(2015) commentary Author(s) Toner, John; Moran, Aidan P. Publ

13 Pages·2012·0.51 MB·English

Provided by the author(s) and University College Dublin Library in accordance with publisher
policies. Please cite the published version when available.
Title On the importance of critical thinking: a response to Wulf's (2015) commentary
Authors(s) Toner, John; Moran, Aidan P.
Publication date 2016-01
Publication information Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22 :
Publisher Elsevier
Item record/more information http://hdl.handle.net/10197/6808
Publisher's statement þÿ(cid:0)T(cid:0)h(cid:0)i(cid:0)s(cid:0) (cid:0)i(cid:0)s(cid:0) (cid:0)t(cid:0)h(cid:0)e(cid:0) (cid:0)a(cid:0)u(cid:0)t(cid:0)h(cid:0)o(cid:0)r (cid:25)(cid:0)s(cid:0) (cid:0)v(cid:0)e(cid:0)r(cid:0)s(cid:0)i(cid:0)o(cid:0)n(cid:0) (cid:0)o(cid:0)f(cid:0) (cid:0)a(cid:0) (cid:0)w(cid:0)o(cid:0)r(cid:0)k(cid:0) (cid:0)t(cid:0)h(cid:0)a(cid:0)t(cid:0) (cid:0)w(cid:0)a(cid:0)s(cid:0) (cid:0)a(cid:0)c(cid:0)c(cid:0)e(cid:0)p(cid:0)t(cid:0)e(cid:0)d(cid:0) (cid:0)f(cid:0)o(cid:0)r(cid:0) (cid:0)p(cid:0)u(cid:0)b(cid:0)l(cid:0)i(cid:0)c(cid:0)a(cid:0)t(cid:0)i(cid:0)o(cid:0)n(cid:0) (cid:0)i(cid:0)n(cid:0) (cid:0)P(cid:0)s(cid:0)y(cid:0)c(cid:0)h(cid:0)o(cid:0)l(cid:0)o(cid:0)g(cid:0)y(cid:0) (cid:0)o(cid:0)f(cid:0)
Sport and Exercise. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review,
editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be
reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was
submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Psychology of
Sport and Exercise, 22, (2015) DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.05.007
Publisher's version (DOI) 10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.05.007
Downloaded 2022-12-28T19:00:43Z
The UCD community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access
benefits you. Your story matters! (@ucd_oa)
© Some rights reserved. For more information, please see the item record link above.
Accepted Manuscript
On the importance of critical thinking: a response to Wulf’s (2015) commentary
John Toner, Aidan Moran
PII: S1469-0292(15)00060-6
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.05.007
Reference: PSYSPO 1007
To appear in: Psychology of Sport & Exercise
Received Date: 22 April 2015
Revised Date: 25 May 2015
Accepted Date: 27 May 2015
Please cite this article as: Toner, J., Moran, A., On the importance of critical thinking: a
response to Wulf’s (2015) commentary, Psychology of Sport & Exercise (2015), doi: 10.1016/
j.psychsport.2015.05.007.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Running head: Response to Wulf (2015)

On the importance of critical thinking: a response to Wulf’s (2015) commentary
T

John Toner1* & Aidan Moran2 P

I
1School of Sport, Health and Exercise Sciences, University of Hull, Cottingham Road,
R
Hull HU6 7RX, England, UK

C
2 School of Psychology, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

S

*Correspondence: John Toner, School of Sport, Health and EUxercise Sciences, University
of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull HU6 7RX, England, UK
N
email [email protected]
A
Word count: (including abstract, text of paper and references) = 1,599 words
M

D
E
T
P
E
C
C
A
Running head: RESPONSE TO WULF (2015) 1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1 Title: On the importance of critical thinking: a response to Wulf’s (2015) commentary
2
3
4
T
5
P
6
I
R
7
C
8
S
9
U
10
N
11
A
12
M
13

D
14
E
15
T
16
P
17
E
18
C
19
C
20 A
21
22
23
24
25
RESPONSE TO WULF (2015) 2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
26 Abstract
27 In a recent paper (Toner & Moran, 2015), we argued that continued improvement
28 among elite athletes requires alternation between external and internal foci of
29 attention. In her commentary on this paper, Wulf (2015) claims that we have
T
30 misunderstood the ‘attentional focus’ effect. Our rejoinder has three objectives.
P
31 Firstly, we critically evaluate Wulf’s arguments and counter her false allegations and
I
R
32 spurious reasoning. Secondly, we explain our concerns about certain aspects of
C
33 attentional focusing research. Finally, we propose that in order to explore the dynamic
S
34 nature of attentional focusing, we need to go beyond restrictive theoretical
U
35 dichotomies (e.g., “internal” versus “external” processes) using new approaches.
N
36
A
37 Keywords: Focus of attention, expertise, critical thinking
M
38

D
39
E
40
T
41
P
42
E
43
C
44
C
45 A
46
47
48
49
RESPONSE TO WULF (2015) 3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
50 We are grateful to the editors for the opportunity to respond to Wulf’s (2015)
51 commentary on our recent paper (Toner & Moran, 2015). In this rejoinder, our
52 objectives are threefold. Firstly, using the tools of critical thinking (Halpern, 2014),
53 we shall evaluate Wulf’s claims and refute any false allegations and spurious
T
54 reasoning that we detect. Secondly, we shall explain our misgivings about certain
P
55 aspects of attentional focusing research. Finally, we propose that to fully understand
I
R
56 the dynamic nature of attentional focusing we need to go beyond restrictive
C
57 theoretical dichotomies (e.g., “internal versus external” processes) using new
S
58 approaches like “pupillometry” - the measurement of pupil dilation as an objective
U
59 index of mental effort (Laeng, Sirois, & Gredebäck, 2012).
N
60
A
61 Wulf’s (2015) main allegation is that we have misunderstood the “attentional focus
M
62 effect” – the proposition that “what athletes direct their attention to … will always

D
63 affect their performance in a less-than-optimal (internal focus) or optimal way
E
64 (external focus)”. Before evaluating this allegation, we must refute two subsidiary
T
65 claims. Firstly, she alleges falsely (and in an unfortunately personalized manner given
P
66 that our paper was co-authored) that “Moran has revealed his skepticism with respect
E
67 to expert performance”. To clarify, we are not sceptical of “expert performance” but
C
68 are wary of universal generalizations about the superiority of one type of attentional
C
69 focus over Aanother. Etymologically, ‘skepticism’ originates from the Greek word
70 skeptomai meaning “I consider carefully” (Potter, 1993). So, from a careful
71 consideration of relevant evidence, we argue that an internal focus of attention can be
72 helpful in certain circumstances (e.g., when correcting flawed movement patterns).
73 Secondly, following an irrelevant comment about editorial matters, Wulf expresses
74 surprise at the “vehemence of the opposition” she appears to have detected in our
RESPONSE TO WULF (2015) 4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
75 paper. We reject this claim because according to the Oxford dictionaries, “vehemence”
76 means “great forcefulness or intensity of feeling or expression”. Having scrutinised
77 the approximately 200 words concerning Wulf’s research in our 6,483-word paper
78 (Toner & Moran, 2015), we cannot locate a single word satisfying this definition of
T
79 “vehemence”. Let us now evaluate Wulf’s allegation of “misunderstanding”.
P
80
I
R
81 Although Wulf does not specify precisely how we have misunderstood her work, she
C
82 seeks to correct us by proclaiming rather obscurely (note the double negative) that
S
83 “adopting an external focus does not mean that the performer is not aware of her or
U
84 his body movements”. However, a few sentences later, she claims that an external
N
85 focus is “related to the planning of the movement, but has nothing to do with the
A
86 processing of intrinsic feedback or bodily awareness”. To us, these two statements
M
87 about bodily awareness are contradictory. Whereas in the former, Wulf appears to

D
88 suggest that a performer can adopt an external focus and remain aware of his/her
E
89 bodily movement, in the latter she proposes that an external focus has “nothing to do”
T
90 with bodily awareness.
P
91
E
92 Next, Wulf claims that if performers plan actions in terms of specific bodily
C
93 movements the outcome will ‘always be less-than-optimal’. We agree that attempts to
C
94 consciouslyA control movement patterns often impair skilled actions and performance
95 proficiency. However, we are reluctant to endorse Wulf’s claim that an internal focus
96 of attention will always prove ‘less-than-optimal’. Indeed, Rienhoff, Fischer, Strauss,
97 Baker, and Schorer (2015) showed that an external focus of attention led to a
98 significant decrease in basketball shooting performance relative to internal focusing
99 and no-instruction conditions for players of differing expertise. Unfortunately, Wulf
RESPONSE TO WULF (2015) 5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
100 appears to base her conclusion on methods that typically require performers to adopt
101 an unfamiliar attentional focus (either internal or external). The problematic nature of
102 this approach was pinpointed by Maurer and Munzert (2013) who discovered that
103 skilled basketball players’ free-throw performance was superior under familiar
T
104 compared with unfamiliar focus conditions - irrespective of focus direction (i.e.,
P
105 internal or external). They concluded that “frequently used familiar focus strategies
I
R
106 become integrated into the proceduralized skill components and are no longer
C
107 disruptive to skill execution” (p. 737). Beyond the laboratory, Rory McIlroy, the
S
108 world’s number one ranked golfer, revealed his preference for a familiar internal
U
109 focus of attention in his quest for improvement. Specifically, he always uses “a couple
N
110 of little swing thoughts, whatever I’m working on at the time whether it’s to do with
A
111 holding my right elbow or making sure that I turn my shoulder under my chin or
M
112 whatever it” (“What makes the perfect golf swing?”, 2015). Clearly, some elite

D
113 athletes value the importance of an internal rather than external focus of attention in
E
114 certain circumstances.
T
115
P
116 We do not propose to dwell unduly on Wulf’s speculation about the causes of Tiger
E
117 Woods’ slump in form. Although Woods’ problems could be due to an over-reliance
C
118 on technical thoughts, they may also reflect the waning powers of a player who,
C
119 because of Aprolonged injury, is no longer capable of executing skilled movements
120 with his erstwhile efficiency.
121
122 Wulf concludes her commentary by expressing her confidence that accomplished
123 athletes and their coaches can use relevant external foci to facilitate technical change.
124 This perspective is contrary to our belief that skilled athletes must direct their
RESPONSE TO WULF (2015) 6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
125 attention internally (e.g., to make them aware of the kinaesthetic difference between
126 the flawed movement and the desirable one; see Carson & Collins, 2011) to achieve
127 successful technical change. We know of no empirical evidence to indicate that an
128 external focus can be used to address flaws in skilled movement patterns.
T
129 Interestingly, the study by An, Wulf, and Kim (2013) that Wulf cites to support her
P
130 claim that an external focus can be used to enhance movement form was conducted
I
R
131 with low-skilled golfers. Also, whereas Abdollahipour, Wulf, Psotta, and Palomo
C
132 Nieto, (2015) reported that skilled gymnasts benefited from an external focus, there
S
133 was no evidence to suggest that these participants had been performing sub-optimally
U
134 due to being in a slump or that they were attempting to regain a lost movement pattern.
N
135 This latter issue is important because our paper argued that an internal focus is
A
136 necessary when skilled performers are seeking to refine ‘attenuated’ movement
M
137 patterns. So, although we are open-minded about the validity of Wulf’s claim that

D
138 coaches can use relevant external foci to induce technical change in skilled
E
139 performers, we require evidence that this approach will actually work before
T
140 recommending it to practitioners.
P
141
E
142 To conclude, rather than getting bogged down in a debate over the relative merits of
C
143 different attentional foci, let us consider the broader question of how to explore the
C
144 dynamic naAture of attention itself. In this regard, cognitive researchers (e.g., Anderson,
145 2011) suggest that we need to go beyond restrictive theoretical dichotomies (e.g.,
146 “internal” versus “external”; “top-down versus “bottom-up”) because such binary
147 distinctions are “fuzzy” and leave crucial explanatory gaps (since different aspects of
148 attention interact extensively). Thus, Ristic and Enns (2015) propose that to in order
149 to understand how attention functions in everyday life, we need new tools for
RESPONSE TO WULF (2015) 7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
150 studying individual differences and situational variability. In attentional focusing
151 research, a tool like pupillometry could prove fruitful. Specifically, using pupil
152 dilation as a dependent variable, researchers could investigate individual differences
153 in the attentional effort elicited by different focusing instructions over time. This
T
154 approach could help to elucidate the dynamic processes underlying attentional
P
155 focusing.
I
R
156
C
157
S
158
U
159
N
160
A
161
M
162

D
163
E
164
T
165
P
166
E
167
C
168
C
169 A
170
171
172
173
174