one’s thoughts (negative thoughts about performance) as central to understanding performance difficulties. Yet more recently, theorists, researchers, and practitioners have considered a more contemporary acceptance-based approach to understanding such psychological phenomena (Gardner & Moore, 2004a; Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999; Orsillo & Roemer, 2005). Contrary to traditional models, we use an acceptance-based approach to suggest that, during the performance phase—which is the point of the self-regulatory process in which physiological arousal, cognitions relating to performance and performance evaluation, emotional reactivity, and self-awareness of these changes (self-focused attention) increase—it is the degree of experiential acceptance displayed by the performer that is critical to ultimate performance outcomes. In other words, performance outcomes depend on the degree to which the performer accepts his or her own internal experiences as normal and naturally occurring; is willing to persist on task despite these experiences; and maintains attentional focus on the environmental task at hand rather than on his or her internal thoughts, feelings, and physical sensations. Along these lines, it is not the presence or absence of negative thoughts, physiological arousal, or emotions such as anxiety or anger that predicts performance outcomes; rather, it is the degree to which the individual performer can accept these experiences and remain attentionally and behaviorally engaged in the performance task. When experiential acceptance occurs, attentional focus remains on the necessary aspects of the performance environment, and the performer will simply notice the cognitive, affective, and physiological arousal without the need to control, escape, or avoid it. As such, the impact of these internal states on performance will be minimal. Conversely, in the context of low experiential acceptance, which is termed experiential avoidance (Hayes et al., 1999), the performer is likely to engage in a variety of control strategies designed to alter the content and intensity of these internal experiences and the rate at which they occur. Common control strategies include self-talk, thought suppression, distraction, and termination of performance effort. On occasion, these control strategies may briefly succeed by reducing one’s immediate discomfort, but they are most often bound to fail and frequently lead to further increases in arousal. This is because a vicious cycle begins in which increased arousal, increased self-focused attention, and increased efforts at experiential control result in more behavioral disruption as the performer becomes preoccupied with reducing his or her unpleasant thoughts, feelings, and/or physiological sensations. In addition, the individual will also begin to scan the self for subtle signs of personal discomfort and negative thoughts, thereby reducing the amount of attention the individual can place on necessary performance tasks. These disruptions often begin by leading to mildly impaired competitive performance and, for some individuals, can eventually result in complete avoidance of performance situations.

How does the acceptance-based model fit with Hanin’s (1980) individual zones of optimal performance model (IZOP), which suggests that optimal performance is directly related to individually determined optimal levels of emotion? The acceptance-based model of human performance presented herein can be seen as consistent with the IZOP model in the following way. From an acceptance-based theoretical perspective, Hanin’s findings in support of the IZOP model may reflect the varying degrees of experiential acceptance and avoidance found across individuals. In this context, variations in performance may not be due to the absolute level of affect experienced, but rather to the degree to which an individual can tolerate (i.e., accept) the experience of that emotion. While this explanation is clearly an open empirical question, we suggest that experiential acceptance/avoidance may mediate the relationship between emotion and performance in the IZOP model.

Using the scientific literature on human performance, we summarize that the following sequence is directly involved in functional performance: (1) Functional performance involves a metacognitive (automated) process of self-monitoring, self-evaluation, and corrective action as needed and does not involve heightened cognitive activity to control or modify internal experiences. (2) The functional processes of effective discrepancy adjustment and experiential acceptance feed into the performer’s positive performance expectations (self-efficacy), and the performer interprets performance demands as challenging. (3) This results in further mindful task focus, appropriate levels of arousal and affect, automated motor skills, and, ultimately, in functional performance. Conversely, ineffective discrepancy adjustment leads to interpretations of performance cues and demands as threatening, and, with low levels of experiential acceptance, the individual may engage in a task-irrelevant focus and set of behaviors, become self-judging, scan the environment for signs of threat, and engage in self-focused attention. This set of responses is often associated with heightened negative affect, heightened arousal, reduced concentration, disruption of automated motor skills, and, ultimately, dysfunctional performance. Disruptions in self-regulated performance may occur in acute episodes or become a habitual (overlearned) pattern resulting in chronic performance dysfunction. Preexisting performance schemas and related psychological processes may strongly influence whether episodes of dysfunctional performance become chronic or remain situational.

Implications

Numerous authors have noted the extreme pressures and environmental demands that elite performers must confront (Andersen, 2002; Baillie & Ogilvie, 2002). It has been suggested that competitive performance demands are more likely to tax an individual’s personal and social resources than many other human endeavors. This is, of course, in addition to the normative demands of being a spouse, parent, child, friend, coworker, employee, or teammate and dealing with financial, educational, occupational, and living concerns. It is, therefore, crucial to consider all psychological issues, behavioral styles, and life stressors that covertly and overtly impair or delay one’s functioning. A truly comprehensive practice model of performance psychology will do no less. Unfortunately, perusal of the theoretical and empirical literature related to traditional performance enhancement strategies suggests that psychological responses to transitional or developmental issues and dispositional psychological characteristics are a relatively unnecessary focus of intervention for enhancing performance (Rotella, 1990). In our opinion, this view is partially responsible for both the stunted growth of performance psychology and the development of ineffective practice models. In addition, the vast majority of the intervention strategies in performance psychology have not been developed to target the specific psychological processes involved in human performance and are typically focused on modifying outcomes without targeting the real issues. Psychological skills training procedures, the predominant intervention methodologies in applied sport and performance psychology, tend to focus on performance outcomes with little clear connection to the empirically based processes involved in human performance. In contrast, the model of functional and dysfunctional performance described in this chapter clearly suggests that efforts to enhance human performance must be a comprehensive enterprise targeting those specific processes in need of development or remediation.

Unlike other performance models—especially those within the sport psychology domain—it is not reasonable to artificially separate performance demands, skills, dispositional variables, and self-regulatory skills in understanding human performance. The arbitrary separation of these constructs would only be possible if, during performance situations, performers could abandon their internal states, rid themselves of dispositional factors (such as personality), set aside life demands, and equalize talent and skill among other performers. Yet performers are not simply “performers,” and like all humans, they take physical skills, dispositional variables, and self-regulatory processes with them as they engage in all of life’s demands. And, like all humans, these intrapersonal and interpersonal factors can either enhance or impede their chosen endeavors. To utilize a model of human performance that does not fully respect and consider these processes would be futile and ineffectual. In fact, the suggestion that performance can be enhanced apart from this comprehensive understanding contradicts both theoretical and empirical data relating to human performance. Within the Integrative Model of Human Performance, addressing the skill, dispositional, environmental, and self-regulatory issues confronting the performer is both central and critical to promoting the client’s performance and well-being. At its most fundamental level, the IMHP suggests a completely integrated relationship between these factors and human performance and has clear and logical intervention implications.

Alternative acceptance-based behavioral interventions such as mindfulness and metacognitive procedures for enhancing task-focused attention; acceptance and commitment procedures for behavioral activation and valued goal attainment; and interventions focusing on exposure and response prevention for anxiety and anger-related concerns are indicated for many individuals presenting with performance concerns or desiring an extra advantage or “edge.” These interventions, often viewed as “therapeutic,” are certainly, in and of themselves, performance-enhancement interventions. We think that the term performance enhancement is more appropriate as a statement of outcome rather than a definition of a particular intervention technique. Others have also suggested the performance effects of more therapeutic interventions; Giges (2000) stated that the removal of psychological barriers is “an effective method in helping athletes improve their performance” (p. 18).

Conclusion

The Integrative Model of Human Performance has been developed by carefully integrating the current literature in clinical and sport science to provide a theoretical understanding of the internal and external components of functional and dysfunctional human performance. This theoretical framework ultimately drives the assessment and intervention processes, which are intended to promote the psychosocial well-being and competitive performance of high-level performers. Using the IMHP as a guide to understanding the processes involved in functional and dysfunctional human performance, the professional can set out to consider the specific processes in need of targeting in the course of performance-enhancement efforts. This will lead to an intervention focus not on outcomes per se, but rather on the processes that underlie optimal performance. This allows for clearer case conceptualization and more rationally determined intervention foci.

This discussion has explained how interpersonal, intrapersonal, environmental, and self-regulatory processes affect both the performance and psychosocial functioning of individual performers. Certainly, performers do not function solely in the competitive domain, but function in many life domains that also require attention and occasional assistance. With the IMHP in mind, chapter 2 begins by discussing the empirical efficacy of traditional skills-based approaches to performance enhancement and introduces the Mindfulness-Acceptance-Commitment approach to performance enhancement, which will be the primary focus for the remainder of the text.