Your Zone of Optimal Functioning
Wait, what? There is a zone of optimal functioning? According to the Inverted U Principle, yes there is! But let’s dig a little deeper so that you can decide for yourself whether you agree or not.
The Inverted U Principle (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908) says that sporting performance improves as arousal levels increase but only to a threshold point. Once that point has been passed and the arousal continues past that point performance worsens. At lower arousal levels, the performance quality is low and might be described as under-arousal or boredom. When looking at medium arousal levels, we see the peak of sport performance which might be described as optimal arousal. Finally, high arousal levels bring on the deterioration of performance quality and can be described as panic. Sounds fairly straight forward and logically makes sense, right? If someone is not aroused enough or over aroused and anxious, they are not going to perform well. Thus, we have the inverted U shape.
Is principle really that straight forward? The principle itself is that straight forward. However, if we put on our proverbial critical thinking hats, there are some questions that we can raise. Does the complexity of the task have an impact? Does developmental age change anything? What if the movement is more focused on gross motor skills versus fine motor skills? These questions do matter because the optimal point can be found sooner if someone is not an expert in a skill or the complexity of the movement is higher. So what we can potentially take away from this is that there may be more than one point for peak performance. This means we would be looking at several different curves instead of just one U. Additionally, Sullivan et al. (2008) wrote about how children use feedback in a manner that is different from adults. This means that to optimize motor learning, children need longer periods of practice, with feedback reduced at a more gradual rate. Furthermore, Hardy et al. (1992) found that there is importance of ability conception for motor learning in children where conceptions of ability are knowledge structures that hold beliefs about the inherent stability or changeability of attributes. Take all of this information in combination with what was discussed above and that equals a lot for any child. So we do need to consider more than just the Inverted U Principle and be mindful of how we apply and use the principle to find our zone of optimal functioning.
Since the introduction of the Inverted U Principle, two additional models have been offered as possible theories that provide a bit more insight - Multidimensional Theory of Anxiety (Martens et al., 1990) and the Catastrophe Model (Hardy et al., 1987). We will just explore the Multidimensional Theory here, but feel free to read more about the Catastrophe Model because it also is interesting. The Multidimensional Theory of Anxiety addresses both the cognitive and somatic components of competitive anxiety, which means that each one can be addressed independently of the other one (McNally, 2002). The cognitive aspect talks about the negative expectations and concerns about a person’s abilities to execute and the thoughts about what would happen if they fail. While the somatic aspect is interested in the physiological effects of someone’s anxiety experiences like the increased arousal of the autonomic nervous system. This theory acknowledges the role of the body!! Yes! The body is a great resource and is the vehicle in which a performance happens.
Hopefully, you have learned something about finding the zone of optimal functioning and why you may want to be critical and mindful of the approach that you take. And, truth be told there are other models out there if you want to dig deeper and explore other one’s like the Individual Zone of Optimal Functioning (IZOF) model. There is so much out there to learn!
Three layers of drips that look like upside down Us - colts are red, teal, and pink.
take action today moment:
Now that you have learned about the Inverted U Principle and explore the Multidimensional Theory of Anxiety, formulate your own thoughts. What do you like about each? What don’t you like? How can you use the information to better your performance? What are the benefits to understanding the many different models related to a topic?
References
Drews, R., Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2013). Children’s motor skill learning is influenced by their conceptions of ability. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 1(2), 38-44.
Hardy, L., Parfitt, G., & Pates, J. (1992). Performance catastrophes in sport: A test of the hysteresis hypothesis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 12, 327-334.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R. Bump, L., & Smith, D. (1990). The development of the competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2). In R. Martens, R. S. Vealey & D. Burton (Eds.). Competitive Anxiety in Sport (pp. 117-190). Human Kinetics.
McNally, I. M. (2002). Contrasting concepts of competitive state-anxiety in sport: Multidimensional anxiety and catastrophe theories. Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 4(2), 10-22.
Sullivan, K. J., Kantak, S. S., & Burtner, P. A. (2008). Motor learning in children: Feedback effects on skill acquisition. Physical Therapy, 88(6), 720-732.
Weiss, S., Reber, A., & Owen, D. (2008). The locus of focus: The effect of switching from a preferred to a non-preferred focus of attention. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26(10), 1049-1057.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation. Journal of Comparative and Neurological Psychology, 18, 459-482.