KINE 3316 Kinesiology Paper

User Generated

qnexcynln

Health Medical

KINE 3316

KINE

Description

submit a 3 page summary-critique assignment (Format: 1-inch margins, single space, no line space, 12-point Time New Romans, line numbers, and no cover page). There are articles for each modulesummarize what you read and do not include your personal opinions and thoughts. In the critique part, write relationships between concepts, comparison/contrast of perspectives, discussion of how concepts may apply to the professional field, and the strengths/weaknesses of the article you read. The summary part should be at least one full page, and the critique part should also be at least one full page.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Name: Seong Kwan Cho 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Summary According to the results of previous research, increased anxiety and attentional focus on performance caused performance degradation under pressure and additional resource allocation mediated between anxiety and performance. These results have been well explained by explicit monitoring hypothesis (EMH) and processing efficiency theory (PET) in sport psychology literature. As an extension study of previous research, the purpose of this study was to examine the prediction of EMH and PET of performance changes in threatening conditions with attentional focus manipulation. In terms of the prediction of EMH, it was hypothesized that the skill-focused situation in high-threat conditions would be most disruptive to driving performance. PET would also predict that driving performance in both dual-task situations would be similar under the similar level of attentional demands, and increased anxiety would be a positive effect on driving performance as increased effort to allocate additional attentional resources. Therefore, driving performance in high-threat conditions with greater mental effort would be similar to low-threat conditions in the dual-task situation. Twenty-four female participants (Mage = 19.04 years; SD = 1.62) took part in this study with a mean of 1.91-year driving experience (SD = 0.74). The selection criteria was that the participants had no driving game experience and had general video game usage less than once per week or preferably no usage. The reason only female participants were recruited was based on the results of previous research that women had both higher state and trait anxiety scores than men had and thus the manipulation of anxiety might be more effective to them. For the driving task, a motorsport video game was used and the apparatus included a steering wheel with force feedback, pedals, and rally car seat. To eliminate any confounding variable, all participants drove the same course, a 3 km circuit with 32 curves and no long straight sections, with the same conditions. As an alternative and shorter version of CSAI-2, the Mental Readiness Form-Likert (MRF-L) containing three scales (i.e., cognitive and somatic anxiety, and self-confidence) was used to test participants’ level of anxiety using an 11-point Likert scale. Additionally, the Rating Scale for Mental Effort (RSME) was used to measure the amount of mental effort the participants thought they invested in each condition in this study. Regarding measures of the primary task (i.e., single task) and secondary tasks (i.e., tone recognition and hand position tasks) in each condition, completion time was recorded and used for the primary task performance data, while time and response accuracy was measured for the secondary tasks. This study consisted of three tasks with two conditions: single, distraction (tone recognition), and skill-focused (hand position) tasks with either low- or high-threat conditions. In the low-threat condition, the participants received nonevaluative instructions (i.e., the purpose of this study would be to gather the characteristics of their driving), whereas they received evaluative instructions (i.e., their driving performance would be recorded and receive the monetary reward if improving their performance) in the high-threat condition. In the distraction task, the participants were asked to answer a reference tone while driving. In the skill-focused task, the participants responded the position of their left hand on the steering wheel when hearing a tone while driving. In the primary task performance, the participants were asked to drive the course as quickly as possible. Results of MRF-L showed that the manipulation of the anxiety conditions was effective. That is, the participants had higher scores of anxiety in the high-threat condition than the lowthreat condition. The driving task results showed that the participants maintained their Name: Seong Kwan Cho 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 performance in the high-threat condition compared to the low-threat condition. This result supported the prediction of PET rather than the EMH in that the performance in the high-threat condition in both distraction and skill-focused tasks was not significantly slower than the lowthreat condition. Results of RMSE also supported the PET in that the participants’ effort in the high-threat condition was greater than the low-threat condition. Critique I believe that the authors designed this study well and clearly explained how they conducted the experimental manipulation even though there is minor confusion. This study again has many strengths. For example, although recruiting both male and female participants for future research is more meaningful to test the purpose of this study and to generalize results, selecting only female participants is reasonable because the authors explained gender effects on anxiety-performance relationship. The selection criteria was also very clear. Providing training sessions for the participants to obtain the similar/same baseline ability was a very nice way to maintain the validity of this study. Owing to the authors’ endeavor on the detailed explanation of the procedures and experimental manipulations, replication research of this study would be possible in future. I think that this article contains one issue that may arise from two potential factors. The first factor is the authors’ misinterpretation of MRF-L. Even though the results of MRF-L showed the experimental manipulation was successful, I do not fully agree with the authors’ interpretation. The mean of the cognitive anxiety scores in the high-threat condition was below the half point of the Likert scale (i.e., an 11-point Likert scale was used for MRF-L and the mean was 5.08). It means that the participants in the high-threat condition might not actually perceive their anxiety level as a highly anxious state. Even though the anxiety scores in the high-threat condition were higher than the low-threat condition, the participants were not anxious enough to be choked or to degrade their driving performance. Second, using MRF-L to test the level of cognitive state anxiety itself was problematic. MRF-L contains three factors (i.e., cognitive, somatic, and confidence) as well as CSAI-2, and including the factor of self-confidence into CSAI-2 was inappropriate as we discussed in class. Additionally, in MRF-L each factor includes only one item. Even though the authors cited Krane’s work for validation of MRF-L, it may not reflect the correct concept of cognitive state anxiety, especially in this study. For example, the participants in the high-threat condition might have the low levels of both cognitive and somatic anxiety (i.e., lower scores means lower anxiety level) However, they might have low self-confidence improving 20% of their performance to get the monetary reward (i.e., higher scores means lower confidence level). In that case, overall MRF-L scores would be interpreted as a high level of anxiety. If my interpretation of both factors (or at least one) is correct, then the authors may not conclude that the results of this study were supported by only PET, or the interpretation of the results would be incorrect.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer:
3 pages
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Please view explanation and answer below.

1

1
2
3
4

Article Summary and Critique

5
6
7

Student’s Name

8

University Affiliation

9

Course Name and Number

10

Instructor’s Name

11

Date

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

2

1

Summary

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

The link between performance, anxiety, stress, and self-confidence continues to be studied
by scholars. Debates have previously been conducted about affirmative connotation concerning
self-confidence and performance. Scientific and theoretical data strongly support the existence of
a positive correlation between the two factors. It has been established in previous research that
performance and self-confidence are related. There is a strong correlation amid self-confidence
and performance in most of the previous studies. Investigations have demonstrated that the
average impact size is bigger than that reported for intellectual anxiety.

9
10
11
12

The aim of this research was to study the idea that a reduction in self-assurance in a welllearned task would lead to an increase in determination and performance. In the research, the
authors hypothesized that performers who suffered from low self-esteem would put out more
effort in their job, which would lead to better results in the long run.

13
14
15
16
17

Overall, a decrease in one's self-confidence was linked to an increase in one's ability.
According to the findings, self-doubt may have a positive impact on performance. The role of
determination in this connection has yet to be completely investigated (Woodman et.al. 2010).
This viewpoint challenges the generally accepted idea that a rise in self-confidence is directly
linked to an improvement in presentation.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

The research included a total of twenty-eight participants who volunteered their time
(Mage ¼ 26.86; SD ¼ 9.71; 17e48 years; n ¼ 4 men, n ¼ 24 women). Each participant's aptitude
to skip continuously with a rope for about a minute was required to guarantee that they were
well-practiced and assured in their capability to skip. Before beginning the operation, each
subject signed a written informed consent form. Participants were judged on the number of skips
they could execute in each one-minute trial, which the experimenter counted. Gray and white
were the two types of rope utilized. The authors used a computer program to calculate the
milliseconds it took participants to respond verbally to an aural stimulus. As a result, the authors
...


Anonymous
Great content here. Definitely a returning customer.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags