Content uploaded by Bernadette Kellermann
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bernadette Kellermann on Nov 23, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Kellermann, B.;
MacPherson, A.; Collins, D.; Bertollo,
M. Reading the MAP: A Pracademic
Perspective on the Current State of
Play of the Multi-Action Plan Model
with Regard to Transitions between
Mental States. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2022,19, 15520.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph192315520
Academic Editor: Cristina Cortis
Received: 23 August 2022
Accepted: 14 November 2022
Published: 23 November 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Review
Reading the MAP: A Pracademic Perspective on the Current
State of Play of the Multi-Action Plan Model with Regard to
Transitions between Mental States
Bernadette Kellermann 1, Alan MacPherson 1, Dave Collins 1,2 and Maurizio Bertollo 3, *
1Institute for Sport, Physical Education and Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, St. Leonard’s Land,
Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AQ, UK
2Grey Matters Performance Ltd., Stratford upon Avon CV37 9TQ, UK
3Department of Medicine and Aging Sciences, University “G. d’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara, 66100 Chieti, Italy
*Correspondence: m.bertollo@unich.it
Abstract:
The Multi-Action Plan (MAP) presents as an action-focused, sport-specific, mixed methods
intervention model. MAP research characterized four Performance Types (PTs). Each PT operates
on an affective, cognitive, behavioral, and psychophysiological level—across performance contexts.
In this narrative review, we present a synthesis of our current understanding of MAP research,
coupled with offering applied implications and directions for future research. We make the case
for investigating the timing of transitions between PTs as our primary area of interest in expanding
the MAP framework on a conceptual and applied level. Regarding pre-transition cues, we offer
ideas on examining socio-environmental precursors to performance, with the aim of expanding MAP
from a psycho-bio (affective, cognitive, behavioral, and psychophysiological dimensions) to a biopsy-
chosocial concept (affective, cognitive, behavioral, psychophysiological, and socio-environmental
dimensions). Regarding post-transition, we propose that investigating short- and long-term effort
and reward perception will yield valuable insights into athletes’ rationales behind the selection,
operationalization, and experience of specific PTs. Finally, and from a pracademic perspective, we
reflect critically on the achievements of MAP research thus far and provide specific directions for
future research.
Keywords: peak performance; coping; self-regulation; biopsychosocial; flow state; clutch
1. Introduction
Over the past few decades, multiple attempts were made to conceptualize peak and
non-peak performance experiences within sport psychology [
1
]. Peak performance can
be defined as a state of superior functioning resulting in optimal human performance [
2
].
Most peak performance research can be characterized as either in-depth descriptive studies
(e.g., [
3
]) or were empirical in their orientation [
4
]. However, broadly, the aim of the
peak/non-peak research paradigm is to characterize and determine what does and does not
constitute a peak experience and its associated antecedents and consequences. In contrast to
these dichotomous, peak or non-peak approaches sits the Multi-Action Plan (MAP) Model.
MAP is an intervention model that can be utilized to investigate and improve human
performance, using various research methodologies. To date, the body of research utilizing
MAP investigated the execution of self-paced skills (e.g., [
5
]). Mechanistic approaches
such as this can offer ideas on the ‘How?’ and ‘Why?’ of human behavior in complex,
high-stakes, and dynamic performance environments. They are crucial aids that facilitate
effective applied practice, and enable accurate case conceptualization, assisting both clients
and practitioners (cf. [6]).
Introduced by Bortoli and colleagues [
1
], MAP provides a conceptual structure that outlines
both peak and non-peak performance; perceived emotional states; the control a performer
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 15520. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192315520 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 15520 2 of 14
has over their performance situation; and potential coping strategies. Therefore, although
providing a psychophysiological perspective, MAP is idiosyncratic, meaning that it can be
applied accurately to an individual’s circumstances, as opposed to offering generic guidance.
Given that high-performance environments in sport are dynamic and unpredictable,
the experiences of performers examined within the MAP framework are inherently com-
plex, elusive to systematic study, and challenging to control [
1
]. Yet, to date, MAP was
tested and corroborated in nine studies across multiple self-paced activities (shooting and
dart throwing [
1
,
5
,
7
–
9
]), endurance sports (cycling [
10
,
11
]; running [
12
]), and in driving
simulation [13].
MAP is steeped in the Multi-States Theory for Self-Regulation, which conceptual-
izes the idiosyncratic experience of and dynamic interaction between performer, task
(process, outcome, and performance context), perceived resources, and emotion- and
action-based self-regulation [
14
]. Furthermore, the MAP model presents a novel concep-
tualization of high-performance experiences, synthesizing existing research frameworks,
including Individual Zones of Optimal Functioning—a framework profiling a performer’s
idiosyncratic experience of arousal, pleasantness, and functionality of emotion [
15
,
16
];
the Mindfulness—Acceptance—Commitment approach—a framework promoting non-
judgmental acceptance of cognitions, emotions, and sensations as part of self-regulatory
strategies [
17
]; the Identification—Control—Correction (ICC) program—an evidence-based
psycho-pedagogical approach to optimize the coaching and performance of elite ath-
letes [
16
]; and flow state—a harmonious, rewarding, but elusive peak experience of perfor-
mance (e.g., [18]).
Importantly, however, MAP research does not “cherry pick” elements of these frame-
works and models. Rather, MAP proposes it is possible that tenets of these theories can
apply at the same time—albeit in an idiosyncratic manner [
1
]. Having taken this holistic ap-
proach, proponents of MAP added a mechanistic layer to existing work and were, therefore,
able to provide answers as to why certain cognitive and/or emotional processes may occur
prior and during performance. For example, MAP contributes to the “demystification” of
the much-described flow state, offering insight into how to get oneself into flow by applying
an emotion-focused strategy [
1
]. This contrasts with previous, purely descriptive research
on being in flow.
1.1. Purpose and Research Aims of This Narrative Review
Reflecting this important distinction, and with respect to this body of work, we firstly
present a synthesis of our current understanding of MAP research, as well as offer our ideas
on how MAP research could be expanded in the future. Our focus will be on transitions
between mental states; specifically, upregulation—transitioning from less effective to a
more effective mental state—and downregulation, where athletes transition from a more
effective to a less effective mental state. We recognize that a primary purpose of sport
and performance psychology is the investigation and practical application of upregulation
processes aiming to re-gain, optimize, and/or stabilize performance. However, to develop
an accurate appreciation of peak performance experiences, careful note must also be made
of the factors that contribute to downregulation. Consequently, in relation to the MAP
framework, we conceptualize existing research that examines both up and down regulation,
the primary aim being to expand upon this by developing an approach to investigating
and enhancing human performance.
We will present our findings in the format of a narrative review, considering the
number of published studies currently utilizing the MAP framework and respecting the
idiographic approach taken. Specifically, for studies to be included in this review, the study
protocol required to utilize the MAP framework to conceptualize research findings. A total
of nine studies were identified [
1
,
5
,
7
–
13
], based on the author’s knowledge of the literature.
This number was confirmed by extensive searches of several databases. As an idiosyn-
cratic framework, MAP highlights individual performance, as opposed to generalisable
findings [1]. Accordingly, we will present our findings in the format of a narrative review,
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 15520 3 of 14
respecting the nuance of such an individualised and complex approach. Before offering
three areas on how MAP could be extended, we will present our understanding of the
current state-of-play of the MAP literature, as well as any gaps in this body of research.
1.2. Reading the MAP—Characteristics Performance Types 1–4
MAP consists of four Performance Types (PTs): Types 1 and 2 signify optimal perfor-
mance, whereas in Types 3 and 4, the athlete is performing sub-optimally [
1
]. In addition
to quality of performance, PTs differ in respect to each other, and in terms of the level of
control perceived/exerted by the athlete: Types 1 and 4 are characterized by automatic
performance, whereas Types 2 and 3 are effortful for the athlete to maintain [1].
Type 1 performance is characterized by confident, optimal monitoring of task [
1
].
Physical and mental resources are optimally available to the athlete, resulting in both
a positive challenge appraisal and positive emotional experience: movement execution
appears functional, automatic, and consistent. In contrast with Type 1, Type 2 is charac-
terized by an increased need for, and level of, internal control over the task at hand. Due
to this increased exertion of effort, resources required to maintain focus and energy are
recruited [
1
]. Consequently, the athlete experiences functional, but unpleasant emotions
overall that result in a threat appraisal.
While Types 1 and 2 both produce optimal performance, Type 3 is characterized by
suboptimal performance due to heightened focus on task-irrelevant components that inhibit
automatic movements [1,19]. This overcompensation and resultant increase in attentional
effort is commonly accompanied by unhelpful cognitions and negative-dysfunctional emo-
tions that also result in a harm/negative appraisal by the performer [
1
]. Lastly, Type 4
performance is characterized by action withdrawal and a dysfunctional-pleasant emotional
profile, resulting in ineffective resource recruitment (i.e., behavioral, cognitive, and emo-
tional) for the task at hand [
1
]. While the athlete might prematurely appraise the benefit
of task completion, ineffective movements appear to be lacking in control, resulting in
suboptimal performance.
PTs also differ on the physiological and neural levels. To date, analyses of psychophysi-
ological and neural markers complemented psychological and behavioral results within and
across studies, such as skin conductance level [
9
] and skin temperature [
13
]; heart rate [
9
–
13
];
respiratory rate and postural adjustments [
9
,
13
]; VO
2
[
10
–
12
], VCO
2
[
10
,
11
], and blood lac-
tate [
12
]; and neural markers and cortical activity [
8
,
9
,
11
]. For example, skin conductance levels
of a shooter and a dart-thrower showed differences between effortful PTs (Types 2 and 3) and
more automatic states (Types 1 and 4), which was largely reflected in respiratory and postural
data [
9
]. In contrast, psychophysiological analyses conduced in drivers mostly differed between
optimal (Types 1 and 2) and suboptimal states (Types 3 and 4). On a neural level, PTs are
associated with different cortical patterns. Specifically, automatic states (Types 1 and 4) are
typified by event-related synchronization, whereas effortful states (Types 2 and 3) are typified
by event-related desynchronization [
8
,
9
]. Further, under high exertion, Type 3 is characterized
by high EEG coherence compared with Types 1 and 2 [11].
1.3. Reading the MAP—Operationalizing Performance Types 1–4
Currently, studies utilizing the MAP framework investigate one PT per performance in
shooting and dart-throwing [
1
,
5
,
7
–
9
], cycling [
10
,
11
], running [
12
], and driving [
13
]. Further,
while most MAP studies examined all four PTs [
1
,
5
,
7
,
9
,
12
,
13
], two studies focused on Types 1–
3 [
10
,
11
] and one study on Types 1 and 2 [
8
]. However, research on the phasing of performance
indicated that one performance may consist of multiple phases and/or stages; for example,
there may be sub-phases of increased pressure during one longer performance [
20
]. Thus,
whilst MAP currently characterizes the operationalization of PTs, transition mechanisms that
enable performers to self-, or even upregulate, are yet to be investigated.
In terms of self-regulated transitioning between, and attainment of, PTs, there is a clear
distinction between the operation of action- and emotion-focused coping strategies [
1
]. For
example, emotion-focused strategies are necessary to attain flow-like Type 1 performance
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 15520 4 of 14
experiences. In contrast, athletes may apply action-focused coping strategies to regain optimal
Type 2 performance following a suboptimal performance episode [
1
]. In terms of how
transition mechanisms are initiated, the Affect as Information Theory suggests that affect can
act as meta-cognitive cue(s) for transitioning between distinct cognitive processing styles [
21
].
Due to individual differences in the way performers recruit psychological resources (e.g.,
focus) to control performance in PTs, it can be assumed that affect can cue the processes
involved in transitioning between Types 1–4. However, as we elaborate in Section 2of this
manuscript, research is needed to examine these cues in isolation and combination.
1.4. Contextualizing Types 1 and 2 with Related Peak Performance Concepts
Before offering our ideas on how to expand the MAP model, we highlight common-
alities and differences with related peak performance concepts, to better understand the
specificity around the MAP typology. Characteristics of Type 1 performance are widely
consistent with those associated with flow state, including complete absorption, automatic-
ity of movements, and absence of irrelevant or unhelpful cognitions and emotions [
22
].
Expanding on Csikszentmihalyi’s work, Swann and colleagues suggested a framework
describing “letting it happen” performance, which is akin to a flow-like experience [
23
].
There are clear and marked similarities between flow, “letting it happen” [
23
], and Type 1
performance that include minimally conscious monitoring of relevant task components,
complete absorption in the activity, and positive affect.
In contrast, Type 2 is characterized by a threat appraisal, unpleasant, albeit functional
emotions, and a desire to upregulate to Type 1 performance [
1
]. Importantly, however,
performance output is, like Type 1—optimal. These characteristics are reflected in “making
it happen” performance episodes—the “letting it happen” counterpart that outlines optimal,
focused, but effortful performance [
23
]. However, “making it happen” is also characterized
by a challenge appraisal, positive emotions, increased motivation, and flow-like changes in
perception (e.g., regarding time [
23
]). These aspects present crucial differences to MAP’s
Type 2. In short, while characteristics such as effective recruitment of resources and
increased focus and awareness are shared between Type 2 performance and “making it
happen”, they may be still distinct experiences.
As a concept applicable to both Types 1 and 2, clutch performance is defined as episodes
of superior performance despite increased pressure during a performance event [
20
,
24
].
Specifically, flow-like experiences such as automaticity and the absence of negative thoughts
correspond with characteristics associated with Type 1 performance [
1
,
20
]. However,
deliberate focus, increased effort, heightened perceived control, and increased arousal,
resemble the Type 2 performance attributes [
1
,
20
]. While a Type 2 experience shares facets
with both clutch and “making it happen” [
23
], concept-specific differences remain with
both the clutch concept, i.e., automaticity in clutch vs. consciously controlled movements
in Type 2, and “making it happen” [
23
] or challenge appraisal in “making it happen” vs.
threat appraisal in Type 2.
In conclusion, while it is relatively clear that, within MAP, Type 1 performance is asso-
ciated with flow-like experiences, the mechanisms proposed as underpinning Type 2 are
more complex. Indeed, and potentially confusing for application, it appears that both “mak-
ing it happen” as well as the clutch concept share characteristics with both Type 1 and Type
2. This indicates that Type 2 may in fact be more complex regarding characteristics such as
appraisal and emotions, but also more realistic and frequent, especially in comparison with
Type 1 and flow-like experiences. However, accurate comparison is problematic given the
relative paucity of data regarding Type 2-like performance experiences, in contrast with the
comprehensive body of literature investigating Type 1/ low experiences.
1.5. Extending the MAP—Considering Important Next Steps
While MAP provides a valuable framework for conceptualizing peak performance,
there are still several areas that require further investigation. Accordingly, we next overview
the current understanding of MAP and highlight avenues for future research. Findings
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 15520 5 of 14
are presented in the format of a narrative review, summarizing the current state-of-play
of research conducted within MAP. First, we argue that a better understanding of the
phasing/timing of transitions between mental states during performance would greatly
expand the MAP framework on a conceptual and applied level. Second, we offer our ideas
on the role of socio-environmental precursors acting as cues for such transition processes.
Third, we propose clarification of the role of effort and reward perception post-transition,
particularly in relation to micro and macro timeframes.
2. Transitions between Mental States: Performance as a Multi-Phase Process
2.1. Current Understanding
Currently, studies within the MAP framework are conducted on the apparent assump-
tion that an athlete engages in one PT per performance. This point is reinforced as partic-
ipants included in experimental studies are assigned exclusively to an experimental con-
dition that corresponds to one PT, which is subsequently confirmed by the administration
of post-experimental manipulation checks [
10
–
12
]. While this methodological decision is
well-justified in the study context and supports the purpose of examining PT characteristics
for the sake of categorisation, we argue that performers may experience multiple PTs during
one performance—a consideration currently not reflected in the MAP literature.
Within the MAP framework and representing (in our opinion) a particular strength of
the model, each PT is characterized by differences in appraisal, emotional experience, resource
recruitment, attentional focus, level of control, and mental strategy, to name only some of
the cognitive and emotional components that feature [
1
]. While these characteristics build
the foundation to multi-dimensional PTs, to-date, studies adopting the MAP framework cate-
gorized MAP PTs according to research question(s), methodology, and participant expertise.
Most commonly, PTs were categorized using median split techniques, involving objective
performance scores and participants’ ratings of perceived control [
4
,
7
–
9
,
13
]. This method
was applied with expert shooters and drivers. In contrast, (mostly) non-elite endurance
athletes were assigned to a PT—specific experimental conditions, based on corresponding
categorization variables [
10
–
12
]. Once again, manipulation checks were administered to
ensure the correct assignment of participants. Unfortunately, however, as a result, we
suggest that some “explicative power” regarding the idiosyncratic experience of PTs may
be lost, particularly against the previously identified strengths of an individualized and
idiographic approach.
In summary, given that negotiating unexpected stressors is a major contributory factor
to complexity of performance, it is likely that a performer may have to operationalize and
apply more than one PT when performing. Thus, while MAP research yielded highly
informative data thus far, incorporating the impact of transitions between PTs during
performance could prove an impactful new area of MAP research.
2.2. Making the Case for Performance as a Multi-Phase Process
In proposing this direction, we suggest that a rationale for doing so is already provided
by research into performance states. For example, qualitative and meta-analytic evidence
indicate that athletes may perceive clutch performance on an episodic level (micro time-
frame), as well as appraising entire events as a clutch performance (meso timeframe) [
20
,
25
].
Specifically, the timing of when athletes appraise performance as clutch or as a flow state
may differ depending on their perceived ability to cope. This will impact upon their ability
to enter, exit, and maintain a particular PT or combination thereof [
26
]. To the best of our
knowledge, clutch performance was not investigated using a MAP framework. Moreover,
evidence referred to previously [
20
,
25
] suggests that clutch performance can be episodic
in nature, thus increasing the likelihood that performance comprises multiple phases.
Importantly, this facet appears to vary based, at least in part, on athlete perception.
Notably, however, in-performance episodes were also studied at a neural level. A further
example regarding flow state indicated that when participants encountered an unexpected
stressor during tightrope performance, EEG patterns were distinctly different from patterns
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 15520 6 of 14
recorded during flow state [
27
]. We would suggest that a disruption of a Type 1 performance,
viewed through the MAP paradigm, may have caused a transition to Type 2 or Type 3 within
the performance episode. Findings indicate that disruption to Type 1 performance is a realistic
scenario for performers and practitioners to navigate [
27
]. Therefore, coping and upregulation,
in order to stabilize or and re-gain an optimal performance state are key psychological skill
elements to maintain effective performance against variations in challenge.
2.3. Implications: Types 1–4 as Micro, Meso, and Macro Performance Episodes
Based on these observations, we suggest that Type 1–4 performances may all appear as
episodes during one longer performance [
20
,
25
,
27
]. For example, a cyclist may experience
five minutes of Type 1, followed by 20 min of Type 2 and 15 min of Type 3 during their
40-min ride. This would constitute three short (micro) performance episodes, across three
PTs, during one longer (meso) performance event (e.g., a Tour event). However, their
experience may differ over the course of a season (macro), considering that tasks and
contexts will vary greatly. Consequently, it may be an oversimplification to assume that
athletes operationalize only one PT per performance. This also has implications for research
study design, as to-date MAP studies were “strengthened” by pre-assigning participants to
PTs [10–12].
Of course, these possibilities do seem to have been considered. For example, first
steps were made in hypothesizing the transition process from Type 3 to Type 2 as a
multi-stage process involving mindful acceptance [
1
]. In-performance transitions are not
empirically supported, however. Further research, perhaps in the form of qualitative
evidence or mixed design research, is needed to investigate the intra-transition processes
outlined. For example, stimulated recall through event-focused interviews, conducted
soon after a performance event, may give valuable insight into how athletes characterize
their performance in terms of PT phasing and strategies that were utilized in a specific
performance context [
26
]. A second method could be think-aloud protocols to gain insight
into the cognitions employed during transitions, concurrently or retrospectively; however,
think aloud, by design, “only” report thoughts but lack reflective explanations as to the
intention behind why they occurred [
28
]. This element would be an important addition to
the existing protocol.
3. Pre-Transition: Socio-Environmental Precursors of Performance
To date, MAP adopted a psycho-bio perspective to conceptualize optimal and suboptimal
performance. Within any given performance situation, however, performers are required to
evaluate the performance task through their internal experience and the social context in which
performance occurs. Notably, this psychosocial facet has yet to be investigated in relation
to MAP. For example, self-efficacy and the performer’s perception of control are important
precursors in the interaction between self and environment in relation to their performance.
Indeed, we would suggest that they act as crucial beliefs, underpinning performer decision-
making and drive selection of and switching between PTs.
3.1. Self-Efficacy (Yet to Be Examined in MAP)
Defined as the belief in the ability to execute a specific task effectively [
29
–
31
], self-
efficacy was extensively researched in the sporting context over the past few decades.
Within MAP research, however, self-efficacy was not examined. Of course, it could be
hypothesized that performers in Type 1 or 2 states possess high levels of self-efficacy
and are, therefore, more likely to perform optimally. For example, in a Type 1 state, the
performer’s skills optimally match task demands [
32
]. Similarly, evidence suggests that
self-efficacy increases when perceived task difficulty decreases [
33
]. Consequently, it can
be speculated that an athlete’s self-efficacy level in Type 1 might be optimally calibrated
in relation to perceived task difficulty. In contrast, performers in Types 3 and 4 states
might experience higher levels of perceived task difficulty due to increased task demands
and insufficient coping resources. Therefore, athletes operationalizing Types 3 and 4 may
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 15520 7 of 14
have lower self-efficacy beliefs. Considering the impact of performance accomplishments
and self-efficacy, this may perpetuate the suboptimal state and lead to further suboptimal
performance.
This dynamic posits a link between performers’ self-efficacy beliefs and the generation
and maintenance of psychological momentum. While psychological momentum can be
both positively geared toward optimal performance, but also sometimes, exacerbate nega-
tive suboptimal performance, self-efficacy was found to increase positive, psychological
momentum [
34
]. Future research is needed to gain insight into the role of self-efficacy
in the selection of and/or transitions between PTs, specifically in response to previous
performance.
Of course, both macro and micro dynamics require investigation; as an example
for a possible macro timeframe, a performance by an athlete that took place earlier in
the season could be interpreted by them as Type 2. In order to better understand the
link between PT appraisal and momentum, it would be instructive to determine how the
perception of this experience then influences the performer’s self-efficacy profile for the
remainder of the season, considering that task difficulty will vary during the course of
a season [
33
]. In short, what factors influence psychological momentum, be it towards
optimizing or stabilizing performance? What PTs do the athlete engage in, or try to
employ, and how can these be characterized? Moreover, future research is required to better
understand how self-efficacy impacts acutely, on a micro timeframe. Reflecting our earlier
argument on conceptualizing performance as a multi-phase process, across the course of
one performance, an athlete might start a performance in Type 3 PT, with lower self-efficacy
beliefs, but utilize the necessary psycho-social resources to rally and improve. However,
are such changes influenced a priori by self-efficacy or does this improve after the change is
accomplished? Future research is required to investigate the coping strategies required for
upregulation towards optimal performance and the role that self-efficacy plays.
Consequently, as self-efficacy increases, it can be hypothesized that athletes are better
able to regulate their affective experience [
31
,
35
]. In the context of the emotional profile of
each PT, this could be of real interest: pleasant-functional (Type 1), unpleasant-functional
(Type 2), unpleasant-dysfunctional (Type 3), and pleasant-dysfunctional (Type 4) [
1
]. While
MAP proposes emotion- and action-focused self-regulation strategies for movement be-
tween PTs, future research is required to investigate the role of self-efficacy as a precursor
to effectively employ such coping strategies. In addition, increased self-efficacy might
indirectly lead to increased positive affect, through its role as a precursor to better per-
formance [
36
]. For example, could vicarious experiences act as social cues to affective
changes, prompting upregulation processes? This is only one of many possible mecha-
nisms which, if detected, could be added to the athlete’s and practitioner’s arsenal. A good
start point would be to consider the overlaps between the strategies proposed to underpin
PT switching in MAP and the impact of the different sources of self-efficacy.
3.2. Perception of Control (Previously Examined in MAP)
In contrast to self-efficacy, perceived control was examined in a number of MAP
studies [4,7]
.
In its current format, perceived control is a fundamental aspect that differentiates between
and characterizes the four PTs. Specifically, Bortoli and colleagues characterize Type 1 as
automatic performance, requiring the athlete to supervise performance; Type 2 is characterized
as optimally controlled, with an effective recruitment of resources; Type 3 as over-controlled,
resulting in reinvestment; and Type 4 as under-controlled, and lacking in focus [1].
In relation to the MAP typologies, perception of control was investigated both prior
and following performance. For example, in terms of pre-performance, performers’ per-
ceived control over idiosyncratic core components was examined [
7
,
13
]. Post-performance,
participant self-rated levels of perceived control post-shot were gathered, before objective
shooting scores were revealed to them [
4
,
8
,
9
]. Moreover, self-report scores of perceived
control were utilized to categorize PTs for each participant [
8
,
9
,
13
], reflecting the 2
×
2
interaction between performance experience and level of control.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 15520 8 of 14
Further to assisting with the categorization of PT’s, the investigation of perceived control
could also provide valuable insight into when, and why, an athlete may move between PTs.
Specifically, perceived control could act as a cue for the need to transition. With regard
to Type 1, meta-analytic findings on controllable and uncontrollable elements of flow state
corroborated previous findings [
37
,
38
]. This research concluded that skills to maintain flow
were at least partially controllable; this was in contrast to disruptors of flow, which were
deemed uncontrollable by participants [
37
]. Therefore, it could be valuable to gain qualitative
insight into the role of perceived control over potential disruptors of Type 1 performance,
coupled with effective coping strategies that were employed to maintain a PT.
Regarding Type 2, MAP proposes that effort is consciously exerted, although affect is
negative [
1
,
4
]. This is particularly interesting against the backdrop of Wood and Wilson’s
findings [
39
]; they established that high self-ratings regarding perception of control beliefs
resulted in better overall performance, less anxiety about performing well, and reduced
levels of perceived uncertainty. There are clear parallels between these findings and those
for Type 2 [
39
], except that the MAP framework associates negative affect with Type 2.
Consequently, future research is required to investigate Type 2 performance more closely,
specifically, the role of affect and emotion, as Type 2 could be even more multi-faceted and
dynamic than currently assumed.
Regarding suboptimal performance, low perceived control, along with distraction
and debilitative anxiety, may be responsible for suboptimal performance [
40
]. This may be
specific to Type 3 performance, where it is currently proposed that conscious control of au-
tomated movement patterns through declarative knowledge disrupts performance [
19
,
40
].
This negative interaction between cognition and the attendant movement patterns high-
lights contrasting dimensions of control: while an athlete may experience low perceived
control as a result of a stressor, one ineffective coping strategy could be to exert too much
attentional resource and, therefore, over-control and underperform. This complex dynamic
is exacerbated by negative affect leading to a further decrease in perceived control and the
application of less effective coping behaviors (e.g., [
41
,
42
]). Future research is needed to
corroborate current hypotheses on coping strategies [
1
], examining the role of perceived
control in upregulating from suboptimal to optimal performance, as well as the efficacy of
coping behaviors such as cognitive restructuring [43].
3.3. Implications: Self-Efficacy and Perceived Control as Cues for Transition Processes
Based on the review above, it becomes clear that both self-efficacy beliefs and per-
ception of control are crucial for a better understanding of transitions between PTs. They
present critical cues for the need to transition and upregulate when negotiating stressors,
while acting as precursors to employing coping strategies and behaviors. Future research
is needed to consider this interesting dynamic more closely. For example, could high
self-efficacy compensate for low perceived control for athletes operationalizing Type 3
performance? Or, which associated coping strategies are most effective in upregulating to
optimal performance? Furthermore, in the context of self-efficacy, an examination of the
links between appraisal (e.g., available coping resources versus required coping efforts)
and perceived control beliefs could provide valuable insight into the nature and dynamic
of Type 2 performance.
In terms of specific tools used to synthesize and apply these findings, it would be
instructive to investigate the potency of self-talk, specifically to help athletes transition
between PTs as they are contextualized in MAP. For example, what types of self-talk are
best suited for what types of transitions, and how can practitioners train athletes in their
effective application to recognize specific PTs and employ potential solutions, accordingly?
Future research needs to address these questions with consideration given to existing
findings regarding the context-dependent nuances of self-talk in high performance, i.e.,
organic vs. strategic and spontaneous vs. goal-directed [44,45].
Overall, we would suggest that MAP research, at least so far, underutilized perception
of control as a variable. While useful for categorizing PTs idiosyncratically, perceived con-
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 15520 9 of 14
trol, along with self-efficacy beliefs, could be used to better understand athletes’ evaluation
of their internal experience, task, and context in relation to PTs, as well as movement be-
tween them. Indeed, the current understanding of peak performance, as delivered by MAP,
could be extended beyond emphasizing what happens during PTs, towards examining
mechanisms of upregulation and coping in athletes, which would carry critical implications
for applied practitioners.
4. Post-Transition: Effort and Reward Perception
To date, MAP research elicited insightful, multi-faceted findings that uncovered what
athletes think, feel, and experience at both a psychological and physiological level during
peak and non-peak performance states. Moreover, MAP research covered a range of
experimental timeframes, ranging from a single experimental session [
4
,
7
–
9
] and multiple
lab visits [
10
–
13
], to longitudinal research [
1
]. One aspect still requiring examination within
MAP, however, is the short- and long-term impact of operationalizing a given PT on the
athlete’s ability to upregulate. For example, what is the reward perception, as experienced
by the performer, of executing seemingly automatic Type 1 performance, in comparison to
effortful Type 2 performance? Rewards exert the greatest effects in anticipation, as opposed
to actual achievement, and manifest in a dopamine response [
46
]. Consequently, gaining
insight into athletes’ reward perception, especially in terms of their short- and long-term
expectations, could be useful for better understanding why athletes (re)operationalize a
specific PT in a corresponding, albeit idiosyncratic, performance context.
4.1. Intrinsic Motivation in Type 1 and 2
Intrinsic motivation, as conceptualized within self-determination theory (SDT), is
characterized as a distinct, inherent satisfaction with task execution alone [
47
,
48
]. In re-
search on flow states, such inherent satisfaction is termed “autotelic” [
18
,
22
]. Moreover,
extrinsic, tangible rewards were found to decrease intrinsic motivation [
49
]. However,
intrinsic motivation increases with heightened perceived control, which is, within MAP,
at its optimal level in Type 1 and Type 2 performance [
4
,
46
]. Moreover, intrinsic moti-
vation, inherent in autotelic satisfaction, was established as the reward structure behind
flow experience and, therefore, Type 1 performance [
22
]. Indeed, during flow, performers
engage in task-relevant, positive emotions, which, coupled with intrinsic motivations,
makes performers want to reacquire this state [
22
]. Swann and colleagues extended this
framework by highlighting that, following successful performance, both flow and clutch
states reward the performer intrinsically [
26
]. Importantly, however, from the performer’s
perspective there are appreciably different emotional experiences resulting from flow states
versus a clutch performance experience. While the performer may feel energized after a
flow state experience, clutch performance usually leaves them emotionally and physically
drained [
26
]. In the context of MAP, both Type 2, and especially Type 3 PTs leave the per-
former fatigued. Transferring these findings to the SDT framework, one could summarize
that while Type 1 is inherently intrinsically motivating, it takes effort for the athlete to
(self-)determine performance, whereas in Type 3, the athlete’s performance is determined by
challenges and obstacles. Future research is needed to explore this dynamic and examine
sources of intrinsic motivation leading to continued engagement in performance.
4.2. Perception of Effort in the MAP Framework
Within the MAP framework, it was established that both Type 1 and Type 4 involve
less effort, in contrast to Types 2 and 3, where athletes exert significant effort [
1
]. Effort can
be categorized into initial effort mobilization and subsequent effort to maintain, enter, and
exit a PT. Effort to maintain a PT was examined through measuring participants’ ratings
of perceived exhaustion associated with their idiosyncratic PT profiles [
11
]. However, the
(mental and psychological) effort required to transition between PTs is yet to be investigated
within MAP. For example, in Type 4, where athletes perform sub-optimally with little
conscious control, effort mobilization may in part depend on a performer’s intensity of
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 15520 10 of 14
motivation and positive affect in order to transition to a more favorable PT (Motivational
Intensity Theory [50,51]).
Regarding Type 2, MAP’s current association of negative affect with high effort
presents a contrast to existing literature. Acknowledging that the performer deals with
stressors in this PT, how can something that is optimally controlled and produces optimal
performance result in negative affect? For example, higher levels of effort were found
to correspond to an increased level of perceived value, if performance was already suc-
cessful [
52
]. Further, individuals generally expect larger rewards when greater effort had
to be exerted to perform a task [
53
]. Within MAP, this could mean that given the efforts
involved in transitioning into and maintaining Type 2 performance, Type 2 could be, once
the performance is complete, perceived as highly rewarding to the athlete.
Considering that optimal performance itself may be—if intrinsic motivation is the
driving force—the reward behind Type 2 performance, these findings suggest that the
social environment that corresponds to Type 2 performance requires further investigation.
For example, if an athlete exerts conscious effort to produce optimal performance, but
recognizes that their current experience is highly efficacious, this should provide them with
a positive emotional experience that motivates them to engage and subsequently re-engage
with this process. As such, perceptions of self-reward may offer an additional dimension
and enable the differences highlighted across “making it happen”/Type 2 to be teased out.
4.3. Implications: Reward Perception as an Idiosyncratic Facet of Performance
As referred to previously, flow is elusive, complex to attain, and easily disrupted [
22
,
54
].
In contrast, Type 2 presents optimally controlled, effortful, superior performance [
1
]. This
poses the question whether, once performance is completed, Type 1 performance is accom-
panied by the same feeling regarding accomplishment, compared to Type 2. For example,
future research needs to examine which PT an athlete is more likely to re-engage with,
given their perception regarding attainment, execution, and task completion? Further-
more, the reality for most elite/pre-elite performers is that they operate close to their
performance ceiling, this being an important precursor of attaining and maintaining their
level. Consequently, it is important to determine whether there is a difference between
short-term and long-term reward perception and how this affects MAP typology. To gain
insight into these questions, longitudinal research is needed to investigate biopsychosocial
differences between athletes who exhibit a greater propensity to operationalize one PT over
the other(s).
Moreover, regarding Type 1, flow state may require optimal, post-voluntary levels
of effort, opposed to being a purely effortless state [
55
]. Future research is needed to
investigate the precursors of flow that allow performers to enter what they would term
a ‘flow’ state. Consequently, it is key to determine whether cognitive, emotional, and
behavioral antecedents can be reproduced. In addition, research is needed to investigate
the role of effort in this dynamic. Regarding Type 2, future research may examine the role
of affect and emotions in Type 2, as well as their connection to situational appraisal and
self-regulation. For example, is there a dimension of Type 2 performance, characterized
by a challenge appraisal and positive affect? Overall, reward value depends on the goals
of an individual [
56
]. It can be assumed, that in Types 1 and 2, an individual’s aim is to
maintain optimal performance, whereas Types 3 and 4 are characterized by self-regulation
and coping to attain optimal performance. However, future research is needed to examine
this dynamic.
5. Discussion
The purpose of the present review was to synthesize research conducted within the
MAP framework to highlight both our current understanding of MAP and to identify
potential gaps and avenues for future research. Specifically, we made a case for examining
transitions between mental states, and their associated PTs. Subsequently, we presented
our ideas on investigating pre-transition psychosocial cues and post-transition effort and
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 15520 11 of 14
reward perception. We demonstrated that all three areas could provide valuable insights
into when, why, and potentially how athletes transition between PTs. This would enhance
MAP and enable the model to depict transitions from suboptimal to optimal performance,
as well as provide insights as to the maintenance and continuance of Types 1 and 2.
5.1. MAP’s Contributions to Date
MAP was designed as a multi-measure intervention model for sport performance. It
successfully marries mechanistic, psychophysiological evidence with evidence of behavior,
cognition, emotion, attentional focus, and performance measures, establishing itself as a ro-
bust model and informing guidance for practitioners. A variety of experimental timeframes
(i.e., longitudinal, cross-sectional) and contexts (i.e., practice sessions, performance simu-
lation, physiology labs) are employed, each specifically tailored to realize research aims
and methodologies. Furthermore, MAP approaches performance as an individualized, id-
iosyncratic concept; consequently, this results in specific findings, relevant to practitioners,
athletes, and coaches. Studies were creatively constructed specific to performance contexts
and involved expert performers, which resulted in the creation of high-quality data sets.
The consistent categorization of PTs led to a coherent body of research, acting as a solid
foundation for future investigations. In conclusion, MAP can be characterized as a “quality
over quantity” model. Importantly, however, as in any scientific work, there is potential to
expand its scope and learn more about its applicability and utility to performers.
5.2. Essential Next Steps: Directions for Future Research
As discussed earlier, the MAP model was empirically investigated in closed-skill,
self-paced activities (e.g., [
7
]), endurance sport (e.g., [
10
]), and driving simulation [
13
]. As
a next step in the development of MAP, we propose the examination of PT characteristics
in an open-skill, externally paced, hyper-dynamic performance environment—for example
combat sports. Such efforts would reflect the variety of biopsychosocial demands on the
performer (depending on the type of activity), and make MAP into a more comprehensive,
applied, and accessible model for practitioners and coaches.
Second, MAP research to date focused on investigating what happens during oper-
ationalization of PTs (i.e., characteristics and concomitants), but not on how athletes can
best transition between PTs. Future research needs to carefully consider task, context, and
impact, using qualitative and quantitative evidence to better understand the processes
that enable transition between PTs, both on a micro, e.g., during performance, as well as
on a macro level, e.g., throughout a season. This could be explored in conjunction with
contextualizing clutch performance within a MAP framework since the clutch can occur
episodically during performance [25].
Further, future research is required to examine how transitions within MAP progress.
For example, is there a linear progression between stages (e.g., 4, 3, 2, 1 and vice-versa)?
Can PTs be skipped (e.g., from Type 3 to Type 1)? Research indicated that emotion-focused
coping strategies can aid transitions from Type 3 to Type 1, and that action-focused coping
strategies facilitate transitions from Type 3 to Type 2 [
1
]. However, this is yet to be observed
and documented through empirical study.
Moreover, it is still unclear what cognitive, emotional, or environmental cues initiate
PTs. Can a performer train to function in a Type 2 state, peaking, occasionally/unconsciously,
into Type 1? Furthermore, could trait affect and/or subjective, context-specific emotions
act as meta-cognitive cues for initiating corresponding PTs (see Affect as Information The-
ory [
21
])? These findings would not only expand our current theoretical understanding of
self-regulation and coping, but also enrich practitioner and coaching literature in terms of
how athletes can be best supported in attaining, and maintaining, optimal performance.
5.3. Essential Next Steps: Practical Implications
In an applied setting, the MAP model could also be incorporated into existing in-
tervention methods to prevent or manage “choking” under pressure [
57
]. In addition,
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 15520 12 of 14
MAP findings could offer applied guidance for performance refinement and for preventing
underperformance such as in Types 3 and 4 [
9
,
58
]. Further, it could be insightful to take
stock of the current application of the MAP framework in practice. As academics and
practitioners, we not only inform practice through research, but also hope to gain insight
from those applying the research, to ask relevant and specific research questions. Reflecting
this, future research could explore how practitioners, coaches, and athletes utilized MAP
research thus far, as well as gaps they would like to see addressed.
6. Conclusions
The employment of a mixed methods approach in relation to MAP yielded important
and insightful findings to date, and it is important these modes of research continue.
Gaining access to rich data regarding athlete experience, coupled with quantitative methods
examining psychophysiological underpinnings of performance, holds further, significant
promise.
Currently, MAP treats PTs as states; however, considering that transition processes
between PTs might be dynamic and complex, it could be valuable to study the underlying
contextual and individual differences that will likely inform the MAP typology that may fit
a performer’s particular mindset. In short, entering a MAP typology may be more involved
than “just” a switch, as is currently assumed [1].
Lastly, in part due to its conceptual heritage, MAP is currently presented as a sport-
specific model. However, aspects such as dealing with stressors, flow state, effort exertion,
as well as the contrast in markers of optimal, in comparison to suboptimal performance, are
highly transferable to other domains of human performance. The idiosyncratic nature of
MAP research findings is a methodological strength and can yield further valuable insights
across performance domains, coupled with an in-depth understanding of performance
context and culture.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, B.K., A.M., D.C. and M.B.; investigation, B.K., A.M.,
D.C. and M.B.; resources, B.K., A.M., D.C. and M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, B.K.;
writing—review and editing, B.K., A.M., D.C. and M.B.; supervision, A.M., D.C. and M.B.; project
administration, B.K., A.M., D.C. and M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Bortoli, L.; Bertollo, M.; Hanin, Y.; Robazza, C. Striving for excellence: A multi-action plan intervention model for Shooters.
Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2012,13, 693–701. [CrossRef]
2.
Jackson, S.A.; Roberts, G.C. Positive performance states of athletes: Toward a conceptual understanding of peak performance.
Sport Psychol. 1992,6, 156–171. [CrossRef]
3.
Łucznik, K.; May, J.; Redding, E. A qualitative investigation of flow experience in group creativity. Res. Danc. Educ.
2021
,22, 190–209.
[CrossRef]
4.
Swann, C. Flow in Sport. In Flow Experience. Empirical Research and Application; Harmat, L., Ullén, F., Sadlo, G., Eds.; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 51–66.
5.
Robazza, C.; Bertollo, M.; Filho, E.; Hanin, Y.; Bortoli, L. Perceived Control and Hedonic Tone Dynamics During Performance in
Elite Shooters. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2016,87, 284–294. [CrossRef]
6.
Martindale, A.; Collins, D. The Development of Professional Judgment and Decision Making Expertise in Applied Sport
Psychology. Sport Psychol. 2013,27, 390–398. [CrossRef]
7.
Bertollo, M.; Bortoli, L.; Gramaccioni, G.; Hanin, Y.; Comani, S.; Robazza, C. Behavioural and psychophysiological correlates of
athletic performance: A test of the multi-action plan model. Appl. Psychophysiol. Biofeedback 2013,38, 91–99. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 15520 13 of 14
8.
Bertollo, M.; di Fronso, S.; Filho, E.; Conforto, S.; Schmid, M.; Bortoli, L.; Comani, S.; Robazza, C. Proficient brain for optimal
performance: The MAP model perspective. PeerJ 2016,4, e2082. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9.
Di Fronso, S.; Robazza, C.; Filho, E.; Bortoli, L.; Comani, S.; Bertollo, M. Neural markers of performance states in an Olympic
athlete: An EEG case study in air-pistol shooting. J. Sport. Sci. Med. 2016,15, 214–222.
10.
Bertollo, M.; di Fronso, S.; Filho, E.; Lamberti, V.; Ripari, P.; Reis, V.M.; Comani, S.; Bortoli, L.; Robazza, C. To focus or not to focus:
Is attention on the core components of action beneficial for cycling performance? Sport Psychol. 2015,29, 110–119. [CrossRef]
11.
Di Fronso, S.; Tamburro, G.; Robazza, C.; Bortoli, L.; Comani, S.; Bertollo, M. Focusing attention on muscle exertion increases EEG
coherence in an endurance cycling task. Front. Psychol. 2018,9, 1249. [CrossRef]
12.
Vitali, F.; Tarperi, C.; Cristini, J.; Rinaldi, A.; Zelli, A.; Lucidi, F.; Schena, F.; Bortoli, L.; Robazza, C. Action monitoring through
external or internal focus of attention does not impair endurance performance. Front. Psychol.
2019
,10, 535. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13.
Filho, E.; di Fronso, S.; Mazzoni, C.; Robazza, C.; Bortoli, L.; Bertollo, M. My heart is racing! Psychophysiological dynamics of
skilled racecar drivers. J. Sport. Sci. 2015,33, 945–959. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Ruiz, M.C.; Bortoli, L.; Robazza, C. The Multi-States (MuSt) Theory for emotion- and action-regulation in sports. In Feelings in
Sport. Theory, Research, and Practical Implications for Performance and Well-Being; Ruiz, M.C., Robazza, C., Eds.; Routledge: London,
UK, 2021; pp. 5–18.
15.
Hanin, Y. A study of anxiety in sports. In Sport Psychology: An Analysis of Athlete Behavior; Straub, W.F., Ed.; Movement Publications:
Jacksonville, FL, USA, 1978; pp. 236–249.
16.
Hanin, Y.; Hanina, M. Optimization of performance in top-level athletes: An action-focused coping approach. Int. J. Sport. Sci.
Coach. 2009,4, 47–91. [CrossRef]
17.
Gardner, F.; Moore, Z. A Mindfulness-Acceptance-Commitment-based approach to athletic performance enhancement: Theoretical
considerations. Behav. Ther. 2004,35, 707–723. [CrossRef]
18.
Jackson, S.A.; Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow in sports: The Keys to Optimal Experiences and Performances; Human Kinetics Books:
Champaign, IL, USA, 1999.
19. Masters, R.; Maxwell, J. The theory of reinvestment. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2008,1, 160–183. [CrossRef]
20.
Schweickle, M.J.; Swann, C.; Jackman, P.C.; Vella, S.A. Clutch performance in sport and exercise: A systematic review. Int. Rev.
Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2020,14, 102–129. [CrossRef]
21.
Shiota, M.N.; Sauter, D.A.; Desmet, P.M. What are ‘positive’ affect and emotion? Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci.
2021
,39, 142–146.
[CrossRef]
22.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology. In Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014.
23.
Swann, C.; Keegan, R.; Crust, L.; Piggott, D. Psychological states underlying excellent performance in professional golfers:
“Letting it happen” vs. “making it happen.” Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2016,23, 101–113. [CrossRef]
24.
Swann, C.; Jackman, P.C.; Schweickle, M.J.; Vella, S.A. Optimal experiences in exercise: A qualitative investigation of flow and
clutch states. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2019,40, 87–98. [CrossRef]
25.
Schweickle, M.J.; Vella, S.A.; Swann, C. Exploring the “clutch” in clutch performance: A qualitative investigation of the experience
of pressure in successful performance. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2021,54, 101889. [CrossRef]
26.
Swann, C.; Crust, L.; Vella, S.A. New directions in the psychology of optimal performance in sport: Flow and clutch states. Curr.
Opin. Psychol. 2017,16, 48–53. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27.
Leroy, A.; Cheron, G. EEG dynamics and neural generators of psychological flow during one tightrope performance. Sci. Rep.
2020,10, 12449. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28.
Eccles, D.; Arsal, G. The think aloud method: What is it and how do I use it? Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health
2017
,9, 514–531.
[CrossRef]
29. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977,84, 191–215. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Bandura, A. Social Foundation of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory; Prentice-Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1986.
31. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control; Freeman: Dallas, TX, USA, 1997.
32.
Nakamura, J.; Csikszentmihalyi, M. Flow theory research In Handbook of Positive Psychology; Lopez, S.J., Snyder, C.R., Eds.; Oxford
University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 195–206.
33.
Sides, R.; Chow, G.; Tenenbaum, G. Shifts in adaptation: The effects of self-efficacy and task difficulty perception. J. Clin. Sport
Psychol. 2017,11, 34–52. [CrossRef]
34.
Shaw, J.M.; Dzewaltowski, D.A.; McElroy, M. Self-Efficacy and Causal Attributions as Mediators of Perceptions of Psychological
Momentum. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1992,14, 134–147. [CrossRef]
35.
Feltz, D.L.; Chow, G.M.; Hepler, T.J. Path analysis of self-efficacy and diving performance revisited. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol.
2008
,
30, 401–411. [CrossRef]
36.
Boardley, I.D.; Jackson, B.; Simmons, A. Changes in task self-efficacy and emotion across competitive performances in golf. J.
Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2015,37, 393–409. [CrossRef]
37.
Swann, C.; Keegan, R.J.; Piggott, D.; Crust, L. A systematic review of the experience, occurrence, and controllability of flow states
in elite sport. Psychol. Sport Exerc. 2012,13, 807–819. [CrossRef]
38.
Jackson, S. Athletes in flow: A qualitative investigation of flow states in elite figure skaters. J. Appl. Sport Psychol.
1992
,4, 161–180.
[CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022,19, 15520 14 of 14
39.
Wood, G.; Wilson, M.R. Quiet-eye training, perceived control and performing under pressure. Psychol. Sport Exerc.
2012
,13, 721–728.
[CrossRef]
40.
Hill, D.M.; Shaw, G. A qualitative examination of choking under pressure in team sport. Psychol. Sport Exerc.
2013
,14, 103–110.
[CrossRef]
41.
Antonucci, T.C. Social relations: An examination of social networks, social support, and sense of control. In Handbook of the
Psychology of Aging; Birren, J.E., Schaie, K.W., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001; pp. 427–453.
42.
Schulz, R.; Heckhausen, J. Emotion and control: A life-span perspective. In Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Vol. 17: Focus
on Emotion and Adult Development; Schaie, K.W., Lawton, M.P., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1998; pp. 185–205.
43.
Hill, D.M.; Hanton, S.; Matthews, N.; Fleming, S. Alleviation of choking under pressure in elite golf: An action research study.
Sport Psychol. 2011,25, 465–488. [CrossRef]
44.
De Matos, L.F.; Bertollo, M.; Stefanello JM, F.; Pires, F.O.; da Silva, C.K.; Nakamura, F.Y.; Pereira, G. Moticational self-talk improves
time-trial swimming endurance performance in amateur triathletes. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2021,19, 446–459. [CrossRef]
45.
Latinjak, A.; Hatzigeorgiadis, A.; Comoutos, N. Speaking Clearl 10 Years on: The case for an integrative perspective on self-talk
in sport. Sport Exerc. Perform. Psychol. 2019,8, 353–367. [CrossRef]
46.
Wulf, G.; Lewthwaite, R. Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory
of motor learning. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 2016,23, 1382–1414. [CrossRef]
47. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior; Plenum: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
48.
Di Domenico, S.I.; Ryan, R.M. The Emerging Neuroscience of Intrinsic Motivation: A New Frontier in Self-Determination
Research. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2017,11, 145. [CrossRef]
49. Deci, E.L. Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1971,18, 105–155. [CrossRef]
50.
Richter, M.; Gendolla, G.; Wright, R. Three Decades of Research on Motivational Intensity Theory: What we have learned
about effort and what we still don’t know. In Advances in Motivation Science, 1st ed.; Elliot, A.J., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 2016; pp. 150–180. [CrossRef]
51.
Silvestrini, N.; Gendolla, G. Affect and cognitive control: Insights from research on effort mobilisation. Int. J. Psuchophysiol.
2019
,
143, 116–125. [CrossRef]
52.
Wang, L.; Zheng, J.; Meng, L. Effort provides its own reward: Endeavors reinforce subjective expectation and evaluation of task
performance. Exp. Brain Res. 2017,235, 1107–1118. [CrossRef]
53.
Kroemer, N.B.; Guevara, A.; Ciocanea Teodorescu, I.; Wutting, F.; Kobiella, A.; Smolka, M.N. Balancing reward and work:
Anticipatory brain activation in NAcc and VTA predict effort differentially. Neuroimage
2014
,102, 510–519. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54.
Engeser, S.; Schiepe-Tiska, A. Historical lines and an overview of current research on flow. In Advances in Flow Research; Engeser,
S., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 1–22.
55.
Harris, D.J.; Vine, S.J.; Wilson, M.R. Is flow really effortless? The complex role of effortful attention. Sport Exerc. Perform. Psychol.
2017,6, 103–114. [CrossRef]
56.
Sander, D.; Nummenmaa, L. Reward and emotion: An affective neuroscience approach. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci.
2021
,39, 161–167.
[CrossRef]
57.
Gröpel, P.; Mesagno, C. Choking interventions in sports: A systematic review. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol.
2019
,12, 176–201.
[CrossRef]
58.
Carson, H.J.; Robazzam, C.; Collins, D.; Toner, J.; Bertollo, M. Optimizing performance in sport: An action-based perspective. In
Advancements in Mental Skills Training; Bertollo, M., Filho, E., Terry, P.C., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 15–27.
