Effects of anxiety on decision making and visual search behaviour in complex sport situations

Based on the Attentional Control Theory (ACT; Eysenck et al., 2007), performance efficiency is decreased in high-anxiety situations because worrying thoughts compete for attentional resources. A repeated-measures design (high/low state anxiety and high/low perceptual task demands) was used to test ACT explanations. Complex football situations were displayed to expert and non-expert football players in a decision making task in a controlled laboratory setting. Ratings of state anxiety and pupil diameter measures were used to check anxiety manipulations. Dependent variables were verbal response time and accuracy, mental effort ratings and visual search behavior (e.g., visual search rate). Results confirmed that an anxiety increase, indicated by higher state-anxiety ratings and larger pupil diameters, reduced processing efficiency for both groups (higher response times and mental effort ratings). Moreover, high task demands reduced the ability to shift attention between different locations for the expert group in the high anxiety condition only. Since particularly experts, who were expected to use more top-down strategies to guide visual attention under high perceptual task demands, showed less attentional shifts in the high compared to the low anxiety condition, as predicted by ACT, anxiety seems to impair the shifting function by interrupting the balance between top-down and bottom-up processes.

The quiet eye without a target: The primacy of visual information processing

Motor-performance-enhancing effects of long final fixations before movement initiation – a phenomenon called Quiet Eye (QE) – have repeatedly been demonstrated. Drawing on the information-processing framework, it is assumed that the QE supports information processing revealed by the close link between QE duration and task demands concerning, in particular, response selection and movement parameterisation. However, the question remains whether the suggested mechanism also holds for processes referring to stimulus identification. Thus, in a series of two experiments, performance in a targeting task was tested as a function of experimentally manipulated visual processing demands as well as experimentally manipulated QE durations. The results support the suggested link because a performance-enhancing QE effect was found under increased visual processing demands only: Whereas QE duration did not affect performance as long as positional information was preserved (Experiment 1), in the full vs. no target visibility comparison, QE efficiency turned out to depend on information processing time as soon as the interval falls below a certain threshold (Experiment 2). Thus, the results rather contradict alternative, e.g., posture-based explanations of QE effects and support the assumption that the crucial mechanism behind the QE phenomenon is rooted in the cognitive domain.