ENHANCING LONG JUMP PERFORMANCE THROUGH ATTENTIONAL FOCUS
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Kinesiology and Health Science
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
in
Kinesiology
by
Eric Ryan Fremd
SPRING
2013
ENHANCING LONG JUMP PERFORMANCE THROUGH ATTENTIONAL FOCUS
A Thesis
by
Eric Ryan Fremd
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. William H. Edwards
__________________________________, Second Reader
Dr. Michael Wright
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Eric Ryan Fremd
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________
Dr. Michael Wright
Date
Department of Kinesiology and Health Science
iii
Abstract
of
ENHANCING LONG JUMP PERFORMANCE THROUGH ATTENTIONAL FOCUS
by
Eric Ryan Fremd
Statement of Problem
Most track and field events have not received much attention by researchers
investigating attentional focus. The long jump, being one of the track events that has been
neglected in previous studies is in need of research to find which attentional focus
produces the greatest performances (Partridge, Porter, & Wu 2012). Studies on
attentional focus have mostly been done on skills that manipulate an object in some
manner (Nolan, Porter, Ostrowski, & Wu, 2010). Conducting research on the long jump,
a skill that requires no object manipulation, and is a whole body movement, will add new
empirical evidence to the field of attentional focus. The findings could potentially be of
great use to practitioners and coaches for instructing the long jump and possibly other
track events as well (Nolan, Porter, Ostrowski, & Wu, 2010).
Sources of Data
An external focus of attention has been shown to produce greater results than an
internal focus of attention. The Constrained Action Hypothesis explains that when a
performer adopts an external focus of attention, a more automatic control process is used
iv
that leads to faster and more reflexive movements. Adopting an internal focus of attention
will cause the natural automatic control processes to be interrupted by consciously
attempting to control ones own movements causing decreases in the performance of
movement (Shea & Wulf, 2001).
Adopting an external focus of attention has been seen to induce various
performance enhancements in a multitude of tasks when compared to an internal focus of
attention. These include increased agility, jump height and distance, force production,
muscular efficiency, and others. (Nolan, Ostrowski, porter, & Wulf, 2010; Dufek &
Wulf, 2009; Dufek, Lozano, Pettigrew, & Wulf, 2010; Anton, Porter, & Wu, 2011).
Research needed to investigate whether these performance enhancements will be seen in
the long jump has not been reported. Adding attentional focus research findings to the
coaching literature for track and field is needed (Partridge, Porter, Wu, 2010).
Conclusions Reached
Analysis revealed that there were no significant differences between participants’
performance when employing natural, internal, or external focus conditions. The nullhypotheses were accepted as showing no difference between day 1 and day 2
performances, as well as no differences between the external and internal focus of
attention condition performances.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Dr. William H. Edwards
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my parents Tom & Sharon Fremd for all of their love
and support throughout my life and through graduate school. With out the two of you
none of this could have been possible. I would also like to acknowledge my fiancé
Crystal for always being supportive and encouraging of all the goals that I am striving to
achieve. Acknowledgement must also be paid to all of my friends, mentors, coaches, and
professors for all you have done for me to help me reach this point. Lastly, I would like to
acknowledge and thank Dr. Edwards for all of the guidance you have given me
throughout Graduate school and throughout the process of completing this thesis. Thank
you all.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................... V
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ……………...……………………………………………………….. 1
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 1
Problem ......................................................................................................................... 4
Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 4
Hypothesis .................................................................................................................... 5
Delimitations ................................................................................................................. 5
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 5
Definitions of Terms ..................................................................................................... 6
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................................. 7
Constrained Action Hypothesis ................................................................................... 8
Early Attentional Focus Research ................................................................................. 9
Agility Tasks ............................................................................................................... 12
Force Production ......................................................................................................... 14
Electromyography ....................................................................................................... 17
Peak Forces ................................................................................................................. 18
Distance Effects .......................................................................................................... 19
Expert and Elite Performers ........................................................................................ 23
3. METHODS ....................................................................................................................... 28
Participants................................................................................................................. 28
vii
Instruments ................................................................................................................. 28
Procedures................................................................................................................... 29
Design & Analysis ...................................................................................................... 31
Results........................................................................................................................ 32
4. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 32
Analysis of Data.......................................................................................................... 32
5. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 35
Recommendations for Future Study ........................................................................... 39
Appendix A. Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 42
Appendix B. Track & Field Dynamic Warmup ...................................................................... 43
References ............................................................................................................................... 44
viii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Study
Instructional strategies have a strong impact on motor learning and the
performance of skills (Munzert & Zentgraf, 2009). The type of instructions and how they
are given influence the effectiveness of what is being taught. The retention, performance
and transfer of the skills being learned are all affected by how the skills are being
instructed (Hodges & Williams, 2005). In sport, being able to learn a skill quickly and
correctly is of high importance. There is never a great amount of time that can be devoted
to repeatedly teaching and learning a single skill. For coaches, simply using proper
instructional strategies can improve their athletes’ performance and increase the
efficiency of their training (Fathi, Sarmi, & Zarghami, 2012).
Applying instructional strategies that have been found to be the most effective
through research are not always applied by practitioners. In fact, research on skill
acquisition has not been given as much support as other science fields by many coaches
and practitioners (Ford & Williams, 2009). This reluctance to apply what researchers
have found to be beneficial instructional strategies could reflect coaches’ unwillingness
to accept what happens in a laboratory as transferring to real world performance
implications (Ericsson & Williams, 2007). Without coaches and practitioners being up to
date on what instructional strategies are the most efficient and useful, it is unlikely that
their learners or athletes will be able to achieve their best performance. (Partridge, Porter,
& Wu, 2010).
2
The instructions that elicit a learners focus of attention have a profound effect on
the performance and retention of the motor skill (Wulf, 2007). There are various
components on which athletes can focus. For instance, when a golf swing is being
performed the learner could attend his or her focus to the swing of the club, the
movement of the arms, the force put into the ground by the legs, the trajectory of the ball,
the intended destination of the ball, or making contact with the ball. When the learners
attend their focus to the appropriate components, their performance will be enhanced
(Wulf, 2007). The opposite is also true. Certain instructions can elicit a focus that can
lead to performance and learning decrements (Munzert & Zentgraf, 2009). In sport, it is
seen as the coaches job to provide instructions that will most benefit their athletes’
performance or learning of a skill. Without knowledge and understanding of the most
current scientific findings regarding instructions and the focus that they elicit, coaches
can unknowingly cause decrements in their athletes’ performance or learning (Ford &
Williams, 2009).
Recently, motor learning research has looked at the effects that instructions have
on a performers’ focus of attention. When performing a task, performers can either focus
their attention internally or externally to themselves (Wulf, 2007, p. 2). The relatively
new research that has been done in this area has found through multiple studies that there
is a significant difference in various measures when a performer focuses his or her
attention internally or externally. When instructions are aimed to induce an internal focus
of attention, the performer will focus on his or her own bodies’ movements. These
movements could be the coordination pattern of how to swing their arm, when to extend
3
the knee, or to extend at the wrist. Any instructions given that try to aim the performer’s
attention toward his or her own body’s movement is considered to be an internal focus of
attention.
Instructions that aim to guide a performer’s focus of attention externally
concentrate on environmental landmarks or on the effects of a movement. Examples of
this type of focus are focusing on the path of a projectile, the inside of the rim of a
basketball hoop, a spot on the ground, or a desired landing spot for a jump. As long as the
performer’s attention is directed away from his or her body to the environment, or to a
movement effect, it is considered an external focus of attention. An external focus of
attention has recently become more accepted by many researchers, because it has been
found through a number of studies to be beneficial for performance and learning.
However, there are still researchers who believe that when learning a skill, an internal
focus of attention is still the best way to maximize the learning of the skill (Wulf, 2007,
p. 2).
A skill that requires high levels of coordination and is considered a difficult motor
skill to master is the long jump (Lee, Lishman, & Thomson, 1982). The long jump is a
track and field event where the performer starts with a run up approach, and jumps from a
designated take off location, with the goal of obtaining the greatest distance possible
(Fowler, Lees, Grahmn-Smith, 1994). Most track and field coaching literature assumes
that the technical instruction given to the athlete will be in an internal fashion. This may
be due to an emphasis that track and field coaches have put on biomechanics. With an
event like the long jump that requires a great amount of coordination at high rates of
4
speed, there should be more coaching literature available with recent research findings on
the most efficient and beneficial motor learning techniques (Partridge, Porter, & Wu
2012).
Problem
Most track and field events (other than the discus) have not received much
attention by researchers investigating attentional focus. The long jump, being one of the
track events that has been neglected in previous studies is in need of research to find
which attentional focus produces the greatest performances (Partridge, Porter, & Wu
2012). Studies on attentional focus have mostly been done on skills that manipulate an
object in some manner (Nolan, Porter, Ostrowski, & Wu, 2010). Conducting research on
the long jump, a skill that requires no object manipulation, and is a whole body
movement, will add new empirical evidence to the field of attentional focus. The findings
could potentially be of great use to practitioners and coaches for instructing the long jump
and possibly other track events as well (Nolan, Porter, Ostrowski, & Wu, 2010).
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine whether an external focus of attention
while performing a long jump would produce greater performances than an internal focus
of attention. The study also examined whether a natural focus of attention would produce
better results while performing a long jump than would an external or internal focus of
attention would.
5
Hypothesis
There will be no significant difference in the participants performance of the long
jump between the natural, external and internal focus of attention conditions.
Delimitations
The delimiting factors for this study were that athletes had to be collegiate
athletes (junior college or university), have had a minimum of 2 years of competitive
experience, and had no existing injuries. The study taking place over 2 consecutive days
could potentially affect the results of the study. Specialized footwear was not provided to
the participants, which could have had an affect on performance. This study had a small
sample size due to the long jump being an event that does not typically see a lot of
participants when compared to other events like the sprints. Finding a large amount of
willing participants in the greater Sacramento area was not possible. The number of
participants was 4. The use of a measuring tape was also a delimiting factor because of
the chance of human error while measuring the jump distances.
Limitations
A limiting factor for this study was that it was conducted outside, in an
uncontrolled environment. The weather could have affected the participants’
performances from trial to trial in negative or positive ways. Not being able to supervise
what the participants did outside of the study was a limiting factor. Any physical activity
outside of the study could not be accounted for. Nutrition and sleep were not accounted
for, which could have affected the performances of the participants. The participants
motivation while participating in the study may have also been a limiting factor.
6
Definitions of Terms
Attentional focus: The focal point of an individuals concentration of a specific aspect of
his or her movements or of the environment
External focus of attention: Attending ones focus to features in the environment or a
movement effect.
Internal focus of attention: Attending one’s focus to his or her own body during a
movement
Long Jump: A track and field event where the performer starts with a run up approach,
and jumps from a designated take off location, with the goal of obtaining the greatest
distance possible
Constrained Action Hypothesis: Focusing on the movements of ones body causes
conscious disruption of natural control processes that would normally regulate
movements effectively and efficiently. When an individual focuses on the movement
effect a more automatic type of control is used. This allows reflexive and unconscious
processes to take control of the body’s movements to a greater degree. Focusing on the
movement effect results in greater performance and learning.
7
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
When learning a motor skill there are three stages of learning that take place, as
proposed by Fitts (1964) and Fitts and Posner (1967). In the first or “cognitive” stage of
learning, a good amount of thought goes into performing the task. The learner will tend to
try various movement strategies, attempting to find the one that will bring him or her the
most success. The cognitive effort that the learner typically puts into performing the task
is typically of the step-by-step process of how to physically perform the task. For
complex skills, it has been seen that the learner spends a great amount of time in this
learning stage, because the performance of the movements are typically uncoordinated,
slow, and of great variance. (Wulf, 2007, p.3)
After the learner has developed an essential movement strategy, and has become
more consistent with performing the task, he or she is considered to be in the second or
“associative” stage of learning. Learners in this stage will devote less attention to the
step-by-step actions of the skill, and will have some components of the skill
automatically controlled. In order to move into the next and final stage of learning, the
autonomous stage, the learner has to have had a great amount of practice. When a learner
reaches this stage, his or her movements are almost exclusively automatic, requiring very
little conscious attention. The learner will show greater coordination in the movement
and be much more efficient in executing the task (Wulf, 2007, p. 4). These three stages of
learning are seen in the theory of explaining why an internal or external focus of attention
can have a significant effect on acquisition and performance of a skill
8
Constrained Action Hypothesis
The constrained action hypothesis, proposed by Wulf, McNevin, and Shea (2001),
aims to explain the differences between the two attentional foci. The theory proposes
that when an individual directs his or her focus inward, toward his or her movements, it
tends to interrupt natural processes that control and regulate the coordination of
movements. By consciously attempting to control their movements to meet the desired
movement outcome, learners disrupt the automatic processes that would otherwise
control their movements with greater success and efficiency. In comparison, when
attention is directed outward toward the environment or to a movement‘s effect, a more
automatic control process allows faster and more reflexive control of a movement. As a
byproduct, performance and learning are increased (McNevin, Shea, & Wulf 2001).
According to the constrained action hypothesis, when a learner adopts an internal
focus, their performance and learning ability resemble that of a learner who is more in the
cognitive stage than any other stage of learning. On the other hand, when an external
focus of attention is adopted, the learner’s performance is more automatic, resembling the
associative, or autonomous stages of learning (Wulf, 2007, p. 114). The higher movement
production efficiency, and lower muscular energy expenditure that is seen in the
autonomous stage of learning, has also been found in studies for beginning learners who
adopt an external focus of attention (Wulf, 2007, p. 4 & 116).
9
Early Attentional Focus Research
The significance of attentional focus was first seen in a study done by Wulf, Hob,
and Prinz (1998) that involved the use of a ski simulator. The objective of this study was
to make the largest oscillatory movements possible and to move as fast as possible.
During this study the researchers gave one group of participants the instructions to “try
and push the platform with the outer foot and focus on that foot”. The second group was
instructed to “focus on the force they exert upon the wheels (which were directly under
their feet). The first group was deemed the “internal” group, and the second group was
deemed the “external group (Hob, Prinz, & Wulf, 1998). A third group was given no
instructions, which was used as the control group. The researchers reasoning was that
because of the minuet difference in the focus of attention, if there was any benefits in
performance and retention of the motor skill for the external focus of attention, the effect
will be a robust one.
Participants performed 8 trials of 90seconds for two days in a row. After a day’s
rest a retention test was given, where the researches’ did not give any instructions on
where to focus attention, as was done on the previous days to elicit specific attentional
foci. For the very first 90 second trial of day 1, all of the participants showed similar
performances. Toward the end of day one and through the end of day 2, the external
focus group demonstrated higher improvements in performance compared to the internal
focus group and the control group. The average amplitudes of movement of the ski
simulator for the external group after day 1 was 12cm greater than the internal group, and
6cm greater than the control group. The retention test showed that the participants who
10
had previously been instructed to adopt an external focus again outperformed the internal
and control groups. They yielded amplitudes 7cm greater than the internal group, and
6cm greater than the control group. These experimental results effectively demonstrated
that the external groups performance and learning of the skill were improved when
compared to the other two groups. One of the interesting findings from this study was the
similarity of the retention test scores of the internal focus group and the control group.
Although both were less efficient when compared to the external groups retention scores,
an internal focus was not significantly less efficient than the control groups scores. This
would suggest that instructions that elicit an internal focus of attention produce the same
learning effect of a skill than no attentional instructions would (Wulf, 2007, p. 39).
A follow up study was done by Wulf and Shea (1999). Their main purpose for
conducting the follow up study was to find out if the results that were found in the ski
simulator study could be replicated in a different task. This study used a stabilometer
task, where the participants objective was to maintain balance and keep the platform as
horizontal as possible. The study took place over 3 days, with the first 2 days used as
practice days, and the third day used as a retention test day. Four groups were involved in
the study. Two of the four groups received either internal or external focus instructions.
The internal group was instructed to focus on keeping their feet horizontal, while the
external group was instructed to focus on keeping two markers on the platform just in
front of their feet horizontal. The other two groups received the same internal or external
instructions, but also received concurrent feedback on a computer screen of their
performance during each trial. The internal-feedback group was told that the pink line on
11
the monitor should be thought of as their feet. The external-feedback group was told the
lines represented the markers in front of their feet on the platform surface.
The results of this follow up study were in agreement with the first ski simulator
study. Learning was more effective when the participants were instructed to have an
external focus of attention compared to an internal focus of attention. It also suggests that
when the performers attention is focused on something more distal to themselves, the
learning effect will be enhanced to a greater degree than a more proximal external focus.
In another experiment, Wulf and two of her colleagues, investigated whether or
not the results that were found in the previous studies would transfer to sports skills
(Lauterbach, Toole, Wulf, 1999). They studied participants who had no previous
experience with golfing. Participants attempted to hit a target with a 90cm diameter that
was 15m away. Around the target there were four concentric circles which were used to
give scores on concerning the accuracy of each shot. Before the participants were allowed
to start their trials, they were given 10 minutes of basic instructions and demonstrations
on how to stand and how to grip the golf club. During this time they were also allowed to
practice swinging the club. After the initial practice time, one group of participants was
instructed to focus on the swing of their arms (internal), and the other group was
instructed to focus on the swing of the golf club (external). The results showed that even
from the initiation of the trials, the external instructions group demonstrated greater
accuracy compared to the internal instructions group. The internal group did show
improvement from the beginning to the end to the practice trials, but showed less
accuracy than the external group. This trend continued to the retention test as well which
12
indicates that the external focus group was able to perform and learn the skill more
effectively than the internal focus group. The findings of this preliminary study of
attentional focus used for sports skills showed that minor adjustments in instructional
wording to induce an external focus do indeed enhance the learning and performance of
sports skills in addition novel balance tasks (Wulf, 2007, p. 44).
Agility tasks
In a more recent study, attentional focus was again studied for the benefits of
adopting an external focus, but this time agility performance was tested. The study was
conducted by several prominent researchers in the field of attentional focus (Nolan,
Ostrowski, Porter, & Wulf, 2010). They used an agility “L run” to investigate if the
advantages of an external focus would be seen in agility tasks. Twenty participants with
no formal sprint training had to sprint through the “L” course consisting of two 5m
sections making a right angle. The participants performed one condition per day over a 3
day span. The instructions that all groups received were to “run through he course as
quickly as you can with maximum effort”. The external and internal groups received
additional instructions that the control group did not. The internal group was told to
“focus on moving their legs as rapidly as possible. For the turn, focus on planting their
foot as firmly as possible”. The external groups additional instructions were to “focus on
running to the cone as rapidly as possible. For the turn, focus on pushing off the ground
as forcefully as possible”.
13
The results of the study showed that the movement times of the external condition
were significantly faster than that of the other two groups. The control condition and the
internal condition did not show any significant difference between their performances. In
addition to the performance results, the researchers had the participants answer
questionnaires after each trial for each condition inquiring what the participants actually
focused on while performing the task. This was done in order to check if they used the
focus they were instructed to use or not. The results of the manipulation check showed
that when the participants were in the control condition they focused externally 13% of
the time, internally 10% of the time, and “other 77% of the time. While in the internal
condition the participants indicated that the focused internally 76% of the time, externally
1%, and “other” 23% of the time. Under the external condition participants focused
externally 67% of the time, internally 2%, and “other 31% of the time.
These questionnaire results indicated that the instructions given induced the
desired attentional responses for a majority of the trials for the external and internal
conditions. The control conditions instructions were intended to induce a neutral
attentional focus. Under the control condition instructions the participants focused their
attention elsewhere 77% of the time. Using the data from the manipulation check, the
researchers concluded that the instructions that were given produced the desired
attentional focus. This further validates the advantages of using instructions that induce
an external focus of attention to produce greater performances, demonstrating that the
instructions were the actual cause of the increased performances.
14
Force Production
Through multiple studies finding showing that an external focus of attention
produces increased movement efficiency, it has been theorized that maximal force
production would be increased as well (Dufek, Granados, Wulf, & Zachry, 2007). Under
this premise. Dufek et al. (2007) conducted a study to investigate whether an external
focus of attention increases vertical jump height compared to an internal focus of
attention. The vertical jump was chosen because it requires the production of maximal
forces to propel the body off the ground (Dufek & Wulf, 2009). The results of the study
showed that the participants who adopted an external focus of attention had both
increased jump height and vertical center-of-mass displacement compared to participants
in the internal condition. These results indicated that an external focus of attention could
cause increased force production and performances.
A follow up study was done by Dufek and Wulf (2009), to further investigate the
causes of the differences in jump height between the external and internal focus
conditions. The researchers had 10 physically active men and women perform maximal
vertical jumps, using a vertec measurement device. To record and measure the
participants vertical ground reaction forces, they performed the jumps on a force
platform. A motion capture automated tracking system with reflective markers that were
placed on the participants lower body was used to capture the kinematic data of the
vertical jumps. The participants were instructed to jump straight up and touch the highest
vertec rung they could with the tips of their fingers. Each of the 10 participants performed
10 jumps under the external and internal condition. The researchers’ instructions for the
15
participants while under the internal condition were to “concentrate on the tips of their
fingers, reaching as high as possible during the jumps”. The instructions while under the
external condition were to “concentrate on the rungs of the vertec, reaching as high as
possible”. Between each of the trials the researchers gave the participants several
instructional reminders to keep their focus on the intended attentional condition.
The results of the study showed that the external focus condition produced greater
heights and greater center of mass displacement than did the internal focus condition. The
impulses created under the external condition were on average 21.5 Ns greater than the
internal condition. The joint moments were also higher overall under the external
condition. These findings provide the mechanical reasons for difference in performance
between the external and internal groups.
The researchers stated that possible reasons for the external conditions greater
force production could be from a more effective coordination pattern between the agonist
and antagonist muscle groups. Without inappropriate co-contraction, the results would be
greater maximal force production and greater heights jumped. The opposite of this would
be true for the internal condition. Inappropriate co-contraction and inefficient movement
efficiency would decrease the force produced and the height jumped (Dufek & Wulf,
2009). Also based of a study by Vanezis and Lees (2005) the researchers of this study
concluded that in their study the participants performances while under the external focus
closely resembled that of a skilled jumper, and the opposite for the internal condition
performances. The researchers suggested that this was due to the appropriate coordination
within and between the muscles producing the movement.
16
While these studies showed that an external focus of attention lead to higher
vertical jump performances, which is a whole body movement that requires maximum
force production, Porter et al. (2010) found it necessary to research a horizontal whole
body movement requiring maximum force production. They decided to use a standing
long jump, which has frequently been used to test and predict athletic performance. The
main reason they chose to do a study using the standing long jump was because it is a
whole body movement that does not involve the manipulation of an object, which had not
been done in research on attentional focus (Nolan, Porter, Ostrowski, & Wu, 2010). The
researchers recruited participants who had never received any formal jump training to
participate in the study. The 120 participants were split in half into either an internal
condition group or an external condition group. Each participant completed 5 jump trials
under their condition. The instructions that the internal group received were “when you
are attempting to jump as far as possible, I want you to focus your attention on extending
your knees as rapidly as possible”. The external conditions groups instructions were
“When you are attempting to jump as far as possible, I want you to focus your attention
on jumping as far past the start line as possible”.
The results of this study showed that the external condition, which had
instructions that focused the participants attention to an external part of the environment,
produced significantly farther jump distances than the internal condition whose
instructions directing the participants’ attention inward to their bodies movements. The
external condition group produced jumps on average that were 10.05cm further than the
internal condition group produced. The researchers felt that results of their study on a
17
whole body movement add to the generalizability of using an external focus of attention
on skills to increase performance. It also shows that coaches and practitioners should pay
attention to the wording of their instructions to make sure that they are helping to elicit an
external focus of attention. If they accomplish this, they will increase the probability of
improving their athletes physical abilities.
Electromyography
The benefits of an external focus of attention over an internal focus of attention
have shown to produce greater performance results over a multitude of studies. The
underlying mechanisms that have been proposed to cause the seen advantages of an
external focus of attention have been gaining validity through EMG testing. Higher
efficiency of muscular contractions has been one of the theorized mechanisms causing
the seen advantages of an external focus of attention. Research on an isometric plantar
flexion has supported this theory. An external focus, causes lower EMG activity in the
antagonist muscle by reducing co-contraction activity (Healy, Lohse, & Sherwood,
2011). This reduction of activity in the antagonist muscle group allows for an efficient
restriction free contraction. An internal focus of attention has been shown to cause a
significantly greater amount of activity in the antagonist muscle group. This decreases the
efficiency of the movement and lowers performance outcomes (Healy, Lohse, &
Sherwood, 2011). Small alterations in instructions, have a profound effect on the
efficiency and performance of a movement. Giving instructions that induce an internal
focus of attention like telling an individual to focus on their leg muscles to produce force,
18
instead of telling them to push against the platform will greatly decrease efficiency and
subsequently performance of a movement (Healy, Lohse, & Sherwood, 2011).
It has also been seen through research that non-isometric and explosive
movements show more efficient EMG activity in the limbs causing movement. A follow
up study investigating attentional focus used for jumping for height, gave instructions
with a minor adjustment. Participants in the internal condition were told to focus on their
finger tips when jumping and reaching for the height markers. The external group had the
slight alteration of being instructed to focus on the height markers. According to Dufek,
Lozano, Pettigrew, and Wulf (2010), small alterations in instructions that will cause an
external focus of attention instead of an internal focus will lead to greater efficiency and
performance. The cause of the greater efficiency is seen through lower EMG activity in
the active muscles of a movement. Expert performers have been shown to have more
efficient muscular activity than do non-expert performers. The opposite is true for
adopting an internal focus of attention (Healy, Lohse, & Sherwood, 2011).
Peak Forces
Another popular theory of why an external focus of attention produces greater
performance results is that it allows the individual to produce higher peak forces. With
the use of a force platform researchers studied the peak forces along with the distances
achieved during a standing long jump using both internal and external focus conditions
(Brown, Porter, 7 Wu, 2011). As seen in previous studies the external focus condition
outperformed the internal condition, but what other studies and researchers theorized
about force production being greater for the external group was not found to be
19
significant. These findings lend additional support to the findings in the study done by
Dufek et al. (2010), that the increased performance of the external focus of attention is
due to a more efficient muscle contraction pattern. Aside from this mechanism of
increased performance, Brown et al. (2011) proposed other plausible mechanisms for the
increased performances. The increased performances of the external condition could be
due to a more efficient timing component which allowed the force application to be
maximized compared to the internal conditions force application timing. Another
plausible reason for the external conditions increased performance could be that the
external instructions, which focused the participants attention to an environmental
benchmark, allowed for a more effective projectile angle (Brown, Porter, & Wu, 2011).
The researchers responsible for the study recognized that further study is needed to
validate their theories for the possible mechanisms of the increased performance of the
external condition. Their findings do, however add to the empirical and scientific
evidence of the advantageous effects an external focus of attention on the performance of
a wide variety of motor skills (Brown, Porter, 7 Wu, 2011).
Distance Effects
The advantageous effects of adopting an external focus of attention has also been
seen to have an even greater effect on performance as the external focus of attention
moves further away from the performers body (McNevin et al., 2003). The proposed
cause of the increases in performance and learning are seen with more distal external
focus condition is that the automacity of the movement is progressed to a greater degree
(McNevin et al., 2003). The distance effects of attentional focus have not been researched
20
as extensivly as internal versus external focus of attention has, but a fair amount of
generalizability has been seen within the studies that have researched the phenomenon
(McKay & Wulf, 2012). The tasks that have been used to research the distance effects
have been a stabilometer task, golf, and dart throwing, all of which showed consistent
results that the more distal the external focus of attention is, the greater the performance
and learning results (McKay & Wulf, 2012).
An interesting thought among some researchers and practitioners is that learners
who do not prefer an external focus of attention might not see the increased benefits in
performance and retention of a skill as do learners preferring an external focus (Wulf,
2007, p. 71). This problem has sparked studies to investigate whether there is a
difference in preference of focus of attention for performance and learning. In a study by
Wulf et al. (2001) participants were given the option to practice, and then chose between
an internal and external focus of attention. They were told to either focus on keeping their
feet horizontal to the ground, or to keep markers on the platform horizontal to the ground.
Over half of the participants who initially chose to focus internally, had changed their
preference to the external focus by the retention test. Those participants who had
remained with the internal focus were outperformed by all of the participants who
adopted the external focus of attention (Park, Shea, & Wulf, 2001).
Focusing attention on a more distal effect rather than proximal has also been
shown to produce greater performance and learning results (Bell & Hardy, 2009;
(McNevin, Shea, & Wulf, 2003). A learner’s preference of a more distal or proximal
external focus of attention has also been shown to not be significant. McKay and Wulf
21
(2012) performed a study to look into whether this was true. They had participants throw
darts under a proximal and distal focus to allow them to choose which focus they
preferred. Once they chose their preference, they had to throw under each condition.
What was found was that most participants preferred the distal effect to the proximal
focus from the start. Under the distal focus they preformed significantly higher than
under the proximal focus.
These results showed that preference again did not matter for performance. The
greater distal focus condition produced greater performances than the more proximal
focus, even when the participant preferred the more proximal focus (McKay & Wulf,
2012). A possible mechanism for the increased performance of the distal focus could
come from a more global and effective movement pattern. Focusing on the trajectory of
the dart could have caused performers’ attention to the details of their movements more
than focusing on the bulls-eye of the dart board. The findings of this particular study and
skill might transfer to more complex skills as well. Beginners who are learning a complex
skill with various degrees of freedom might benefit from a more proximal external focus
of attention, because this focus might allow the performer to relate the movement more
closely to the movement patterns that control the movement. Expert performers of
advanced and complex skills, however, could benefit from a more distal focus of
attention because they already have the motor pattern developed and only need to evoke
the proper action (McKay & Wulf, 2012).
As it has been observed, these skills that all have required the manipulation of an
object in some manner, all benefit from a more distal external focus. They were all skills
22
that differed in movement pattern and showed a good amount of generalizability. What
these skills did not show, however, was whether or not a more distal external focus of
attention over a more proximal focus will show the same advantageous results for a
power based movement with no object manipulation (Anton, Porter, & Wu, 2011). To
test if the advantages would transfer to a power based movement with no object
manipulation, a standing long jump was used in a recent study. The instructions used to
elicit the distal focus condition were to focus attention on a target that was 3m away from
the participant. A cue guiding the participant’s focus to the ground near their feet was
used to elicit the proximal focus condition. It was found that both external conditions
outperformed the control condition, which was only given general instructions designed
to elicit no specific focus of attention. The distal external focus also resulted in
significantly further jump distances than the proximal external focus condition (Anton,
Porter, & Wu, 2011). This shows than a more distal external focus of attention is superior
to a more proximal focus and a neutral focus of attention for the performance of a power
based non-object manipulating skill. Possible underlying reasons for why the proximal
focus performed to a lower degree compared to the external focus, is that the more
proximal a performers focus is, the more it will cause performers to take a greater active
control over the action, which will constrain the movement efficiency (McNevin, Shea, &
Wulf, 2003).
23
Expert and Elite Performers
Most of the studies that have been done on attentional focus have used novice or
beginner level participants with respect to the skill that was being studied. For a majority
of these studies with the novice participants, an external focus of attention showed to be
the most beneficial form of attentional focus. There have been a few studies that have
used beginner and expert performers. In a study reported by Su and Wulf (2007) beginner
and expert golfers both showed enhanced performance when adopting an external focus
of attention. The expert performers showing enhanced performance is the more profound
finding of this study for a few reasons. It is thought that an expert at a specific skill will
have already developed an automated motor program for that skill (Wulf, 2008). By
focusing on anything involved with the movement, even if external, it could interfere
with the preexisting automated movement of the expert performer. Contradictory to that
theory, for the skilled performers in the Su and Wulf (2007) study performance was
enhanced for the expert performers when using an external focus. What these findings
show, is that high level performers can still see the advantageous effects of using an
external focus of attention.
The participants that were used in the previous study were considered experts, but
not quite elite performers. To enhance the research on focus of attention and expert
performers Gabriele Wulf (2008) used a balance task with performers from the Cirque du
Soleil show. These performers are considered to have elite levels of balance, which they
display during their performances by executing complex and very challenging balance
tasks under pressure. The task that Wulf had them perform was from a previous study
24
that she did with novice performers (Shea et al., 2007). The previous study’s results
showed that an external focus of attention produced greater performance and learning
than the internal or control condition. In both study’s the participants were given
instructions to focus on minimizing movements of their feet for the internal condition, or
minimize movements of the disk for the external condition. The control condition was not
given any specific instructions, to allow the participants to adopt their own focus.
Given that the elite balance performers already had high degrees of automacity for
very complex balance tasks, an improvement through the use of an external focus of
attention would not be expected (Wulf, 2008). This expectation was found to be true.
When the acrobats were allowed to use their own focus, without any outside instructions,
they showed a greater frequency of postural adjustment. A greater frequency is typically
seen in higher degrees of automacity within the performance of a skill. Under the external
and internal conditions the participants did not show any differences in postural sway as
when under the control condition, but this is a less significant measure compared to the
frequency of postural adjustment.
Instructing the participants that had elite levels of balance skills to focus on an
internal or external focus of attention resulted in a degradation of performance when
compared to their own focus. This degradation of performance is an effect of reverting to
a more active postural control (Wulf, 2008). When the elite performers were allowed to
focus under the condition that they were accustomed to and that had become an
automated motor program they were able to dissipate disturbances in balance more
rapidly and efficiently. What this study demonstrated is that when a performer has
25
reached an elite skill level, and a task’s directions are below their current control level a
performance, degradation will occur (Wulf, 2008). For elite performers, instructions
should be aimed at movement effects that are currently higher than what they have
mastered. Doing this should avoid performance degradations and possibly enhance
performance even further (Wulf, 2008).
Coaching or working with elite athletes is a rarity when compared to working
with good or above average athletes. Since most coaches and practitioners will not be
coaching or working with elite athletes it is important to know if the results that were
seen with the elite balancers are also seen with experts of a task that is not quite elite?
Stoate and Wulf (2011) decided to investigate this with a study of expert swimmers.
They wanted investigate whether swimmers who have put in years of practice would
perform better under their own normal conditions or an external or internal condition. A
benefit of this study in comparison to other reported studies is that the task used was the
same task that would be used in a sports setting (Stoate & Wulf, 2011). The instructional
differences were, again like most studies, very minuet to show the significance of the
performance differences. The external group was instructed to “focus on pushing the
water back” and the internal group was instructed to “focus on pulling your hands back”.
It was found that the difference in performance between the control condition and
the external condition was insignificant. However, both conditions were significantly
faster than the performances of the internal group. It seems that these results show that in
expert but non-elite performers, there are no decrements in performance when adopting
an external focus of attention, but there is no significant increase in performance either.
26
This could be due to the movement already being so highly automated and efficient that
an increase in performance will not occur (Stoate & Wulf, 2011). An interesting finding
through the use of a manipulation check questionnaire was that when the control group
responded to what they were attending to, a majority of their replies had an external focus
characteristic. This could be an indication of why the external and control groups
performances did not show a significant difference between them (Stoate & Wulf, 2011).
The evidence of an external focus of attention enhancing motor skill performance
for a variety of tasks is becoming greater in number. The evidence for it being the best
focus of attention for experts and elite athletes is inconsistent. There also seems to be a
disconnect between what has been found in research and what is being used by coaches
and practitioners. Despite a majority of the research findings on attentional focus, a
recent study of elite track and field athletes indicated that a vast majority of their
instruction from coaches is aimed at an internal rather than external focus (Partridge,
Porter, & Wu, 2012). The study also showed that a majority of the cues during
competition that they receive and think about are of an internal focus of attention. What
this shows is that there is a need for more studies on actual sport events or tasks, so that
greater empirical evidence is available for coaches to see how attentional focus directly
affects the event they are coaching.
Track and field specifically could benefit greatly from further research on
attentional focus over the different events in the sport. Most of the coaching literature and
education programs for track and field have vast amounts of information on
biomechanics and the physical training for the different events, but lacks in motor
27
learning information (Partridge, Porter, Wu, 2012). Further research needs to be done on
the different events, as well as different skill levels in track and field. This will allow
coaches to make the best decision for what type of instructions to give their athletes to
allow for the greatest performances possible.
28
Chapter 3
METHODS
Participants
The participants in this study were 5 junior college male long jumpers ranging in
age from 17 to 22 years attending Sacramento City College. To be included in the study,
the participants had to have a minimum of two years of competitive long jumping
experience, and to have had at least one semester’s worth of collegiate training. The
participants were considered experts based on their training and experience. However, the
participants were not considered elite performers. The participants were recruited for this
study by the researcher. A general explanation of the task was given to the participant,
but the exact purpose of the study was left unknown. If a participant was interested in
volunteering for the study, he was provided an informed consent form explaining the
study in more detail. The participant’s identity was protected by having a number
assigned to each participant that only the researcher knew and keep in a secure location.
Instruments
The instruments that were used for this study were a long jump runway with an all
weather surface, a long jump board, a sand pit, and a tape measure to measure the long
jump distance. A printed spreadsheet was used to record the data onsite, which was
transferred to a computer after the data had been collected. A questionnaire was used to
determine what attentional focus was inherently used by the participants (see appendix).
29
Procedures
The study took place in Hughes Stadium at Sacramento City College prior to the
beginning of the competitive track and field season. The study spanned 2 days. Day 1
consisted of all the participants taking 4 long jumps from a 12 step approach without
being given any instructions that would sensitize them to a specific attentional focus. The
instructions that the participants received on day 1 were “You will be performing a full
long jump while attempting to jump the greatest distance possible”. Prior to the beginning
of the trials, the participants were put through the same warm up. The warm up was a
typical warm-up sequence typically done by track and field athletes. The exact warm-up
is located in the appendix. Participants were also given time after the warm up to practice
their approach run. They were allowed no more than 3 practice attempts.
Once all warm-up and practice time ended, the jumpers were given a 5-minute
rest period to recover. During the 5-minute rest period, the participants were given the
instructional statement from above. In addition to those instructions the participants were
also instructed to refrain from talking to the other participants while the trials were taking
place to have them avoid discussing their performance and foci. This prevented the
athletes from being able to discuss what they were thinking about before and during their
performance. This allowed for the participant’s natural focus of attention to be used
without any outside influences. The jumpers were also given the order in which they
would be jumping. Each participant was given a 1-minute period to begin their jump after
the researcher indicated it was all clear to jump. This is the same amount of time that
jumpers are allotted during competitions to initiate their jump. Once the participant
30
completed his jump and exited the sand pit, the researcher measured the distance from the
front of the take off board and the furthest back marking in the sand made by the
participant. The distance was recorded under that participant’s assigned number.
On day 2 of the study the participants were put through the same warm-up and
practice procedures that took place on day1. The participants were again given the same
initial instructions, as well as the instructions to refrain from talking to one another. The
measuring and recording of data was also the same for day 2 of the study. The difference
from day 1 to day 2 was that the participants were split in half to make 2 groups. Group 1
was given instructions that invoked an internal focus of attention for their first 2 trials,
and group 2 was given instructions that invoked an external focus of attention for their
first 2 trials. For the second 2 trials, group 1 was given instructions that invoked an
external focus of attention, and group 2 was given instructions that invoked an internal
focus of attention. These instructions were given individually to each participant directly
prior to each trial. The instructions for the internal focus of attention were “As you make
contact with the board, focus on forcefully pushing off with your leg”. The instructions
for the external focus of attention were “As you make contact with the board, focus on
forcefully pushing off of the board”. The instructions that were given to each participant
were kept unknown to the other participants at all times.
After the trials were complete for day 1 a questionnaire was given to the
participants to determine what they paid attention to before, during, and after their
performances. This questionnaire was used to show what focus of attention the
31
participants naturally used without outside instructions. A copy of the questionnaire is
located in the appendix.
Design & Analysis
Independent t-tests were used as the statistical analysis for the study. An
independent t-test was performed for the day 1 results for group 1 against their results
from day 2 under both instructional conditions. Another independent t-test was performed
in the same way for group 2. These analyses compared the performances of the
participants natural focus of attention with their performances under an internal and
external focus of attention. A third independent t-test was performed for all of the
external focus of attention jumps versus all of the internal focus of attention jumps from
day 2. This was used to determine whether an internal or external focus of attention
produced greater performances overall. The confidence level of the analysis was set at
0.1.
32
Chapter 4
RESULTS
Recent research has demonstrated the benefits of an external focus of attention on
the performance of a number of different sport and motor skills. No research to date
however, has investigated the possible benefits of an external attentional focus by athletes
performing a long jump. This study investigated the comparative effects of internal and
external attentional focus when performing the long lump. Five Junior College long
jumpers were given 4 jumps on two consecutive days. On the first day no instructions
were given to the participants. The second day the participants were divided into two
groups and given instructions that provided either an internal focus of attention condition
or an external focus of attention condition for half of their jumps. The groups received
their instructions in reverse orders. The purpose of the study was to examine whether an
external focus of attention while performing a long jump will produce greater
performances than an internal focus of attention, or whether a natural focus of attention
would produce better results while performing a long jump than would an external or
internal focus of attention.
Analysis of Data
A paired t-test was performed for the jumps from day 1 versus the internal and
external jumps from day 2 for Group 1. The mean distance for Group 1’s jumps from day
1 was 5.7037m. On day 2 of the study, Group 1 jumped under the internal focus
condition first, and the external focus condition second. The mean distance for the
internal focus of attention condition on day 2 was 5.7875m. The mean distance for the
33
external focus of attention condition from day 2 was 5.73m. The mean distance jumped
for both attentional foci from day 2 were greater than the natural focus of the participants
from day 1 for group 1 (see Table 1.1).
Table 1.1
Group 1
t-test value
P-Value
Mean of Day 1 / Mean of
Day 2
SD of Day 1 / SD of Day 2
Day 1 vs. Day 2 INT
-0.1922
0.5715
5.7037 / 5.7875
0.6985 / 0.7183
Day 1 vs. Day 2 EXT
-0.0626
0.5234
5.7037 / 5.73
0.6985 / 0.6776
A comparison of the day 1 and day 2 mean average jumping scores for group 1
for the external attentional focus condition resulted in acceptance of the null-hypothesis
of no difference between day 1 and day 2 performance (t= -0.0626, p= 0.5234). The same
comparison, but with the internal attentional focus condition also resulted in acceptance
of the null-hypothesis of no difference between day 1 and day 2 performances (t= 0.1922, p=0.5715)
The jumps from Group 2 were also tested in the same manor as Group 1. The
mean distance for Group 2’s jumps from day 1 was 5.4408m. On day 2 of the study
Group 2 jumped under the external focus condition first, and the internal focus condition
second. The mean distance for the internal focus of attention condition on day 2 was
5.4483m. The mean distance for the external focus of attention condition from day 2 was
5.5083m (see table 1.2).
Table 1.2
34
Group 2
t-test value
P-Value
Mean of Day 1 / Mean of
Day 2
SD of Day 1 / SD of Day 2
Day 1 vs. Day 2 EXT
-0.4797
0.6717
5.4408 / 5.5083
0.3048 / 0.269
Day 1 vs.Day 2 INT
-0.0401
0.515
5.4408 / 5.4483
0.3048 / 0.4047
A comparison of the day 1 and day 2 mean average jumping scores for group 2
for the external attentional focus condition resulted in an acceptance of the nullhypothesis of no difference between day 1 and day 2 performance (t= -0.4797, p=
0.6717). The same comparison, but with the internal attentional focus condition also
resulted in the acceptance of the null-hypothesis of no difference between day 1 and day
2 performances (t= -0.0401, p=0.5150).
Another t-test was performed comparing all of the external focus of attention
condition jumps versus all of the internal focus of attention condition jumps. The mean
value for the external condition jumps was 5.597m, and the mean value for the internal
condition jumps was 5.6194m (see Table 1.3). The comparison between the internal and
external focus of attention condition mean average-jumping scores resulted in an
acceptance of the null-hypothesis of no difference between the two conditions
(t= -0.0951, p= 0.5355).
Table 1.3
EXT vs. INT
t-test value
P-Value
Mean of EXT/ Mean of INT
SD of EXT / SD for INT
All EXT vs. All INT
-0.0951
0.5355
5.597 / 5.6194
0.4542 / 0.5621
35
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
Numerous studies have demonstrated the benefits of employing an external focus
of attention for performing a variety of tasks and sports skills. However, no previous
study has investigated the use of an external focus of attention when performing the long
jump. The purpose of the present study, therefore, was to examine whether an external
focus of attention while performing a long jump would produce greater performances
than would an internal focus of attention. The null-hypothesis of no difference was tested
to compare differences between subjects performing the long jump employing either an
external or an internal focus of attention condition.
To investigate which attentional focus condition would produce greater
performances, junior college long jumpers were given four 12-step approach long jumps
on two consecutive days. On the first day the participants were given no instructions that
would elicit a specific attentional focus. This served as the baseline test. On the 2nd day of
the study, the participants were given instructions for two of their jumps that would elicit
an internal focus of attention, which were “As you make contact with the board, focus on
forcefully pushing off with your leg”. For their other 2 jumps, the participants were
given instructions that would elicit an external focus of attention, which were “As you
make contact with the board, focus on forcefully pushing off of the board”. The
participants randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 received Internal focus
instructions first and external instructions second on day 2. Group 2 was given external
and then internal focus of attention instructions on day 2.
36
To analyze the results of the study, t-tests were calculated for the day 1 results
versus the day 2 external and internal focus condition results for both groups. Another ttest was calculated for all internal focus jumps versus all external focus of attention
jumps. There were no significant differences between participants’ performance when
employing natural, internal, or external focus conditions. The null-hypothesis was
accepted as showing no difference between day 1 and day 2 performances, as well as no
differences between the external and internal focus of attention condition performances.
Even though no significant differences were found, potentially meaningful trends
were observed. The mean of the jumps from day 2 for both groups and for both
attentional foci conditions were greater than means for the jumps from day 1 of the study.
Another trend that was observed was that for the first 2 jumps of day 2, no matter which
of the attentional focus conditions was employed, performance was greater than the
second two jumps taken on day 2. The data also revealed that the mean of all of the
internal focus of attention condition jumps was slightly greater than the mean from all of
the external focus of attention condition jumps. However, the differences between the
means throughout all categories were statistically insignificant.
The results of this study are inconsistent with the majority of findings from
previous research on attentional focus. An external focus of attention has been shown to
allow participants to produce higher amounts of force, as well as greater efficiency
(Dufek & Wulf, 2009; Dufek, Lozano, Pettigrew, & Wulf, 2010). Standing long jump
and jump for height performances have also been shown to be enhanced when an external
focus of attention is used (Nolan, Porter, Ostrowski, & Wu, 2010; Dufek & Wulf, 2009).
37
Previous studies with expert performers have shown that an external focus of attention
and the performers natural focus of attention produce better results than when performing
under an internal focus of attention (Stoate & Wulf, 2011). In this study, in which the
participants were considered experts, subjects did perform slightly better, on average,
under internal focus of attention conditions. They also performed better when given
instructions eliciting a specific attentional focus compared to when they were not given
any attentional focus instructions.
These trends could be due to several different reasons. For both groups, day 2
performances were greater than those for day 1 distance, regardless of attentional focus.
This could be due to the participants improving technically from day 1 of the study or
getting into a better rhythm. The participants also jumped further on the first 2 jumps of
day 2 no matter which attentional focus condition they were using first. This may have
been due to the effect of fatigue. Even though the participants improved on their overall
average distance jumped on day 2, during their 3rd and 4th jumps they may have
experienced fatigue detracting from their performance regardless of which attentional
focus condition was adopted. Being on site during the research trials, the researcher
observed fatigue setting in during the last two jump attempts for the participants. This
was thought to be accounted for prior to the study taking place. It was believed that the
participants, being trained long jumpers, would be able to perform adequately when
jumping two days in a row (which is common in track & field competitions) without
signs of fatigue. What was overlooked was that the participants were not yet in full
competitive condition. The study took place the week prior to the start of the participants’
38
competitive season, which may have been too early in their training year to have
developed a capacity for jumping 8 times over two consecutive days. This may have
accounted for the small differences observed between the internal and external focus of
attention conditions.
Another possible reason for the insignificant difference between the performances
of the attentional focus conditions could be that the distance affect for the external focus
instructions was not large enough. It was the researchers attempt to make the differences
between the internal and external instructions as small as possible, so that if there were a
difference in performances, this would demonstrate the robustness of the attentional focus
effects (Hob, Prinz, & Wulf, 1998). With hindsight, the external focus of attention
instructions should have had a greater distance effect than the board, which was directly
under the participants’ foot. Previous research has shown that the greater the distance
effect the greater advantage an external focus of attention has on performance (McNevin
et al., 2003). With the distance effect of the external instructions used being so close to
the performers body, it may be likely that the participants took greater active control over
their actions and thus constrained their movement efficiency (McNevin, Shea, & Wulf,
2003).
A possible reason for the slightly greater performances while under the internal
focus of attention condition compared to the external focus of attention condition could
also be because the athletes were more familiar with an internal focus orientation. The
questionnaires that were completed by the participants indicated that all but two naturally
used an internal focus of attention. The other two participants indicated that they equally
39
distributed their focus of attention between an internal and external focus. This may be
because a majority of track & field coaches give cues that induce an internal focus of
attention (Partridge, Porter, & Wu, 2012). It has been speculated that this is because the
track & field coaching education literature puts a greater focus on biomechanics and the
physiology of training than it does on motor learning. This could very well be true.
However, it is possible that through trial and error track & field coaches have embraced
cues and instructions that elicit an internal focus of attention because they see that their
athletes respond to it better. Perhaps in track & field, where very finite and precise
movements can make a large difference in performance, an internal focus of attention is
needed to achieve the desired technical results. However, looking at the results of this
study, which did not show a significant difference between the two attentional foci, it is
hard to determine which attentional focus is the more advantageous. It is less difficult to
determine that giving long jumpers instructions, whether they are internal or external,
will produce more advantageous results than withholding instructions.
Recommendations for Future Study
This study was approached as an exploratory study for attentional focus and the
long jump. No previous study had been done on the long jump, or on any movement skill
similar to it. It is for this reason that such a low number of participants were used for the
study. Due to the low participant numbers and the lack of any significant differences
being found, it is difficult and not appropriate to infer specific conclusions and
recommendations based upon findings from this study. However, an ancillary objective
40
of the study was to create a baseline of attentional focus instructions for the long jump
that could be used and improved upon in future studies, as well as in the field.
In future studies involving attentional focus and the long jump, perhaps a greater
distance effect could be used for the external focus of attention instructions. This would
allow the participants to more clearly differentiate the movement effect from their body’s
own movement, which would allow for a more automatic and reflexive movement
(McNevin, Shea, & Wulf, 2003). This study’s external focus instructions directed the
participants focus to the board that they were taking off from, which may have been too
close to differentiate from the movements of their own body.
Expanding the time between the two days of the study is also be recommended.
Allowing the participants a greater rest period than 24 hours would allow for greater
dissipation of any fatigue that was caused by the first day of the study. Another
recommendation would be to expand the study to a multiple week study, where the
participants have trials 2 to 3 days a week. This would allow for more data points to be
gathered, which would allow for the power of any difference between the attentional foci
to be seen more clearly.
Using novice performers rather than expert performers would also be a
worthwhile option for future researchers to consider. Expert performers are difficult to
obtain in the large numbers needed to be able to show the power of the differences
between the focus conditions. Having a greater number of participants would help in
avoiding issues that could arise from participants drop out of the study, something from
which this study suffered. Another benefit to using novice performers is that it would
41
allow for greater performance increases to occur, because unlike expert performers,
novice performers have yet to automate the skill being performed. This would aid in
showing the robustness of the different attentional focus instructions.
The results of this study did not show any significant difference in the
participants’ long jump performances between the different attentional focus conditions.
However, the majority of the research on attentional focus still shows that an external
focus of attention is more beneficial than an internal or natural focus of attention. It is
worthwhile to dedicate further research to attentional focus and the long jump, as well as
other track and field events. With the performance benefits that attentional focus has been
seen to have through research on performance, it is important to further explore what
benefits it may have on the long jump and other track and field events as well.
42
Appendix A
Questionnaire #1
What did you concentrate on prior to and/or during your jumps?
1) How your body, legs and/or arms were moving or should move
2) Locations or areas in the surrounding environment
3) Equally distributed between the two
43
Appendix B
Track & Field Dynamic Warm Up
2 x Jog forward 40m / Backwards 40m
2 x Side Slide w/arms 20m / Change sides 20m
1 x Skip 20m / Fast Skip 20m
1 x Skip 20m / High Skip 20m
YOGA HAMSTRING STRETCH 1 X 30 SECONDS EACH LEG
2 x Caroche 20m and run 20 m
15 x Each Leg Single Leg Hops on Grass
1 x 30 Seconds High Knee Runs in place
QUAD STRETCHES (HEEL TO BUTT 20 SECONDS EACH LEG)
2 x “A” Skips 20m and run 20m
2 x “B” Skips 20m and run 20m
HAMSTRING STRETCH (20 SECONDS EACH LEG)
2 x Quick Foot/Bound 20m and run 20m
2 x Back Hamstring Run 20m and run 20m
90 SECONDS STRETCH OF CHOICE
2 x Straight Leg Bounds 20m and run 20m
2 x 40m Full Effort Sprint (walk back)
44
References
Anton, P. M., Porter, J. M., WU, W. F. W. (2011). Increasing the Distance of an External
Focus of Attention Enhances Standing Long Jump Performance. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 0(0), 1-5.
Brown, L. E., Porter, J. M., Wu, W. F. W. (2011). Effect of Attentional Focus
Strategies on Peak Force and performance in the Standing Long Jump. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 10, 520-525.
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Peh, S. Y. (2011). Focus of Attention and it’s Impact on
Movement Behavior. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 14, 70-78.
Dufek, J. S., Granados, C., Wulf, G., Zachry, T. (2007). Increases in Jump-and-Reach
Height Through an External Focus of Attention. Int J Sports Sci & Coaching, 2,
275-284.
Dufek, J. S., Lozano, L., Pettigrew, C., Wulf, G. (2010). Increased Jump Height and
Reduced EMG Activity with an External Focus. Human Movement Science 29,
440-448.
Dufek, J. S., Wulf, G. (2009). Increased jump height with an External Focus Due to
Enhanced Lower Extremity Joint Kinetics. Journal of Motor Behavior, 41(5),
401-409.
Ericsson, A. K., Williams, M. A. (2007). Capturing Naturally Occurring Superior
Performance in the Laboratory: Translational Research on Expert performance.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1393), 115-123.
45
Fathi, I., Saemi, E., Zarghami, M. (2012). External Focus of Attention Enhances Discus
Throwing Performance. Kinesiology, 44(1), 47-51.
Fitts, P. M. (1964). Perceptual-Motor Skills Learning. In A.W. Melton (Ed.), Categories
of Human Learning (pp. 243-285). New York: Academic Press.
Fitts, P. M., Posner, M. I., (1967). Human Performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Ford, P. R., Williams, M. R. (2009). Promoting a Skills-Based Agenda in Olympic
Sports: The Role of Skill-Acquisition Specialist. Journal of Sports Sciences,
27(13), 1381-1392.
Fowler, N., Graham-Smith, P., Lees, P. (1994). A Biomechanical Analysis of the Last
Stride, Touchdown, and Takeoff Characteristics of the Men’s Long Jump. Journal
of Applied Biomechanics 10, 61-78.
Francesconi, D. (2011). Implicit and Explicit Learning in Motor Cognition: issues for
Movement Education. The International Journal of Sport and Society, 2(1), 1-7.
Graham-Smith, P., Lees, A. (2005). A Three-Dimensional Kinematic Analysis of the
Long Jump Take-Off. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(9), 891-903.
Healy, A. F., Lohse, K. R., Sherwood, D. E. (2011). Neuromuscular Effects of Shifting
the Focus of Attention in a Simple Force Production Task. Journal of Motor
behavior, 43(2), 173-179.
Hob, M., Prinz, W., Wulf, G. (1998). Instructions for Motor Learning: Differential
Effects of Internal Versus External Focus of Attention. Journal of Motor behavior,
30, 169-179.
46
Hodges, N. J., Williams, M. A. (2004). Practice, Instruction and Skill Acquisition in
Soccer: Challenging tradition. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(6), 637-650.
Lauterbach, B., Toole, T., Wulf, G. (1999). Learning Advantages of an External Focus of
Attention in Golf. Research Quarterly of Exercise and Sport, 70, 120-126.
Lees, A., Vanezis, A. (2005). A Biomechanical Analysis of Good and Poor Performers of
the Vertical Jump. Ergonomics, 48, 1594-1603.
Masters, R. S. W., Maxwell, J. P., Poolton, J. M., Raab, M. (2005). Benefits of an
External Focus of Attention: Common Coding or Conscious Processing? Journal
of Sports Science, 224(1), 89-99.
McKay, B., Wulf, G. (2012). A Distal External Focus Enhances Novice Dart Throwing
Performance. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 10(2), 149156.
McNevin, N. H., Shea, C. H., Wulf, G. (2001). The Automacity for Complex Motor Skill
Learning as a Function of Attentional Focus. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 54A(4), 1143-1154.
McNevin, N. H., Shea, C. H., Wulf, G. (2003). Increasing the Distance of an External
Focus of Attention Enhances Learning. Psychological Research, 67, 22-29.
Munzert, J., Zentgraf, K. (2009). Effects of Attentional-Focus Instructions on Movement
Kinematics. Psychology of Sport and Science Exercise, 10, 520-525.
47
Nolan, R. P., Ostrowski, E. J., Porter, J. M., Wulf, G. (2010). Directing Attention
Externally Enhances Agility performance: A Qualitative and Quantitative
Analysis of The efficacy of Using Verbal Instructions to Focus Attention.
Frontiers in Psychology, 1(216), 1-7.
Nolan, R. P., Ostrowski, E. J., Porter, J. M., Wu, W. F. W. (2010). Standing Long-Jump
Performance is Enhanced When Using an External Focus of Attention. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 24(7), 1746-1750.
Park, J. H., Shea, C. H., Wulf, G. (2001). Attention in Motor Learning: Preferences for
and Advantages of an External Focus. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
72, 335-334.
Partridge, J. A., Porter, J. M., Wu, W. F. W. (2012). Focus of Attention and verbal
Instructions: Strategies of Elite Track & Field Coaches and Athletes. Sports
Science Review, 19(3-4), 77-89.
Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and Action Planning. European Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 9(2), 129-154.
Shea, C. H., Wulf, G. (1999). Enhancing Motor Learning Through External-Focus
Instructions and Feedback. Human Movement Science, 18, 553-571.
Shea, C. H., Tollner, T., Wulf, G. (2007). Attentional Focus Effects as a Function of Task
Difficulty. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78, 257-264
Stoate, I., Wulf, G. (2011). Does the Attentional Focus Adopted by Swimmers Affect
Their Performance? International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 6(1), 99108.
48
Su, J., Wulf, G. (2007). An External Focus of Attention Enhances Golf Shot Accuracy in
Beginners and Experts, Research Quarterly for Exercise and sport, 78, 384-389.
Wulf, G. (2003). Attentional Focus in Motor Skill Learning: Do Females Benefit from an
External Focus? Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal 12(1), 1-37.
Wulf, G. (2007). Attention and Motor Skill Learning. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Wulf, G. (2008). Attentional Focus Effects in Balance Acrobats. American Alliance for
Health, Physical Education, and Dance 79(3), 319-325.