REGULATORY FOCUS IN COMPETITIONS: CHOKING UNDER PRESSURE AMONG EQUESTRIANS

REGULATORY FOCUS IN COMPETITIONS:

CHOKING UNDER PRESSURE AMONG

EQUESTRIANS

Master thesis, MScBA, specialization Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

February, 2018

RENSKE VAN DER WEL

Supervisor/university prof. dr. B.A. Nijstad

Acknowledgment: I would like to thank my supervisor Bernard Nijstad of the University of Groningen for being open-minded, giving me very useful feedback and steering me in the

right direction when I needed it.

ABSTRACT

Pressure known to have high impact on athletes’ performance during competitions. However, a little known about why some athletes are more likely to choke under pressure than others. Several competition factors on performance are examined with special focus on equestrians. The research is divided into two studies. In the first study 148 Dutch athletes and in the second study 351 athletes from different nationalities participated. The research is based on questionnaires and on existing data from previous international events of the participants (Olympics and World Championships). Performances of athletes are dependent on status and rank. From the findings, conclusion is drawn that role does not influence the regulatory focus. Besides, it can be stated, that status of the team partially has an impact on whether they are in the front or behind in a competition. Suggestions are given to improve further research on the influencing factors of performance.

1. INTRODUCTION

It is a well-known phenomenon that during competitions, some athletes choke under pressure (Murayama & Sekiya, 2015). Such pressure can be the consequence of many things, but one important source may be one’s role as either the favorite or as an underdog in a certain competition. Favorites may suffer more under pressure of high expectations; they can basically only fail (Haberl, 2007). An example is the horse-riding World Championships in Caen 2014, whereby the Dutch jumping team had the role as favorite (FEI, 2014). The first Dutch team rider was setting the stage without any penalties. However, the third rider got nine penalties in the first round. Despite the pressure, the closing rider did a great job and had a clear round as well (Horse & Country, 2014). It is not completely clear why some participants choke under pressure when they are in the role of a favorite, whereas others seem unaffected.

On the one hand, being a favorite means that one can only lose, and this will generally lead to a prevention focus. To put it differently, it means that an athlete focuses on loss versus non-loss. The athlete behaves in a vigilant manner and is careful not to make mistakes. This may lead to choking under pressure. In the research of Jordet and Hartman (2008) it has been found that there is a relationship between avoidance motivation and choking under pressure. Athletes move away from stimuli, which are evaluated as negative and linked to their behavior. Next to that, it appears that favored competitors perceive more pressure, which is related to choking (Gibson, Sachau, Doll, & Shumate, 2002). On the other hand, being an underdog means that there is nothing to lose, because losing is the expected event. Therefore this may elicit a promotion focus, whereby the athletes try to win against the odds. In turn, this elicits risk-taking and eagerness (Vandello, Goldschmied, & Richards, 2007).

However, regulatory focus does not only depend on role as favorite or underdog, but also on the situation in the competition. The situation refers to whether the team is in front or behind. Being in front in the competition will strengthen the effect that favorites can only lose, which leads to high pressure not to fail and encourages a strong prevention focus (Gibson, et al., 2002). Being behind means that you can become the hero if the team catches up. Therefore, you get more of a promotion focus, which results in increased eagerness and success (Berger & Pope, 2011).

performed in a team context. A team consists of four athletes (Bloom & D.E., 2002). In the current paper, I will examine effects in two studies. In the first study, I will use scenarios to examine whether favorites versus underdogs who are in front or behind differ in their regulatory focus. In study 2, I will look at results of Olympics and World Championships, to see how performance of athletes is affected by status as favorite or underdog and position in the competition (in front vs. behind).

2. THEORY

Sport performance at any level is dependent on mental processes. Mental processes involve the interaction between behavior directed toward achieving, thoughts, and emotions (Janelle, 1999). Some athletes perceive a high extent of performance pressure. Baumeister (1984) defines pressure as an aspect or a combination of aspects that increase the importance of good performance under certain circumstances. Due to pressure, choking under pressure can occur. Choking under pressure can be defined as decreased performance or underachievement of the athlete. To put it differently, the performance outcome is negatively influenced (Baumeister, 1984; Wallace, Baumeister, & Vohs, 2005). In a competition context, pressure is perceived as more arousing. Underlying motivational components are aspects such as competition, attendance of audience and presence of other athletes (Wankel, 1972).

In the following section the theoretical framework will be described, which is divided into three main concepts: role and regulatory focus and pressure. In this part, four hypotheses will be derived from different theoretical perspectives.

2.1 Role and Regulatory Focus

research has found that there are several advantages and disadvantages of being a favorite. The advantages can be described as a higher confidence level, the motivation and belief that you are able to compete with your opponents and can be stronger than them. Disadvantages are high pressure and expectations due to heightened outcome expectations, but you also have something to lose as favorite (Haberl, 2007). To put it differently, favorites can choke under pressure. In contrast, the underdogs are expected to lose (Kim, Allison, Eylon, Markus, Hindle, & McGuire, 2008). Said another way, they have little to lose but much to gain if their performance is better than the favorite. Therefore, the psychological experience of being an underdog is perceived as less stressful and characterized by less pressure. The main goal of underdogs is winning, which is seen as a maximum standard that athletes hope to achieve. Underdogs aim to advance their standings (Higgins, 1997).

represents a minimum standard for favorites, they are primary focused on securing their position. In relation to this prevention focus, securing the position means that the athletes need to meet the expectations that others have of them and therefore avoid the negative outcomes, which are associated with failing to meet these expectations.

Hypothesis 1a. Underdogs as compared to favorites have a stronger promotion focus. Hypothesis 1b. Favorites as compared to underdogs have a stronger prevention focus.

2.2 Rank and Regulatory Focus

Not only previous status (before the match), but also current rank in the competition will influence regulatory focus. Indeed, in competition, being behind or being in front affects motivation. For example, being behind can lead to an increase of motivation or a decrease of motivation depending on how far a team is behind (Berger J. , 2017). It appears that if a team is behind in comparison to a team that is far behind, the team’s motivation will increase and athletes will exert extra effort, because there is still a chance to go from losing to winning the competition. However, if the team is far behind, it becomes harder to get motivated due to the smaller chance of winning the competition. An underlying reason for this phenomenon is that there is a high extent of uncertainty that the extra effort will pay off (Berger J. , 2017). These uncertainties for being successful as team can lead to demotivation and even quitting.

Therefore, pressure for favorites who are in front will increase, which creates a strong prevention focus: the athlete is expected to win, and especially motivated not to fail. In contrast, a favorite who is behind experiences less pressure, because failing as a team no longer depends only on his/her behavior (Roskes, Sligte, Shalvi, & De Dreu, 2011). The situation of underdogs, however, is different. Being in front as an underdog creates the opportunity to win the competition (against all odds), and by actually performing well an athlete can become the “hero” of the team. Rather than a prevention focus, this will create a strong promotion focus.

Hypothesis 2a. The effect of a role as an underdog on promotion focus is stronger for teams who are in front in the competition than for teams who are behind in the competition.

Hypothesis 2b. The effect of a role as favorite on prevention focus is stronger for teams who are in front in the competition than for teams that are behind in the competition.

2.3 Consequences for Performance

sports means that the athletes receive penalties. This means that the equestrian will have more penalties and the time needed to finish their round is slower in comparison to riders who do not choke under pressure. Choking is related to the self-regulatory breakdown, which is the reaction to emotional distress and ego threat (Baumeister, 1997; Jordet 2009). This means that athletes who are favored have the feeling to be threatened if others call this position into question. As a result an athlete can experience emotional distress by which the self-regulating system can break down, which harms their performance. To put it differently, favorites are more likely to choke under pressure than underdogs, especially when their team is in front rather than behind.

is to adopt a systematic processing style, whereby several factors compete for the limited cognitive resources available to perform well (Roskes, et al., 2013). All involving factors that occupy cognitive resources can lead to inferences of performance outcomes, especially if someone is avoidance motivated. Therefore, athletes with an avoidance motivation (similar to prevention focus) will be more distracted by thoughts of losing the competition than athletes with an approach focus (Roskes et al., 2013; Jordet & Hartman, 2008). Given that I assume a strong prevention focus especially for favorites who are in front in the competition, whereas underdogs who are in front will more likely adopt a promotion focus, I predict:

Hypothesis 3a. Favorites have more penalties in a competition when they are in front rather than behind.

Hypothesis 3b. Underdogs have more penalties in a competition when they are behind rather than in front.

2.6 Overview current research

The purpose of this research is to provide more insight into about mental functioning, in particular choking under pressure, among equestrians. Based on regulatory focus theory, it is suggested that role (favorite vs. underdogs) and rank in the competition (in front vs. behind) affects the extent to which athletes are promotion or prevention focused. In this turn, this is expected to influence performance. To test these predictions, I conducted two different studies.

(hypothesis 1), because of the mental impact of the role addressed to the athletes. Moreover, I expected that the effect of a role as an underdog on promotion focus is stronger for teams who are in front in the competition than for teams who are behind in the competition. Conversely, the effect of a role as a favorite on prevention focus is stronger for teams who are in front in the competition than for teams who are behind in the competition (hypothesis 2).

For the second study, I collected archival data about performance in four different competitions, two Olympic competitions and two World Championships. I expected that favorites would have more penalties in a competition when they are in front rather than behind, whereas underdogs would have more penalties in a competition when they are behind rather than in front (hypothesis 3). The overarching conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1:

Conceptual model

Role Regulatory _focus Performance

Rank

Penalties

3. STUDY 1 3.1 Overview

The first part is done by a scenario study, whereby rank of a rider in the competition and their role was manipulated. The aim of this study was to explore the effects of being a favorite or underdog (role) and being in front or behind (rank) in a competition in relation to the adapted regulatory focus of riders. Besides, mood states of equestrians being the favorite or underdog and their rank (front/behind) were examined. To explore the influence of role and rank, four different situations were created. In these situations, role was manipulated by placing equestrians low or high (639 vs. 4) on the world-ranking list and therefore designated as an underdog or favorite. The rank of a rider during the competition was also manipulated, whereby on the one hand equestrians were being in front and on the other hand equestrians were being behind in the competition (rank 1 vs. 7). These situational conditions are presented in Table 1, below.

TABLE 1:

Overview of the scenario conditions

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Underdog – Being in front Favorite – Being in front Underdog – Being behind

Favorite – Being behind

the future”) and items related to prevention goals (e.g. “I frequently think about how I can prevent penalties in the competition”; “I am more oriented towards preventing penalties than I am to achieving gain”). These items were based on the theoretical underpinnings of the regulatory focus used by Higgins and colleagues (1998) in which the promotion goals reflect achievement and aspirations, whereas the prevention goals reflect responsibility and safety. The designed measurement of the regulatory focus of Lockwood and colleagues (2002) formed the base of this measurement, whereas the promotion and prevention goals of riders were assessed directly.

4. METHOD 4.1 Participants

A total of one hundred and sixty-five participants, all involved in equestrian sports, participated in this scenario study. However, seventeen participants were excluded, because they did not fill in the questionnaire properly or did not finish it. The average age of this group was 32.43 years, represented by 72% women and 28% men from the Netherlands. These riders were competing at regional level (57.6%), national level (40%) as well as international level (26.1%). Hence, these percentages are overlapping, because equestrians can compete at these different competitions levels.

4.2 Materials and design

Data were collected from a scenario study. The developed questionnaire was distributed via social media and an anonymous link. To create a greater and more varied sample, international show jumpers were approached at the International Indoor Concours Hippique Groningen 2018 to fill in the questionnaire via the anonymous link.

Within this study, a 2 x 2 design was used. In this way four different situations were created, which were randomly selected and shown to participants. The first independent variable (IV), role of the athlete was manipulated in such a way that athletes were placed high (favorite) or low (underdog) on the world-ranking list of that specific year. The second IV was rank in the competition, which was either high (in front; place number 1) or low (behind; place number 7).

three promotion focus items (α = 0.80) and three prevention focus items (α = 0.75). Emotions of equestrians were examined by using the PANAS. The PANAS used a 5-point Likert-scale, ranging from “fully applicable to me” to “not applicable to me at all”. Within this measurement the internal reliability of the PA was α = 0.91 and the NA was α = 0.79.

4.3 Procedure

At first, participants were informed about the content of the research, privacy issues and were instructed to read the situation carefully. Secondly, they had to fill in general questions about their gender, age, competition level and experience as an equestrian. Thereafter, participants were exposed to one of the situations, which were randomly selected. To manipulate the status (IV) of the riders, the rank of the world-ranking list and status (favorite/underdog) were mentioned within these situations. Subsequently, to manipulate the moderator, rank in the competition, participants were told that their team currently was number 1 in the competition (in front) or number 7 in the competition (behind).

5. RESULTS 5.1 Manipulation check

All participants had to answer four questions, which were in line with their situational manipulations. These questions were assigned to four different groups (underdog/being in front, favorite/being in front, underdog/being behind and favorite/being behind). The first question asked “How likely it was to…” (a) win (b) win a medal, in which a 5-point Likertscale was used with “very low” to “very high” as extremes. Secondly, the question was as follows; “Your team is seen as…” (a) underdog (b) favorite, in which a 5-point Likertscale was used with “not at all” to “totally”. The third question was a multiple-choice question and asked the participants if they remembered their rank on the world ranking. Fourth, they had to fill in what their current team position was in the competition by a multiple-choice question.

When analyzing these data, in which ANOVA was used, 89% of the participants correctly identified which role characterized their situation and 85% identified their position correctly. Only 13% of the participants mistakenly assigned the roles and positions to the wrong situation. Therefore, these participants were deleted.

5.2 Factor analysis

were dominant: Factor 1 Eigenvalue = 2.73, Explained variance = 45.53 and Factor 2 Eigenvalue = 1.27, Explained variance= 21.11 and no items were removed.

5.3 Effect of Status versus Rank on Regulatory Focus

To test hypothesis 1a and 2a, regarding the effect of status (underdog/favorite) and rank (in front/behind) on promotion focus, I performed a 2 x 2 ANOVA with promotion focus (scale 1) as dependent variable. The main effect of status was not significant F(1,119) = .96, p > .05, indicating a non-significant difference between underdogs (M = 3.56) and favorites (M = 3.69). This analysis did not yield a significant effect of rank in the competition either, F(1,119) = .15, p > .05. Promotion focus (scale 1) did not differ the participants who were in front (M = 3.65) or behind (M = 3.60). The interaction effect for promotion focus (scale 1) was not significant, F(1,119) = 1.00, p > .05 either.

For promotion focus (scale 2) the main effect of status was not significant F(1,119) = 1.38, p > .05, indicating a non-significant difference between underdogs (M = 3.97) and favorites (M = 3.78). The main effect of rank in competition was, F(1,119) = .27, p > .05. Promotion focus (scale 2) did not differ the participants who were in front (M = 3.92) or behind (M = 3.82). Finally the interaction effect was, F(1,119) = .40, p > .05, thus non-significant. Therefore, these results indicate that hypothesis 1a, underdogs as compared to favorites have a stronger promotion focus, cannot be supported, and neither can hypothesis 2a, which predicted that this effect would be stronger when favorites were in front.

behind (M = 2.81). The interaction effect for prevention focus (scale 1) was not significant, F(1,119) = .19, p > .05 either.

For prevention focus (scale 2) the main effect of status was not significant F(1,119) = 4.05, p < .05, indicating a significant difference between underdogs (M = 2.41) and favorites (M = 2.77). The main effect of rank in competition was, F(1,119) = .74, p > .05. Prevention focus (scale 2) did not differ the participants who were in front (M = 2.66) or behind (M = 2.52). Finally the interaction effect was, F(1,119) = .12, p > .05, thus non-significant. Therefore, these results indicate that hypothesis 1b, favorites as compared to underdogs have a stronger prevention focus, can be supported. However, hypothesis 2b, the effect of a role as a favorite on prevention focus is stronger for teams who are in front in the competition than for teams who are behind in the competition cannot be supported, because the effect of status does not depend on rank (i.e., no interaction).

In addition, the 2 X 2 ANOVA was performed with PA and NA as dependent variable. For the PA a non-significant main effect for status was yielded F(1,115)= .44, p > .05, underdogs (M = 4.08) and favorites (M = 3.98). The main effect of PA for rank was, F(1,115) = 2.64, p > .05, indicating a non-significant difference between participants were in front (M = 4.14) and behind (M = 3.91). The interaction effect was not significant F(1,115) = .00, p > .05 either.

TABLE 2:

Results of the Univariate ANOVA for Status and Rank

Status

Underdog Favorite

6. DISCUSSION

Two effects regarding promotion and prevention focus were predicted. The first (main) effect concerns the effect of status, thus being an underdog or favorite, on the adopted regulatory focus strategy of athletes. According to previous literature (Higgins, 1997) it was expected that underdogs would have a stronger promotion focus and favorites would have a stronger prevention focus. Status did not affect promotion focus of athletes, but prevention focus was in fact higher among favorites than among underdogs. Thus, Hypothesis 1b received support, but Hypothesis 1a did not.

Secondly, the analyses of the effect of rank on promotion and prevention focus, and the interaction between status and rank, yielded a non-significant relationship. Based on previous research and theories (Roskes et al., 2011; Berger, 2017), it was expected that the effect of a role as an underdog on promotion focus is stronger for teams who are in front of a competition than for teams who are behind. This hypothesis needs to be rejected.

7. STUDY 2 7.1 Overview

In the second part, I used an archival study to examine the interaction between the role as being favorite or underdog and their rank during the competition (Higgins, 1998) on performance. This analysis enables an examination of choking under pressure within a team sport setting on the basis of penalties and time penalties. To examine the participants’ rank before the competition, the total amount of points at the world-ranking list in jumping of the specific (rider and horse) combination is taken into account. In order to determine the team rank before the competition, the individual ranking of the combination is summed up and divided by the number of riders of that specific team. Rank during the competition is based on the penalties of the first round of the previous rider(s) of the team. Effects are assessed on penalties and time penalties of a specific rider.

8. METHOD

8.1 Participants

A total of 531 athletes, representing equestrian jumping, were involved in this archival study. Both sexes are included, since horse riding is a mixed discipline in competition context. Participants were 433 male and 98 female equestrians, thus male athletes represents 81.5% of the total sample. Their age varies from 15 to 67 years, in which the average age is 36.4. All these participants competed at the same international level, which included the 1.60m section.

The study included information of five former Olympics (Sydney, Athens, Beijing, London and Rio de Janeiro) and two former World championships (Kentucky and Caen). At these selected events, an average of fifteen national teams were formed at the Olympics and an average of thirty national teams were formed at the World championships, whereby each team consisted of three or four riders.

A total of hundred eighty participants were excluded from the analyses, because no digital world-ranking list was available before 2010. As a consequence, the participants’ rank before the competition was not available and therefore data was incomplete. Altogether, 351 participants were included in the analyses.

8.2 Materials and design

This study was based on a conceptual model, whereby the independent variable (IV) were status and rank, and the dependent variable (DV) was performance of the athletes. The dependent variable was divided into two variables, time and penalties.

8.3 Procedure

Data of the participants were collected from previous international events, such as Olympics and World Championships. At first, the participating equestrian teams were categorized into their country, identified by specific numbers. Next to that, personal information of the equestrians themselves was collected, such as gender, age, start order within the team, and their penalties and time penalties of the two or three rounds they had to ride. Based on these data, status and rank in the competition were analyzed. The independent variable (IV), status was calculated by the sum of the previous position of the athlete on the world ranking and divided by the number of riders of that specific team. Hence, status was displayed in high (underdog) versus low numbers (favorites). To analyze the moderator, rank in the competition is calculated by the total penalties of the riders preceding the current rider in the first round of the competition. The dependent variable (DV), performance, was analyzed by penalties and time penalties of the first round.

9. RESULTS

9.1 Performance

I used the PROCESS macro model 1 for analyzing the moderation effect of rank on the relation between role and performance of equestrians. Behavior (DV) was divided into two variables, penalties and time penalties.

With regard to performance in the first round of the teams, the overall model was significant, F(3,252) = 30,19, p < .05, R2= .26. Team status (the IV), had a significant positive effect on penalties b = .22, t(252) = 2.68, p < .01 meaning that teams with a lower world ranking had more penalties. The effect of the moderation variable rank was also significant and positive b = .20, t(252)= 2.55, p < .05. This implies that teams that occupied higher rank in the competition had fewer penalties. Finally, the interaction between position and rank was significant as well, b = .02, t (252)=2.84, p < .01.

competition (i.e., no interaction). However, hypothesis 3b, underdogs have more penalties in a competition when they are behind rather than in front, can be supported.

Concerning time penalties in the first round of the teams, the overall model was significant F(3,252)=17.00, p < .05, R2= .17. Status (IV), had a non-significant negative effect on time penalties b= -.02, t(252)=-.97, p > .05, which implies that status did not differ in time penalties. The effect of the moderation variable rank was positive, however not significant, b = .03, t(252)= 1.28, p > .05 meaning that rank did not have a relationship regarding time penalties. Finally, the interaction between position and rank was non-significant, b= .00, t =1.75, p > .05.

TABLE 3

Regression analyses moderated by rank in competition on performances/behavior

Status

10. DISCUSSION

Based on the literature, rank plays an important role in two different ways. At first, status (favorite or underdog) will be assigned to athletes or teams based on their rankings related to previous behavior/performances (Berger, 2017). Secondly, the rank during the competition affects mental states of athletes, in which being in front during the competition leads to higher pressure in comparison to being behind, which can imply decrements in performances or receiving more penalties (Jordet & Hartman, 2008; Roskes, et al, 2011). According to this literature, it was expected that favorites would have more penalties in a competition when they are in front rather than behind, whereas underdogs would have more penalties in a competition when they are behind rather than in front. For favorites, rank in the competition did not affect the total amount of penalties or time penalties. Thus, Hypothesis 3a did not receive support. Conversely, Hypothesis 3b received support, which means that the rank for underdogs did affect their total amount of penalties and time penalties.

11. GENERAL DISCUSSION

In the first study, I examined the effect of status and rank in the competition in determining the use of the regulatory focus of equestrians. According to the first part within this study, there was a non-significant effect of a stronger promotion focus for underdogs as compared to favorites demonstrated. However, the relation between favorites and a stronger adaptation of the prevention focus in comparison to underdogs did show a significant relation. Thus, favorites were positively related to stronger promotion focus compared to underdogs. In the second part of the study, I did not found that the effect of a role as an underdog on promotion focus was stronger for teams who were in front in the competition than for teams who were behind. Furthermore, it did not demonstrate a positive effect of the role as favorite on a stronger prevention focus for teams who were in front in the competition than for teams who were behind in the competition within the equestrian field. Therefore, status does not depend on rank.

show that there was a stronger effect of role on regulatory focus in either the situation of being in front or being behind in the competition.

In spite of the experiments’ strengths, there are also some limitations. The validation was questionable. And the questionnaire was only available in Dutch, whereby the sample only exist of Dutch equestrians. Next to that, there is still a possibility that participants were highly promotion or prevention focused based on personal characteristics. Besides, there were some sample limitations, such as size and an unequal gender presentation. Finally, participants could experience time pressure and might be distracted when filling in the questionnaire, because some of the equestrians were preparing for participating in an international competition.

In the second study, there was an examination of the performances of athletes in relation to their assigned status and their rank in the competition. Determining performances, penalties and time penalties were used. According to this research, there was a non-significant found for favorites and being in front in the competition in relation to penalties. Nevertheless, the fact underdogs would have more penalties in a competition when they are behind in a competition rather than in front was found and in line with previous research (Berger, 2007).

The current research relates to the fact that being behind could motivate or demotivate athletes, in such way that underdogs are who are already behind make even more penalties. This was also the case if the time penalties were measured for underdogs and being behind in the competition situation. Previous research did not examine equestrian sports in much detail, especially not in relation to the rank in the competition and their assigned roles as athletes. Therefore, this current research can bring some new insights for status and rank in the competition and its relation to performances.

limitation in the completeness of the dataset, because data of the world ranking were not available before 2010.

Within this research, there were some contradicting results in both studies. In the first study, it was found that favorites adapt a prevention focus, however in the second study it was found that underdogs have more penalties in a competition when they are behind rather than in front. This contradiction can probably be assigned to the differences in the competition levels and experience among the equestrians. Besides, more female equestrians participated in the first study. Conversely, the second study did have more male participants. This can be explained due to the differences among gender and their adopted regulatory focus. But also do horse-riding from a professional perspective or more hobby-like.

Based on these above stated limitations, future research might use questionnaires, which are translated to English for reaching more participants and have a greater sample. The regulatory focus of equestrian athletes in relation to the rank in the competition can influence the performances positively or negatively. Therefore, further research should examine these specific mind processes within equestrian athletes that either lead to an increase or a decrease of sport performance depending on their regulatory focus. Coaches can benefit from these results, because regulatory focus influences the mindset of the equestrian and their performances. If research has more insights in this particular field, it could help the coach with the selection procedure of equestrians for international competitions.

12. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this thesis underlines the importance of taking the effects of status and rank in the competition into account in relation to the adopted regulatory focus of equestrian athletes and their performances. My results indicate that role as a favorite is indeed positively related to the adoption of prevention focus. The results also provide evidence for the fact that underdogs will have more penalties in a competition when they are behind in the competition rather than in front. These insights might be applicable for equestrian coaches in a real life situation, because it may give a hand in the selection procedure of teams and its composition.

REFERENCES

Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 46(3), 610.

Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Esteem threat, self-regulatory breakdown, and emotional distress as factors in self-defeating behavior. Review of General Psychology, 1, 145-174.

Berger, J., & Pope, D. (2011). Can losing lead to winning?. Management Science, 57(5), 817-827. Bloom, G. A., & Stevens, D. E. (2002). Case study: A team-building mental skills training program with an intercollegiate equestrian team. Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 1-16.

Elliot, A. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educ. Psychol. 34: 169–189.

Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Idson, L. C. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment: Regulatory focus and the “goal looms larger” effect. Journal of Personality and Social

Gibson, B., Sachau, D., Doll, B., & Shumate, R. (2002). Sandbagging in competition: Responding to the pressure of being the favorite. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(8), 1119-1130.

Haberl, P. (2007). The psychology of being an Olympic favorite. Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 9(4).

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.

Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in experimental social psychology, 30, 1-46.

Hill, D. M., Hanton, S., Fleming, S., & Matthews, N. (2009). A re-examination of choking under pressure. European Journal of Sports Science, 9, 203-212.

Janelle, C. M. (1999). Ironic mental processes in sport: Implications for sport psychologists. The Sport Psychologist, 13(2), 201-220.

Jones, G. (1990). A cognitive perspective on the processes underlying the relationship between stress and performance in sport. In Stress and Performance in Sport (edited by J.G. Jones and L. Hardy), pp. 17-42.

Jordet, G., & Hartman, E. (2008). Avoidance motivation and choking under pressure in soccer penalty shootouts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30(4), 450-457.

Jordet, G. (2009). When superstars flop: Public status and choking under pressure in international soccer penalty shootouts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(2), 125-130.

Kim, J. H., Allison, S. T., Eylon, P., Goethals, G. R., Markus, M. J., & Hindle, S. M. (2008). Rooting for (and then abandoning) the underdog. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(10), 2550-2573.

Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. 2002. Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus de- termines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83: 854–864.

Murayama, T., & Sekiya, H. (2015). Factors related to choking under pressure in sports and the relationships among them. International Journal of Sport and Health Science, 13, 1-16. Vandello, J. A., Goldschmied, N. P., & Richards, D. A. (2007). The appeal of the underdog. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33 (12), 1603-1616.

Wallace, H. M., Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2005). Audience support and choking under pressure: A home disadvantage?. Journal of sports sciences, 23(4), 429-438.

Wankel, L. M. (1972). Competition in motor performance: An experimental analysis of motivational components. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 427-437.

APPENDIX A

Start of Block: Introductie

Beste participant,

Hartelijk dank dat u mee wilt werken aan dit onderzoek. Dit onderzoek is onderdeel van mijn master scriptie aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Het doel van dit onderzoek is het evalueren van emoties van ruiters/amazones gedurende wedstrijden. U zal worden gevraagd om een scenario te lezen en vervolgens de vragen gerelateerd aan dit scenario te beantwoorden. Het invullen van de vragenlijst zal ongeveer 10 minuten duren. Het deelnemen aan het onderzoek is geheel vrijwillig, en u kunt op elk moment het onderzoek staken zonder dat er consequenties aan verbonden zijn. Daarnaast zijn al uw antwoorden volledig anoniem en kunnen uw antwoorden het niet naar u getraceerd worden. Als u vragen heeft over het onderzoek kunt u mij contacteren via r.e.van.der.wel@student.rug.nl Door deel te nemen aan dit onderzoek, gaat u akkoord met alle bovenstaande voorwaarden en dat uw antwoorden worden gebruikt voor dit specifieke onderzoek.

Met vriendelijke groet, Renske van der Wel

r.e.van.der.wel@student.rug.nl

End of Block: Introductie Start of Block: Algemeen

Q1 Wat is uw geslacht?

o

o

________________________________________________________________

Q3 Op welke leeftijd bent u begonnen met paardrijden?

Q4 Op welke leeftijd bent u begonnen met wedstrijden rijden?

________________________________________________________________

Q5 Het deelnemen aan wedstrijden is deel van uw ...

o

o

Q6 Op welk niveau deelt u mee aan wedstrijden? (meerdere antwoordmogelijkheden)

▢

▢

▢

End of Block: Algemeen Start of Block: Scenario's

Scenario's In het volgende gedeelte van het onderzoek vraag ik u een tekst te lezen over een bepaalde situatie tijdens een wedstrijd. Lees de tekst aandachtig door en probeer u zo goed mogelijk te verplaatsen in de geschetste situatie:

End of Block: Scenario's Start of Block: Scenario 1

Start of Block: Scenario 2

Scenario 2 "U staat momenteel op nummer 4 van de wereldranglijst springen en bent met uw team op het wereldkampioenschap, waarbij u overduidelijk een favoriet bent. Op dit kampioenschap verschijnen in totaal 24 teams aan de start. De eerste twee teamleden hebben zodanig goed gepresteerd in de tweede manche dat jullie team nu op de 1e positie staat. U bent derde starter van het team en na u volgen nog 5 deelnemende landen teams die allemaal nog kans hebben op een felbegeerde medaille. U bent ervan op de hoogte dat één van de resultaten weggestreept kan worden. Op welke manier gaat u het parcours in?"

End of Block: Scenario 2 Start of Block: Scenario 3

Scenario 3 "U staat momenteel op nummer 639 van de wereldranglijst springen en bent met uw team op het wereldkampioenschap, waarbij u overduidelijk een underdog bent. Op dit kampioenschap verschijnen in totaal 24 teams aan de start. De eerste twee teamleden hebben zodanig gepresteerd in de tweede manche dat jullie team nu op de 7e positie staat. U bent derde starter van het team en na u volgen nog 5 deelnemende landen teams die allemaal kans hebben op een felbegeerde medaille. Jullie behoren ook nog tot één van de kanshebbers, vanwege jullie huidige positie. U bent ervan op de hoogte dat één van de resultaten weggestreept kan worden. Op welke manier gaat u het parcours in?"

End of Block: Scenario 3 Start of Block: Scenario 4

Scenario 4 "U staat momenteel op nummer 4 van de wereldranglijst springen en bent met uw team op het wereldkampioenschap, waarbij u overduidelijk een favoriet bent. Op dit kampioenschap verschijnen in totaal 24 teams aan de start. De eerste twee teamleden hebben zodanig gepresteerd in de tweede manche dat jullie team nu op de 7e positie staat. U bent derde starter van het team en na u volgen nog 5 deelnemende landen teams die allemaal kans hebben op een felbegeerde medaille. Jullie behoren ook nog tot één van de kanshebbers, vanwege jullie huidige positie. U bent ervan op de hoogte dat één van de resultaten weggestreept kan worden. Op welke manier gaat u het parcours in?"

End of Block: Scenario 4

RF1 Houd de beschreven situatie zo goed mogelijk in uw gedachten en beantwoord de volgende vragen: (1) Helemaal niet op mij van toepassing (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) Helemaal op mij van toepassing (5) Ik ben gericht op het

voorkomen van fouten

in het parcours (1)

o

o

o

o

o

Ik ben bang dat ik fouten maak in het

parcours (2)

o

o

o

o

o

Ik denk er momenteel aan hoe ik het maximale in dit parcours kan bereiken

(3)

o

o

o

o

o

Ik denk momenteel aan mijn angst voor wat ik dadelijk ga

presteren in het parcours (4)

o

o

o

o

o

Ik denk er aan dat ik de beste ruiter/amazone van de

wereld wil worden in de toekomst (5)

o

o

o

o

o

Ik richt me vooral op het succes dat ik hoop

te bereiken in de

toekomst (6)

o

o

o

o

o

Ik maak me momenteel zorgen dat

ik geen foutloos

parcours zal rijden (7)

o

o

o

o

o

Ik denk momenteel aan hoe ik succesvol

het parcours kan

volbrengen (8)

o

o

o

o

o

Ik denk regelmatig hoe ik falen in de

wedstrijd kan

voorkomen (10)

o

o

o

o

o

Ik ben meer gericht op het voorkomen van

verlies dan op het

behalen van winst (11)

o

o

o

o

o

In mijn parcours heeft het op dit moment prioriteit dat ik mijn doel, het behalen van een medaille, realiseer

(12)

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Ik denk vooral aan het vervullen van mijn eigen doelstellingen en

individuele prestaties (14)

o

o

o

o

o

Ik ben er vooral mee bezig om mijn verplichtingen en verantwoordelijkheden

ten aanzien van het team na te komen (15)

o

o

o

o

o

Ik richt me vooral op het behalen van positieve uitkomsten

in de wedstrijd (16)

o

o

o

o

o

Ik fantaseer over de ultieme foutloze ronde

die mij zou kunnen

overkomen (17)

o

o

o

o

o

Ik ben tijdens de wedstrijd meer gericht

op het behalen van succes dan op het

vermijden van mogelijke fouten (18)

te bereiken…Ben ik ontzettend voorzichtig en zal ik alles op safe spelen (6)

Teleurgesteld

(16)

o

o

o

o

o

End of Block: PANAS schaal Start of Block: Manipulatiecheck

Q1 Hoe groot acht u de ...: (1) Zeer klein (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) groot (5) (5) Zeer … kans op winst (1)

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Q2 Ons team wordt in de wedstrijd gezien als: (1) Helemaal niet (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) (4) (4) (5) Helemaal wel (5) Underdog (1)

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Q3 Herinnert u zich de tekst die u heeft gelezen. Op welk nummer staat u op de wereldranglijst?

o

o

o

Q4 Herinnert u zich de tekst die u heeft gelezen. Wat is de huidige positie van uw team in de wedstrijd?

o

o

o

o

End of Block: Manipulatiecheck Start of Block: Slot

Hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking!