Positive Performance States of Athletes: Toward a ... Performance States of Athletes: Toward a Conceptual Understanding of Peak Performance Susan A. Jackson UNC at Greensboro Glyn

The Sport Psychologist, 1992, 6, 156-171

Positive Performance States of Athletes: Toward a Conceptual Understanding

of Peak Performance

Susan A. Jackson UNC at Greensboro

Glyn C. Roberts U. of Illinois at Urbana

This study investigated relationships among peak performance, flow, goal orientation, and perceived ability in an attempt to ascertain possible conceptual bases to peak performance. Collegiate athletes (N=200) answered a questionnaire that assessed mastery and competitive goal orientations, perceived ability, flow, and experience in best and worst competitive performances. It was hypothesized that the psychological process of flow underlies peak performance and is associated with a mastery oriented focus and high perceived ability. These predicted relationships were supported by both quantitative and qualitative analyses. Analysis of athletes' best performances indicated a total focus on performance, and other characteristics of flow were key to the perception of a superior state of functioning. In contrast, overconcern with the outcome, reflecting a competitive orientation, was often associated with athletes' worst performances. These associations suggest that investigating positive performance states from a motivational standpoint may lead to greater understanding of the underlying conceptual bases of peak athletic performance.

One of the most positive performance states an athlete can experience in his or her sport is the perception of a peak performance. Peak performance is a state of superior functioning that characterizes optimal sport performances, resulting in personal bests and outstanding achievements. Peak performance has been defined as the prototype of superior use of human potential, often tran- scending prior standards of performance more fully than could reasonably be expected (Privette, 1981, 1983). Peak performance describes the upper limits of functioning.

Privette (1981, 1983; Privette & Bundrick, 1991) has extensively studied optimal performance states from a psychological perspective that has resulted in a detailed descriptive analysis of the constructs of peak performance, peak

Susan A. Jackson is with the Dept. of Exercise & Sport Science at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27412-5001. Glyn C. Roberts is with the Dept. of Kinesiology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, 1L 61801.

Positive Performance States 157

experience, and flow. The distinguishing characteristics of peak performance, according to Privette and Bundrick (1991), are full focus and self in clear process. The latter refers to the clarity of inner processes, awareness of power, and clear focus.

Though they share some common characteristics, peak performance and peak experience are not synonymous concepts although they tend to be treated as such in popular sport psychology terminology. Privette and Bundrick (1991) distinguish peak experience from peak performance by using gradients of performance and feeling as identifying markers; from this perspective, peak performance and peak experience are positive extremes of performance and feeling, respectively. Peak experience describes the upper limits of joy and positive feeling; it may or may not involve the optimal levels of functioning found in peak performance.

There has been little sport psychology research on either peak performance or peak experience. In his study of peak experience, Ravizza (1973) interviewed athletes about their greatest moment in sport. Peak experience was seen to be a positive subjective experience involving self-transcendence through total immersion in the experience and a narrowed focus of attention. Research on peak performance has been primarily descriptive (e.g., Garfield & Bennett, 1984; Loehr, 1984), resulting in the elucidation of important characteristics associated with performing optimally but not in an understanding of the dynamics that may help explain peak performance.

A relatively new area of research that deals with the perception of peak performance is the social cognitive approach to achievement behavior. In particu- lar, the work of Csikszentrnihalyi and colleagues (Csikszentrnihalyi, 1975, 1979; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Csikszentrnihalyi & Nakamura, 1989) is pertinent to peak performance and may provide some of the underlying elements to the perception of peak performance. Csikszentmihalyi describes an autotelic state of consciousness when people are engaged in an activity they enjoy and when "the human organism is functioning at its fullest capacity" (1975, p. 55). Csikszentmihalyi calls this state the "flow experience" and it is similar to the concept of peak performance.

Flow is an intrinsically enjoyable state that occurs when there is a perceived balance between one's competencies and the demands of the task (Csikszentmihal- yi, 1975). It is the experience of total immersion in performing an activity, often with the perception of superior functioning. By perceiving a balance between the demands of the situation and histher capabilities, an athlete is freed from concern about the outcome. Because the challenge is perceived as being within his or her ability, the athlete is free to become totally immersed in the activity, which brings about the potential for peak performance.

A critical aspect of the flow situation is that a state of flow does not depend on the objective nature of the challenges present or on the objective nature of the skills of the individual. In fact, whether one is in flow or not depends entirely on one's perception of the challenges and skills (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975). Flow occurs when there is a balance between perceived challenges of a situation and a person's perceived abilities to meet the challenge. A perception that one has the necessary ability for the task is more likely to result in a flow-producing situation. The perception of a challenging situation thus becomes critical. If the athlete believes he or she has the ability to achieve the goal, behavior will be

158 lackson and Roberts

initiated and sustained until the goal is achieved or until the perception of ability changes, making the goal seem either unattainable or not as highly valued. Perception of own ability and the subjective meaning of the task are therefore critical to flow, and to an understanding of peak performance.

Perceived ability is a central construct of achievement behavior research (e.g., Nicholls, 1984; Roberts, 1984). Several investigators have argued that perceptions of own ability and ability attributions play a central role in mediating motivation and perceptions of success and failure (e.g., Bandura, 1977; Harter, 1978; Roberts, 1984). But Nicholls (1984) argues that ability is conceptualized in two forms. The first and more generally recognizable form occurs when one is striving to demonstrate that one has equal or more ability than others. One is ego-involved because the focus is on the self and on enhancing perceptions of oneself through comparison with others, who are viewed as competitors. With this goal, termed here competitive orientation, winning is viewed as a measure of success and losing as a measure of failure.

Nicholls (1984) argues that ability can also be perceived as the striving to achieve mastery or demonstrate learning at a task. One is task-involved because the focus is on the task one is engaged in. The goal is not to be better than someone else but rather to do the best one can within the achievement situation. This goal, termed here mastery orientation, makes use of a self-referenced concept of ability, in contrast to the normative ability framework operating in competitive orientation.

The importance of recognizing the two conceptions of ability are manifest in the research that reveals that mastery oriented individuals experience greater intrinsic interest in tasks, persist longer, and are more likely to be performing the task for its own sake (cf. Duda, 1989, in press). Competitive oriented individuals are more likely to focus on outcomes, give up in the face of failure, and manifest learned helplessness when perception of ability is low (cf. Duda, 1989, in press; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). It would appear therefore that individuals who are mastery oriented are more likely to experience the components of flow and, one may hypothesize, are more likely to experience peak performance. Thus it is critical to recognize the concept of ability employed by the athlete when investigating peak performance.

Nicholls (1984, 1989) states that the subjective experience of the individual and the social constraints within the environment are more likely to make one concept of ability or the other more manifest. This adoption of a concept of ability then leads to the development of a goal of action consistent with that concept. Thus an individual develops a relatively stable set of criteria by which to assess ability which is manifested as a goal of action (Ames, 1987; Nicholls, 1989). This goal of action is viewed as an individual difference variable. These goals of action have been shown to exist in sport (Duda, 1987, 1989, in press; Ewing, 1981; Gill & Dzewaltowski, 1988; Roberts, 1984, in press).

Research on peak performance in sport suggests that this state may be related to the adoption of a mastery goal of action (Garfield & Bennett, 1984; Loehr, 1984; Ravizza, 1973, 1984). Although they do not refer to the term mastery, all of these researchers cite evidence that total focus on the activity (not the outcome) and complete task absorption are defining characteristics of superior performance states in athletes. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) even discusses extreme states of task involvement when individuals are in flow.


The purpose of this study was to provide insight into peak performance by examining relationships between athletes' goals of action (termed goal orientations), the perception of flow, perception of ability, and the quality of competitive performance. Based on the extant literature, several hypotheses were advanced. Because the mastery oriented athletes' focus of attention is on the process of the performance rather than the outcome, and these characteristics are associated with the perception of peak performance and flow, it is hypothesized that athletes are primarily mastery oriented during peak performance. The corollary to this hypothesis is that because a mastery orientation should be associated with experiencing a flow state (with this goal one is motivated to demonstrate competence at the task that leads to task absorption), it is hypothesized that athletes who are high in mastery goal orientation experience flow more often than athletes who are low in mastery goal orientation.

Flow occurs when there is a balance between perceived challenges and skills. Athletes who are confident in their ability are more likely to believe they can meet the challenge of a situation. Therefore it is hypothesized that athletes who are high in perceived ability experience flow more often than athletes who are low in perceived ability. Further, due to the similarity between the psychological state experienced during peak performance (e.g., focused attention, feelings of control and ultimate confidence) and the characteristics of flow, it is hypothesized that athletes are in a state of flow during peak performance.

Finally, a competitive goal orientation may hinder an athlete from attaining the necessary psychological state for peak performance to occur. A competitive orientation may not necessarily lead to poor performance, especially when the athlete's perception of ability is high. When performing, however, athletes may be distracted by how they are performing relative to others and may focus upon the anticipated outcome of their performance. When performing poorly, it is likely that athletes are more distracted about the outconle. Therefore it is hypothesized that athletes are primarily competitively oriented during their worst performances.

Method

Participants

The sample of 200 Division I college athletes from a large midwestern university included both males (n=110) and females (n=90) ranging in age from 17 to 25, with a mean age of 19.4 years. Mean years of competitive involvement in their sport was 8, with a range of 1 to 17 years. The participants were distributed among the 4 college years (32% 1st year, 28% 2nd, 19% 3rd, and 20% 4th year); 48% received financial aid.

The sports represented were gymnastics (n=34), swimming (n=40), golf (n=21), track athletes (n=19), cross-country and distance runners (n=32), field athletes (n=25), tennis players (n=20), and divers (n=9). Only individual sports were included in order to minimize the problems associated with athletes holding different team and individual goals (Duda, 1987) and to avoid dealing with the complexity of motivation associated with team as well as individual performance.

160 Jackson and Roberts

Instrument

When the study was conducted, there were no scales to assess the goal orientations or the perception of flow within sport. Therefore the first step in this study was to develop instruments to assess these variables.'

Development of the Goal Orientation Scale. The goal orientation items were drawn from the work of Nicholls and colleagues (Nicholls, Patashnick, & Nolen, 1985) and from Gill and Deeter (1988). Even though the Gill scale was not developed to assess goal orientations as defined in this study, some of the items were included because the sport orientations defined by Gill had some similarity to the constructs of mastery and competitiveness (cf. Duda, in press). Therefore the items that corresponded to the constructs of mastery and competitiveness were used, along with items developed by Nicholls et al. used in academic contexts.

A 16-item inventory was developed to measure mastery and competitive goal orientations. The eight mastery oriented items included "I give everything in competition regardless of the strength of the competition" and "Achieving personal improvement is more important to me than winning." Eight items were used to measure competitive goal orientation. Examples of competitive questions are "Winning is very important to me" and "In competition, I am always trying to outperform my opponents." A 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used with each item. The athletes responded to how each item represented the way they usually felt about competition.

The items were subjected to a principal-components factor analysis with orthogonal rotation. A two-factor solution emerged with 40.7% of the variance explained. The first factor was labeled mastery and accounted for 23.2% of the variance. The second factor was labeled competitive and accounted for 17.5% of the variance. One item was deleted from the competitive scale, as it decreased

' the coefficient alpha. Thus the final solution was a 15-item scale with eight items assessing mastery and seven items assessing competitiveness. The reliability analyses yielded coefficient alphas of .66 for the mastery subscale and .76 for the competitive subscale. Both were deemed acceptable for the purpose of the present study. There was a slight negative correlation between mastery and competitive orientations, r = -.12, pc.05.

Development of the Flow Scale. The items corresponding to flow were drawn from the flow scale used by Csikszentmihalyi and other researchers of flow (described in Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988) and modified to be consistent with the competitive sport experience. Ten items were developed to measure flow and were subjected to a principal-components factor analysis with orthogonal rotation. Six items loaded on the first factor, which accounted for most of the variance (22.4%). These six items had a coefficient alpha of .74, which was considered acceptable for the present study. This 6-item scale was used as the measure of flow in the analyses. The six items used as the final flow scale closely parallel the six characteristics of flow described by Csikszentmihalyi (1975, 1979). These six characteristics of flow and the final 6-item flow scale used in the analyses are presented in Table 1.

' The total questionnaire is available from the first author.


Table 1

Comparison of Components of Flow According to Csikszentmihalyi and Flow Scale ltems

Csikszentmihalyi Flow scale items

1. Centering of attention on a limited stimulus field

2. Clear, noncontradictory demands for action & unambiguous feedback

3. Merging of action & awareness 4. Loss of self or ego; automatic

5. Feeling of being in control of one's actions & environment

6. Intrinsically rewarding; autotelic

1. My attention is focused entirely on what I am doing

2. 1 know clearly what I am supposed to do

3. My mind & body work in perfect unison 4. 1 have to make an effort to keep my mind

on what is happening 5. 1 don't feel in control

6. 1 really enjoyed the experience

Note. ltems 4 and 5 of the questionnaire involve reverse scoring.

Assessment of Perceived Ability. Athletes rated their ability on two 10- point Likert scales, from 1 = extremely poor to 10 = extremely good, following the methods of Nicholls (Nicholls et al., 1985). The first question asked the athletes to rate how good they felt they were, and the second question asked them to rate how good they thought they were in relation to most of the athletes they competed against. Both questions were asked to ensure that athletes did not answer only according to their dominant notion of ability. Because the two questions were significantly correlated (r=.65), the mean of the two questions was used in the statistical analyses.

Best and Worst Performances. Five open-ended questions asked for athletes' thoughts about their best and worst performances. They were asked with two purposes in mind: to ascertain whether focus before and during performance could be categorized into mastery and competitive oriented patterns of cognitions, and to examine whether athletes mentioned flow components while describing their best performances. This procedure was employed to add validity to the scales developed above, and constituted a multimethod approach to data collection. The same format was used for both best and worst performances. For the purposes of this study, best performance was equated with peak performance because the latter is essentially a self-referenced phenomenon-a behavior that goes beyond a person's usual or average functioning (Privette, 1983). Therefore an athlete's best performance is his or her peak performance up to that time. The first question asked for a description of the performance. Subjects were then asked to indicate what they were thinking about in the time leading up to and during their performance. The final two questions asked athletes why they thought they performed as they did.

Challenges and Skills Ratings. In accord with Csikszentmihalyi's (1975) definition of flow as occumng when there is a perceived balance between the challenges and one's skills in a situation, an assessment of challenges and skills


for best and worst performances was included. Athletes rated the challenges of their best and worst performances as well as their skills in these situations on a 9-point scale ranging from 0 = low to 9 = high. This second assessment of flow is routinely used by Csikszentmihalyi to measure flow in an activity.

Procedure and Analyses

Questionnaires were administered to the athletes at a specially arranged time, either before or after practice. Normal informed consent procedures were followed. The administrator read standardized instructions, answered any questions the athletes had about the questionnaire, and collected the completed questionnaires. The flow scale was answered three times, first as a general measure of frequency of flow in competition, and then as an indicator of how true or false each characteristic of flow was to the athlete's best and worst performances. Thus the athletes were asked to respond to the flow scale at the front of the questionnaire as well as after answering the open-ended questions on best and worst competitive performances. The total questionnaire took 20 to 40 minutes to complete.

The procedures used in this study called for a combination of quantitative and qualitative analyses. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to quantitatively analyze the data. Mean scores from the mastery, competitive, perceived ability, and flow scales are presented in Table 2.

These scores were used to categorize athletes into high and low groupings on each factor. This procedure was followed to create maximal separation between the groups on the constructs of interest in order to clarify the associations between variables. The method used to classify subjects as belonging to either the high or low group for all categorized variables was to take -5 standard deviation above and below the mean. This method has been used by researchers analyzing similar variables (e.g., Arnes & Archer, 1988; Duda, 1988). By removing those subjects clustered about the mean, it was assumed that those subjects included in highpow comparisons were representative of someone high or low on the variables assessed.

Table 2

Mean Scores and Categorization of Subjects Into Orientation, Perceived Ability, and Flow Groups

variablea M SD Low group range N High group range N

Task orientation (8) 33.43 3.62 24-32 72 35-40 88 Ego orientation (7) 26.1 3 4.28 10-24 66 28-35 87 Perceived ability 7.14 1.46 3.5-6 50 8-1 0 71 Flow (6) 22.81 3.78 12-21 70 25-30 75

a~umber in parentheses reflects the number of items (when greater than 1) involved in computing the mean.


A number of open-ended questions were included in the questionnaire to assess whether athletes would focus on mastery and competitive conceptions of abilitv, and descrivtors of flow. when asked t o describe their best and worst perfooAances. ~ l f o w i n ~ athletes to discuss their thought processes during competition, in addition to having them respond to closed questions, should show how imvortant the constructs were to them. Predetermined criteria were used to classify athletes' responses into mastery or competitive orientations, or a combination of both. Definitions of a mastery and competitive focus were decided a priori on the basis of Nicholls' (1984) definition of the two concepts of ability.

To be classified as having a mastery or process focus required a mention of what one was going to do (before start), or of what one was doing (during performance); that is, attention was focused on the process of performing. To be classified as having a competitive or outcome focus required a mention of thoughts about winning or what the outcome may be (before start), and on what the outcome was likely to be or how one was doing in relation to others (during performance). If an athlete mentioned both process and outcome related thoughts, he or she was classified as having a dual focus (i.e., high mastery, high competitive). If an athlete did not mention either goal focus, no response was coded. Two independent raters, trained in qualitative analyses and thoroughly familiar with the above classification scheme, classified the responses. Interrater reliability was high (85.6%). Any discrepancies in interpretation were discussed and adjusted accordingly.

Results The purpose of the present study was to investigate the perception of peak performance and determine whether this optimal performance state was related to flow and motivational constructs. Several hypotheses were advanced: Athletes were hypothesized to be primarily mastery oriented during their peak (best) performance and competitively oriented during their worst. Ath- letes who were high in mastery orientation and perceived ability were hypothesized to experience flow more often than athletes who were low in mastery orientation and perceived ability. Athletes were hypothesized to be in flow during their peak (best) performance. In the analyses therefore, we examined the relationship between each athlete's perception of peak performance and hisher achievement goal orientations, perception of flow, and perceived ability.

Regression analysis was used to compare the unique contribution of goal orientations and perceived ability to the prediction of the perception of flow. To determine a more fine-grained analysis of the relative contributions of goal orientations and perceived ability, analyses of variance were used. To examine the relationship between flow and peak performance, the flow assessments (flow scale and challenges and skills ratings) for best and worst performances were examined, and the best performance flow scores were compared with flow scores in competition in general as well as during worst performance. In addition, the qualitative analyses of the open-ended questions on best and worst performances were analyzed in order to provide further information on the relationship between flow and peak performance.


Goal Orientation, Perceived Ability, and Flow

To gain an understanding of the relationships between goal orientation, perceived ability, and flow, a stepwise regression was conducted on the frequency-of-flow factor. Mastery orientation, competitive orientation, perceived ability, and a fourth variable, highest level competed at, were entered as predictor variables. This last factor was entered to assess whether an objective ability measure would be related to experience of flow. As shown in Table 3, perceived ability was the first predictor of flow, followed by mastery orientation. Neither competitive orientation nor highest level competed at entered the equation. Taken tigether, perceived ability and mastery orientation accounted for approximately 13% of the variance in frequency of flow in competition. This small R2 value indicates that other factors, not here assessed, are associated with flow experiences in athletic competition.

Understanding how goal orientation may influence flow was one of the main interests of this study. It was hypothesized that athletes who were high in mastery orientation would experience flow more frequently than athletes low in mastery orientation. To assess an association between goal orientation and flow, a 2 x 2 ANOVA was conducted with flow as the dependent variable and mastery and competitive orientations as the independent variables. It revealed a main effect for mastery, F(1,119) = 10.02, pc.01. High-mastery athletes had a higher flow score (M=23.46) than athletes low on mastery (M=21.23). No main effect emerged for competitive orientation: High competitive athletes (M=22.98) did not differ from low competitive athletes (M=21.89). No reliable interaction emerged. The ANOVA findings confirmed the hypothesis that athletes oriented toward mastery would experience flow more frequently than athletes who were low in mastery orientation.

It was hypothesized that perception of ability would be related to the perception of successful performance as manifest in flow. Athletes high in perceived ability were compared with athletes low in perceived ability on the frequency with which they experienced flow in competition, and were operationally defined as those with values .5 standard deviation above or below the mean. The results of a one-way ANOVA comparing the two perceived-ability groups revealed that the high-perceived-ability group experienced flow more often (M=23.88) than the low-perceived-ability group (M=21.18), F(1,118) = 15.98, p<.001, as hypothesized.

Table 3

Stepwise Multiple Regression Predicting Frequency of Flow

Step Variable F P Multiple R Beta Variance (%)

1 Perceived ability 14.50 < .001 .271 .276 7.34 2 Task orientation 13.49 < .001 .359 .236 12.91

Note. Ego orientation and highest level competed at did not enter equation.

Positive Performance States - 165

Due to the significant association between flow and perceived ability, an analysis of covariance was conducted to assess whether the differences in flow between high and low mastery orientation groups was related to the association between high perceived ability and flow. The 2 x 2 ANCOVA, with mastery and competitive orientations as the independent factors and perceived ability as the covariate, revealed that when the significant effect of perceived ability was removed, F(1,116) = 14.36, p<.001, there was still a significant difference between high and low mastery oriented athletes on flow, F(I,116) = 10.75, p<.001. This result strengthens the demonstrated significant relationship found between frequency of flow and mastery orientation.

The analyses used to assess the relationships between goal orientation, perceived ability, and flow suggest there is a positive association between mastery orientation and flow, and between high perceived ability and flow. As hypothesized, athletes with a high mastery orientation experienced flow more often than athletes low in mastery orientation, and athletes high in perceived ability experienced flow more often than athletes low in perceived ability. The lack of association between competitive orientation and flow suggests that focusing on the outcome and/or on outperforming others may not help athletes achieve a state of functioning characterized by a full focus on the task and a sense of control and effortlessness, characteristics associated with being in flow and with peak performance.

Flow and Peak Pevfomzance An important association examined in this study was between flow and peak performance. It was hypothesized that athletes are in flow during their peak performances. Several analyses were conducted to test this predicted relationship. Flow scores were calculated for subjects' best and worst performances, in addition to a more general measure of frequency of flow experiences in competition. These measures were assessed using the same scale (worded in different tenses accordingly), where the maximum possible flow score was 30. The mean score for experience of flow in competition generally was 22.81. Best performance flow rating was 27.42; worst performance flow rating was 13.32.

The mean score of 27.42 out of a maximum of 30 illustrates the high flow rating given by athletes for their best performances. A t test was conducted that compared the mean flow score for general competition experience with flow score for best performance. This analysis indicated that flow is experienced to a greater degree in the athletes' best performance than it is generally when they compete, t(197) = 16.93, p<.001. The very low mean flow rating during worst performances was also significantly different from the best performance flow rating, t(192) = 45.15, p<.001.

Another measure of flow during peak performance was assessed by asking subjects to rate the challenges and skills of their best and worst performances on a 9-point scale. For best performance, athletes gave mean scores of 8.01 and 7.77 for challenges and skills, respectively. When asked the same questions for worst performance, athletes gave mean scores of 6.40 and 2.96, respectively. Thus, in contrast to the very small difference between challenges and skills in best performances, there was a large difference between challenges and skills in worst performances. Both challenges and skills were perceived to be higher in best performances.


The athletes tended to perceive the challenge of the task as high in best and worst performances, but the perception of the necessary skills to cope with the challenge differed markedly. Skills were perceived to match challenge in best performance but to be much lower than the challenge when performance was poor. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) clearly states that one of the primary elements of the perception of flow is the belief that one's skills are sufficient to meet the demands of the achievement context. It may be assumed that this happens in best performances, but apparently it did not happen in worst performances with the athletes in this study.

To further assess the relationship between flow and peak performance, athletes' descriptions of their best performance were content-analyzed for descriptors that matched any of the flow items from the flow scale used in this study. This also provided further validation for the flow questionnaire. Of the 200 athletes, 114 mentioned at least one flow factor in describing their best performance. As Table 4 shows, the most frequently mentioned item (n = 76) was related to focus of attention: "My attention was focused entirely on what I was doing." This is an ex- ample of a process as opposed to an outcome type of focus. The distinction between a process and an outcome focus for the athletes' performances is described next.

Focus During Best and Worst Performances. It was hypothesized that athletes are primarily mastery focused during their best performances and competitively focused during their worst performances. Each athlete's responses were examined to determine whether they could be coded into mastery (process) or competitive (outcome) oriented thoughts. The percentage of responses that fit the predetermined coding are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 shows a considerable contrast in thinking between best and worst performances. Thoughts before the start of performance, shown in the upper half of the table, were similar to those reported during performance, shown in the lower portion of the table. The majority of responses that could be categorized as either process or outcome related for best performances were process related: Some 66% of athletes reported process related thoughts during their best performance. In contrast, the majority of categorized responses during worst performances were outcome related: Nearly 88% of athletes reported an outcome focus during their worst performance. There was similarity between the responses for thoughts at the start of one's performance and thoughts during the performance, as shown in Table

Table 4

Frequency of Flow Descriptors for Athletes' Best Performances

Flow factor No. times mentioned

1. Focused attention 2. Know clearly what to do 3. Mind & body unison 4. No effort to keep focused 5. Felt in control 6. Really enjoyed experience


Table 5

Focus of Thoughts Reported by Subjects During Best and Worst Performances

Focus Process Outcome Both

Performance N n YO n % n %

Before start Best 168 102 60.7 47 28.0 19 11.3 Worst 127 25 19.7 96 75.6 6 4.7

During performance Best 175 116 66.3 24 13.7 35 20.0 Worst 144 10 6.9 126 87.5 8 5.6

5. The fact that 87.5% of subjects reported being outcome focused during their worst performance is perhaps the most significant finding of these categorizations.

To illustrate the focus of best and worst performances, a sample of the athletes' descriptions of their focus during best and worst performance is presented below. Best performance focus:

My best performance was when it seemed that my body and mind were in perfect unison. There were no distractions. It was just myself and the event. Winning was not important. All that mattered was how I performed compared to past achievements. In this competition I was totally focused on the routine. It was not an exhausting experience as it sometimes is. It was energizing. (Gymnast)

I wrote down some goals before the match. One was to really enjoy myself and the other was to be completely focused on the ball. 1 was going to try to achieve these goals and not wony about the outcome. I was trying to play one point at a time and focus on the ball, to really try to see the ball. I was confident but not really thinking about winning or losing-I was totally engrossed in the task at hand. Nothing else existed. Just me, the ball, and nothing else. Therefore, I played in total control. (Tennis player)

Worst performance focus:

I knew I was going to lose. I was just thinking of the outcome. I thought about how everyone would perceive my performance. And if this performance was not just a bad day, but permanent. (Field athlete)

I was like, "No, no, I don't belong up here"-it was way in the back of my mind, "I'm not that good, do I really belong up here?" Running the race I was not focused at all. I was looking everywhere. I remember at one point thinking that I should be up further. I thought, "Well, what does it matter, you're not going to qualify anyway." Instead of concentrating on the task at hand, I let the fear of the outcome paralyze me. (Runner)


Comparing best and worst performances yielded more information than just examining best performances, as is often done in studies of peak performance (Garfield & Bennett, 1984; Williams, 1986). By examining worst performances, it became clear that an outcome focus may have prevented the athletes from performing well. Focus in best performance, on the other hand, was process- centered. This finding of full focus of attention on the performance is similar to Nideffer's (Nideffer & Sharpe, 1978) work on attention and concentration. How- ever, it is the distinction between a process-centered focus and an outcome-centered focus that seemed to be critical to the performance of the athletes in this study.

Discussion The main concern of this study was to examine positive performance states of athletes. However, rather than documenting the psycholo~ical characteristics of peak performance as in the past (Garfield & Bennett, 1984; Loehr, 1984; Williams, 1986), this study attempted to investigate possible psychological dynamics of peak performance. To accomplish this, a social cognitive perspective was adopted to study the elements of peak performance. Peak performance was hypothesized to be associated with the concept of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975; Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). A central characteristic of flow is the perception of whether one has the ability to meet the demands of a task or activity. However, ability in contexts such as sport is a complex phenomenon.

The present study applied concepts emanating from Nicholls' (1984) theory of motivation to more sharply focus upon concepts of ability. Ability was assumed to have two concepts manifested in two orientations, mastery and competitive, which were hypothesized to affect the perception of positive performance states.

Conception of ability was studied as a potential mediator of perception of peak performance. The results of this study provide support for the prediction that if one adopts a perspective that is self-referenced and mastery-focused, then one may be more likely to achieve a positive performance state. Athletes who are high in mastery orientation experienced flow more frequently than athletes low in mastery. In addition, a mastery orientation was often associated with athletes' best performances, and a competitive orientation with worst performances. Due to the associational nature of this study, directionality cannot be assumed; it is quite possible that performing successfully in a competitive situation induces a positive psychological state. Further research is needed to clarify the nature of the relationship between the perspective held in competition and one's quality of performance.

Peak performance was found to be associated with flow, and the evidence of this study suggests that the state of flow may be necessary for the perception of peak performance. Athletes experienced high levels of flow during their best performance. Flow may make the difference between a good performance and a great performance.

Previous research on peak performance (Garfield & Bennett, 1984; Loehr, 1984; Ravizza, 1973, 1984) suggests a relationship with a flow state. These researchers highlight the importance of a total focus of attention on the activity and complete task absorption to superior performance states in athletes. The present study supports this finding, but in addition provides some evidence of the psychological perspective that may give rise to superior performance states.

It is difficult to assess the impact of cognitive variables such as mastery or competitive orientation on peak performance, but the evidence from this study


is certainly suggestive. The athletes with a mastery orientation seemed more able to experience flow, which in turn led to the perception of peak performance. The relationships between mastery orientation, flow, and peak performance show an important potential link between cognitions and quality of performance. The retrospective approach used in this study can only allow us to take note of the association. Clearly, future studies should find more direct ways to measure the associations between these constructs.

Instrument development is another area that needs to be addressed by future research. However, when trying to understand subjective phenomena such as flow, attentional focus, and perceptions of performance, qualitative methods are a valuable source of information and have the potential to reveal more about participants' experiences than standardized instruments. Exploring both avenues, quantitative and qualitative, is therefore warranted.

The evidence from this study suggests that mastery orientation and flow are conceptually similar. Flow may be the result of extreme states of a mastery oriented focus (Roberts, 1984). This study showed a relationship between high levels of mastery orientation and frequent flow experiences. In addition, flow was found to be associated with high levels of perceived ability. It may be that athletes who are sufficiently confident in their ability are more likely to take on a mastery focus when their ability is put to the test, such as in competition.

Thus a conceptual link has been made between important social cognitive variables employed in motivation research and quality of experience in sport competition. Being motivated to perform to the best of one's ability, to perform the task as well as possible and believing in one's ability to do so, is associated with achieving the positive performance state of flow while performing. Further- more, this flow state is associated with achieving peak performance. Defining flow and peak performance is the characteristic of focused attention. Being motivated by personal challenge and a mastery orientation may lead to focused attention on the performance. In contrast, an outcome focus and competitive orientation may prevent full attention on the task because of concern with the outcome. Thus the paradox of peak performance: Superior behavior may be harder to achieve when one is focused on trying to achieve it.

Practical Implications

Several implications for how athletes approach competition and how they focus during competition can be drawn from the findings of this study. It must be remembered that this study provided evidence of associations only, and further research is needed to confirm and clarify the relationships that were found.

1. The distinction between mastery and competitive goals should be made clear to athletes, as well as the influence that their goal orientation can have on competition focus. Athletes should be encouraged to focus on mastery oriented goals during performance, since these goals are related to what the athlete actually has to do and are goals the athlete has more control over. The findings from this study suggest that a mastery orientation is related to flow and to performing well.

2. A competitive orientation was associated with poor performance in this study. However, it was an outcome focus during performance that was detrimen- tal, not an orientation toward competitive or outcome goals in general. Therefore it seems to be the timing of goal orientation that is critical, not whether one is mastery or competitively oriented in general. As the time to compete draws near,


it is suggested that focus becomes directed onto the task of performing, that is, a mastery orientation should be favored at this time.

3. High perceived ability is related to flow and to athletes' best performances. Therefore, confidence-building techniques and strategies to help an athlete believe in himself or herself at the time of competition should help the athlete perform to his or her potential and make it more likely that a flow state can be achieved.

4. A fundamental characteristic of flow states is that there is a perceived balance between the challenges and one's skills in a situation. Therefore athletes should be placed in situations in which they can find this balance. If it is not possible to change the objective context, athletes should be encouraged to redefine the challenges of the situation (e.g., set personal goals) so that they may approach the competition with confidence.

The findings of this study were group based, and it is possible to draw some general principles from such findings. Finally, however, each individual will have his or her own definition of appropriate competition focus, according to what has worked in the past. Therefore it is suggested that athletes be made aware of principles such as those implied by this study, but that they also be encouraged to analyze their own cognitions and behaviors during good and poor performances. In this way, athletes should be able to develop a competition focus that will enhance the likelihood of experiencing positive performance states.

References Ames, C. (1987). The enhancement of student motivation. In M.L. Maehr (Ed.), Advances

in motivation and achievement: Vol. 5. Enhancing motivation (pp. 123-148). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,260-267.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1979). The concept of flow. In B. Sutton-Smith (Ed.), Play and

learning (pp. 335-358). New York: Gardner Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I.S. (1988). Optimal experience: Psychological

studies of flow in consciousness. New York: Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Nakamura, J. (1989). The dynamics of intrinsic motivation. In

R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Handbook of motivation theory and research (Vol. 3, pp. 45-71). New York: Academic Press.

Duda, J.L. (1987, April). Criteria underlying perceived successlfailure among children with different pre-game goals. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Las Vegas.

Duda, J.L. (1988). The relationship between goal perspectives, persistence and intensity among recreational sport participants. Leisure Sciences, 10, 95-106.

Duda, J.L. (1989). Goal perspectives and behavior in sport and exercise settings. In C. Ames & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 6, pp. 81-1 15). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Duda, J.L. (in press). Motivation in sport settings: A goal perspective approach. In G.C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.


Ewing, M.E. (198 1). Achievement orientations and sport behaviors of males and females. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Garfield, C.A., & Bennett, H.Z. (1984). Peak performance: Mental training techniques of the world's greatest athletes. Los Angeles: Tarcher.

Gill, D.S., & Deeter, T.E. (1988). Development of the Sport Orientation Questionnaire. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59(3), 191-202.

Gill, D.L., & Dzewaltowski, D.A. (1988). Competitive orientations among intercollegiate athletes: Is winning the only thing? The Sport Psychologist, 2, 212-221.

Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered. Toward a developmental model. Human Development, 21, 34-64.

Loehr, J.E. (1984, March). How to overcome stress and play at your peak all the time. Tennis, pp. 66-76.

Nicholls, J.G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.

Nicholls, J.G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Nicholls, J.G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S.B. (1985). Adolescents' theories of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 683-692.

Nideffer, R.M., & Sharpe, R.C. (1978). A.C.T.: Attention control training. New York: Widen Books.

Privette, G. (1981). Dynamics of peak performance. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 21, 57-67.

Privette, G. (1983). Peak experience, peak performance, and flow: A comparative analysis of positive human experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1361-1368.

Privette, G., & Bundrick, C.M. (1991). Peak experience, peak performance, and flow: Personal descriptions and theoretical constructs. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 169-188.

Ravizza, K. (1973). A study of the peak experience in sport. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.

Ravizza, K. (1984). Qualities of the peak experience in sport. In J.M. Silva & R.S. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 452-462). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Roberts, G.C. (1984). Achievement motivation in children's sport. In J.G. Nicholls & M.L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 3. The development of achievement motivation (pp. 251-281). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Roberts, G.C. (in press). Motivation in sport and exercise: Toward a conceptual conver- gence. In G.C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Williams, J.M. (1986). Psychological characteristics of peak performance. In J.M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (pp. 123- 132). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.

Manuscript submitted: November 14, 1990 Revision received: July 16, 1991

Documents

Positive Performance States of Athletes: Toward a ... Performance States of Athletes: Toward a Conceptual Understanding of Peak Performance Susan A. Jackson UNC at Greensboro Glyn