The focus of most performance psychology is performing well under pressure. The challenge, as described by the Yerkes-Dodson Law in 1908, is that when we don’t have enough pressure we under-perform, and when we have too much pressure we under-perform. But when we have just the right amount of pressure, we perform at our best.
A theory that is 110 years old will have established criticisms. One criticism is that you don’t just get different amounts of pressure, you also get different kinds of pressure (quantity and quality). The kind or type of pressure and source of pressure affects our performance also. Another criticism is that there are examples of people performing at very high levels under very high, and very low pressure. So the law doesn’t always hold. Think of Roger Federer at 3-1 down in the final set of the 2017 Australian Open against Rafael Nadal. The pressure was very high, but it made him play his best tennis.
But here’s a criticism you may not have heard before – sometimes it’s better to under-perform under pressure. To take an extreme scenario, if you are being charged by a bear, it is better to stand still than to run away. And if you are actually being attacked (by a brown or grizzly bear), it’s better to play dead. Apparently playing dead doesn’t work with black bears and polar bears because they will just start eating you, but the point is that is some circumstances, being paralysed or incapacitated by fear is actually a good thing.
And it doesn’t have to be as extreme as a bear attack. It could be a family argument. In a family argument, it’s often better to underperform under pressure. The more tense things get, the better it is to say and do less. Even though we often wish afterwards that we had the skills of a champion debater or a TV lawyer, and if only we had thought to say that at the time, dominating an argument with your spouse with a series of unanswerable putdowns and zingers isn’t often the best strategy. Sometimes not saying too much under pressure works well also – rather come back when the pressure is less.
In fact there are many scenarios where underperforming under pressure is the better option. These five questions can help establish whether your scenario is one of them:
Can I solve the situation through de-escalation?
Is it helpful to consider the bigger picture?
Is there more to lose from action than from inaction?
Can I postpone?
Is there anyone who can help me?
If you can answer ‘Yes’ to most or all of these questions, under-performance is probably your best option. Take the argument with a family member:
Can I solve the situation through de-escalation?
Yes. If you calm down it may lead the other person to calm down also. And even if they don’t calm down as much as you, having two calmer people is still a good thing
Is it helpful to consider the bigger picture?
Yes. While in the moment it is tempting to think only of winning the argument, this win may come at a cost – for example hurt feelings. Sometimes the bigger picture is that relationships matter more than arguments. The win-win is that you both see each other’s point of view
Is there more to lose from action than from inaction?
Yes. Often it is better to say too little than to say too much
Can I postpone?
Yes. Not many arguments need to be resolved immediately. Often it is better to go away and think about it for a while
Is there anyone who can help me?
Yes. Often getting advice from someone else could help
Or consider the bear attack:
Can I solve the situation through de-escalation?
Yes. At a certain point, calming yourself and the bear down is your best option. Because even if you really raise your game, you’re still not going to win a fight with a bear
Is it helpful to consider the bigger picture?
Yes. The bigger picture is that the bear is bigger and faster than you are. So neither fight nor flight will work. Your best option is the third ‘F’ – freeze. There is a win-win here – that you leave the bear’s berry bush and cubs alone, and it leaves you alone
Is there more to lose from action than from inaction?
Yes. Even though standing still or playing dead feels risky, it is less risky than making provocative movements
Can I postpone?
If you could persuade the bear to drop this issue now and come back later (when you are somewhere else), this would be a good thing
Is there anyone who can help me?
If there was someone who could help, like a friend with a fire hydrant full of anti-bear spray, this would also be a good thing
Judging how to respond to pressure is something we do instinctively and quickly. This judgement affects our performance by altering our physical, emotional and cognitive states, or ‘settings’. When we under-perform our bodies become slower and weaker, our emotions calmer and softer, and our thoughts slower and more reflective. As discussed above, in some scenarios, this leads to better outcomes.
But sport is not one of those scenarios. When people under-perform under pressure in sport, it is because they are instinctively reacting to the situation as if the most of the answers to the five questions was ‘Yes’. You are responding to a game as if it is an argument, or a bear attack - a conflict with a big downside and without explicit rules. Sport has a limited downside (what's the worst that can happen? You lose. Big deal) and explicit rules to govern fairness and safety. Let’s consider how the 5 questions apply to a squash match and how it can be easy to answer them wrongly.
Can I solve the situation through de-escalation?
No. Playing worse will probably not make your opponent play worse also. Even if it did, playing a little worse would only help if it influenced your opponent to play much worse. This is an unlikely scenario. Unlike bear attacks and arguments, the only solution in a sports conflict is to escalate the situation – raise your game
Is it helpful to consider the bigger picture?
No. Unlike other forms of conflict, sport has explicit rules that keep it physically and emotionally safe. The key is understanding that the contest is limited. As Bradley Wiggins said before winning the Tour de France, “It’s just a bike race.” It’s not a measure of character or worth. It’s not about keeping your opponent calm or happy. It’s not about avoiding risk, discomfort or pain. Sport is just about trying to win a game by any means available, within the rules. The more accurately and narrowly you can define your task, the easier the challenge. The win-win, by the way, is that both participants benefit from the integrity of the challenge
Is there more to lose from action than from inaction?
No. In general, if you have a favourable status quo, inaction is the safer option. If you are safe on the pavement, it is safer not to cross the road. If you have enough money in your pocket, it is safer not to gamble. If you have the highest rank, it is better not to subject yourself to challenge. Inaction is the safer option when you are already safe. But once you are exposed to risk, action is the safer option. When you are busy crossing the road, it is safer to keep moving. When you are being challenged, it is safer to respond. There are very few circumstances in sports where there is more to lose from doing nothing than there is from doing something. One challenge in sport is playing well under the pressure of being expected to win – either because you are ahead on the scorecard, or ranked higher than your opponent. This is when you have to be clear in your mind that unusually, even though you have a favourable status quo, inaction is not the safe option
Can I postpone?
No. You cannot delay moving towards the ball or playing the shot
Is there anyone who can help me?
No. There are some things in a sporting contest that only you can do. You can get advice. In team sports you can pass the ball. But in a certain moment, only you can take the shot
In squash, former world no. 1 Nick Matthew beat his rival James Willstrop for 10 years without a loss. In boxing, Floyd Mayweather won 50 professional fights without a loss. Roger Federer has won 20 Grand Slams, Kelly Slater won 11 World Surfing titles, Michael Schumacher won 7 Formula 1 world championships. The pressure of being expected to win did not affect the performance of these men. But if you consider how they would respond to the five questions, you can see how they maintained performance under pressure:
Do they de-escalate? No. They were happy to escalate tactical, technical and emotional pressure
Do they get distracted by the bigger picture? No. They always focused on the job, not the drama
Do they hope inaction will save them? No. They were men of action
Do they postpone action? No. They seized the moment
Do they hope for someone else to take responsibility? No. They took responsibility themselves
While there are some scenarios where underperforming under pressure can bring better outcomes, sport is not one of them. Clarifying the answers to these 5 questions in your sporting scenario can you help establish and accept this reality, so that your instinctive response to sporting pressure becomes a positive one.