Cited by 66Sport Psychology and PerformanceMotor Control and AdaptationSports and Physical Education Research

The self: Your own worst enemy? A test of the self-invoking trigger hypothesis

McKay, Brad, Wulf, Gabriele, Lewthwaite, Rebecca, Nordin, Andrew·2015·Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Abstract

The self-invoking trigger hypothesis was proposed by Wulf and Lewthwaite [Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2010). Effortless motor learning? An external focus of attention enhances movement effectiveness and efficiency. In B. Bruya (Ed.), Effortless attention: A new perspective in attention and action (pp. 75–101). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press] as a mechanism underlying the robust effect of attentional focus on motor learning and performance. One component of this hypothesis, relevant beyond the attentional focus effect, suggests that causing individuals to access their self-schema will negatively impact their learning and performance of a motor skill. The purpose of the present two studies was to provide an initial test of the performance and learning aspects of the self-invoking trigger hypothesis by asking participants in one group to think about themselves between trial blocks—presumably activating their self-schema—to compare their performance and learning to that of a control group. In Experiment 1, participants performed 2 blocks of 10 trials on a throwing task. In one condition, participants were asked between blocks to think about their past throwing experience. While a control group maintained their performance across blocks, the self group's performance was degraded on the second block. In Experiment 2, participants were asked to practice a wiffleball hitting task on two separate days. Participants returned on a third day to perform retention and transfer tests without the self-activating manipulation. Results indicated that the self group learned the hitting task less effectively than the control group. The findings reported here provide initial support for the self-invoking trigger hypothesis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17470218.2014.997765

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McKay, B., Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R., & Nordin, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Wulf, Gabriele
Venue
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Published
2015-09
Volume
68
Issue
9
Pages
1910-1919
ISSN
  • 0033-555X (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-0218
  • 1747-0226
OpenAlex
W2172195488
Cited by
66
References
59
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
20.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Scholarship - UNLV (University of Nevada Reno) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Sports and Physical Education Research
Keywords
self-schemas, attentional focus, motor learning, motor performance, self-reflection, throwing, retention, transfer of learning, external attention
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Retention, Psychology, Students, Transfer, Psychology, Universities, Self Efficacy, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review