Two Theories of Choking
Two major theories explain performance decline under pressure. Distraction theory proposes that pressure generates anxiety and self-relevant thoughts that occupy working memory capacity, reducing resources available for task processing. This theory is mainly applied to choking on cognitively complex tasks (such as math). Explicit monitoring theory proposes that pressure induces conscious attention to automated motor skills, 'de-automatizing' movements that should execute unconsciously. This theory is mainly applied to choking on motor skills (sports, typing, aiming). Both mechanisms can operate in MyRank tests: applying the two theories, explicit monitoring may matter more in reaction time tests and distraction in color perception tests. Crucially, choking is not absence of ability but a psychological process that prevents ability expression.
Self-Consciousness and Motor Control De-Automatization
Highly automated skills like typing and aiming are stored as procedural memories in the basal ganglia, executing without conscious control. However, in explicit monitoring theory, when self-consciousness of 'I must perform well' arises, the prefrontal cortex is thought to begin intervening in motor control. This intervention decomposes smooth automated movement sequences into individual elements, attempting to sequentially monitor and control each. Consequently, movement fluency is lost, with increased timing errors. The same mechanism is sometimes used to explain pianists 'becoming unable to play the moment they become conscious of finger movements.' In an fMRI study by Lee and Grafton (2015), during a pre-trained motor task with large financial rewards, dorsolateral prefrontal activity and its connectivity with motor cortex increased just before choking, but participants whose connectivity increased less were more prone to choke. The authors describe these results as consistent with a distraction account, a different view from explicit monitoring theory. In explicit monitoring theory, conscious monitoring that breaks down automated movement is offered as one reason for 'can do it in practice but not in performance.'
Individual Differences and Predictors of Pressure Resistance
Choking severity varies greatly between individuals under identical pressure. Self-consciousness trait has been studied as one predictor, but in experiments by Baumeister (1984), individuals low in dispositional self-consciousness were more susceptible to choking under pressure than those high in it. Another predictor that has been proposed is reappraisal ability: those who can interpret pressure as challenge rather than threat are said to show a smaller cortisol response and to resist choking. On math tasks, working memory capacity is also said to play a part, in a counterintuitive direction. In a study of math problem solving by Beilock and Carr (2005), only individuals high in working memory capacity were harmed by performance pressure, and the decline was limited to the problems placing the highest demands on working memory. The authors suggest this is because pressure consumes the working memory capacity these individuals rely on for their superior performance. Those with smaller working memory capacity were not harmed by pressure in this study.
Training Methods to Build Pressure Resistance
Choking resistance can be trained to some extent. One method considered effective is pressure training, intentionally introducing pressure during practice. Specifically: practicing under observation, committing to publish scores, or setting monetary incentives. This makes performance under pressure a 'familiar state,' which is thought to reduce novelty during actual performance. The second method is external focus training. Forming habits of attending to movement outcomes or environment (external focus) rather than body movements (internal focus). For typing, attend to 'characters appearing on screen' not 'finger movements.' For aiming, attend to 'cursor-target distance' not 'hand movement.' External focus is said to help maintain automated motor control and make explicit monitoring less likely. Third, establishing pre-test routines. Ritualizing preparation behaviors shifts attention from anxiety to procedure.
Anti-Choking Strategies for MyRank Tests
In MyRank tests too, choking can set in the moment you become conscious of beating personal bests. First, cognitive restructuring of 'releasing attachment to results' is a useful starting point. Explicitly self-instruct: 'this score doesn't define my worth' and 'this is merely measuring current state.' Next, shift attention focus from 'score' to 'process.' For reaction time tests, concentrate on 'seeing the color change' not 'pressing fast.' For typing tests, concentrate on 'reading the next word' not 'typing fast.' This focus shift helps suppress self-monitoring and keep movements automatic. Also, when a trial 'feels slow,' don't pursue evaluative thoughts about it; switch attention to the next trial. Rumination about past trials is thought to occupy working memory, and can drag down performance in subsequent trials. A 'mindfulness attitude' of resetting attention each trial tends to support stable scores.