ARTICLE IN PRESS

Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 233–245

1469-0292/$ -

doi:10.1016/j.

�CorresponE-mail add

www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport

Attention focus during physical effort: The mediatingrole of task intensity

Jasmin C. Hutchinsona,�, Gershon Tenenbaumb

aDepartment of PE and Dance, Oxford College of Emory University, 100, Hamill Street, Oxford, GA 30054, USAbFlorida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Received 19 October 2005; received in revised form 17 March 2006; accepted 27 March 2006

Available online 8 May 2006

Abstract

Objectives: Tenenbaum’s (2001) [A social-cognitive perspective of perceived exertion and exertiontolerance. In R. N. Singer, H. Hausenblas, & C. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology(pp. 810–820). New York, NY:Wiley] exercise intensity-attention linkage model was used to design andcarry out two studies to examine individuals’ attentional strategies during engagement in two physicallydemanding tasks, and the mediating effect of task intensity on attention focus.Design: An experimental design was employed where thought classifications (associative vs. dissociative)during three stages of a handgrip task (study 1) and during 50%, 70%, and 90% VO2 max effort in acycling task (study 2) were subjected to non-parametric Chi-square analysis.Methods: Male and female participants were exposed to the increasing sensation of physical effort via twofatiguing tasks: an isometric handgrip task (n ¼ 35), and a stationary cycling task (n ¼ 13). During eachtask participants were instructed to vocally express their current thoughts—in sentences, phrases orwords—continuously throughout the testing procedure. Participant’s self-reported thoughts were recordedduring the tasks, and later classified to reveal patterns of associative and dissociative attention focus.Results: Attention focus was predominantly associative when task intensity was high. These findings areconsistent with Tenenbaum’s (2001) [A social-cognitive perspective of perceived exertion and exertiontolerance. In R. N. Singer, H. Hausenblas, & C. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology(pp. 810–820). New York, NY:Wiley] model postulating the relationship between exercise intensity and

see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

psychsport.2006.03.006

ding author. Tel.: +1 770 784 8309; fax: +1 770 784 4677.

ress: jhutch3@emory.edu (J.C. Hutchinson).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.C. Hutchinson, G. Tenenbaum / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 233–245234

attention allocation, which maintains that above a given effort threshold physiological cues dominateattention focus.Conclusions: During conditions of high workload and prolonged duration, attention is focused onoverwhelming physiological sensations, which dominate focal awareness. At this point an associativeattention focus is almost unavoidable.r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Attention; Association; Dissociation; Workload; Exercise

Introduction

A distinction between two broad categories of attention focus, association and dissociation, washighlighted by Morgan and Pollock (1977), and has since become a dominant concept in linkingattention focus and physical effort. Association and dissociation (A/D) describe cognitivestrategies that indicate the extent to which athletes focus their attention on physical feedback. Asoriginally defined by Morgan and Pollock, association was regarded as an internal attentionalstyle where athletes seek to monitor sensory input and adjust their effort accordingly. Dissociationreferred to any thought that served to divert attention away from internal sensations and towardexternal distracting stimulation.The majority of research concerning cognitive strategies in exercise has focused on the

relationship between A/D and some type of task-related variable, such as performance and ratingof perceived exertion (RPE). For the most part research studies in this area have focused ondistance runners, who in the course of their training and competition, are subjected to high levelsof physical effort and exertion. We briefly review the literature on A/D and effort sensations,including the inherent limitations in interpreting results of previous studies, suggest a theoreticalframework, which accounts for A/D-effort sensation association, and conduct two studies toverify hypotheses, which stem from this conceptualization. We begin by addressing an issue thatlimits this area of study—defining and measuring A/D.

Methodological issues

The measurement of A/D is inherently difficult because ‘‘the object of inquiry (i.e. cognitions) isinternal to the participant and not directly observable to others, and because participants areengaged in physical activity when cognitions occur’’ (Masters & Ogles, 1998, p. 256). Previousinvestigators have used various measurement methods to assess cognitive strategies employed byexercisers; including pencil–paper assessments and structured interview (see Masters & Ogles,1998 for a review). Almost exclusively these measures are administered post-exercise or based onanecdotal report. Schomer (1986) believed this form of retrospective self-report data would beinaccurate because of poor recall or deliberate distortion. Schomer advocated that research intothe mental strategies employed during physical activity has to happen ‘‘on the spot during theactivityy to enable an unobscured articulate analysis’’ (p. 43). To achieve this Schomer attachedmicro-cassette recorders to his participants and asked them to say aloud everything that came tomind as they ran in a marathon race. These thoughts were subsequently classified as associative or

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.C. Hutchinson, G. Tenenbaum / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 233–245 235

dissociative according to a precise coding system. Experimentally blind research assistantsachieved 97.34% concordance when coding 30,878 verbalizations according to this system. Allencoding mismatches were resolved after extensive discussion (Schomer, 1986). Although thismethod reduces the influence of retrospective distortion, it is not without limitation. It is arguedthat participants may feel self-conscious about reporting certain thoughts, or find some tooabstract or too brief to put into words (Stevinson & Biddle, 1998). Furthermore, having toverbalize ones thoughts may affect what is actually thought about, perhaps increasing associationreports (Masters & Ogles, 1998). There is also potential for a social desirability effect, withparticipants trying to provide the type of responses they think the researchers are looking for(Stevinson & Biddle, 1998).A/D measurement will probably remain a difficult area for investigators. All measurement

methods have inherent strengths and limitations (Masters & Ogles, 1998). It is important thatresearchers are aware of these limitations, and the potential effect the chosen measurementmethod will have on their results.Classification of cognitions is also problematic because of the slightly different ways in which

A/D have been operationalized (Stevinson & Biddle, 1998). For Morgan (1978) association meantattending to bodily sensations, while dissociation meant distraction from them. However, otherauthors (Masters & Lambert, 1989; Sacks, Milvy, Perry, & Sherman, 1981) have defined the termsmore broadly so that association includes monitoring both internal states and other factorscritical to performance, while dissociation refers to the distraction from both of these types ofcues. Schomer (1986) sought to avoid the confusion over what association and dissociation meanby using the terms ‘‘task-related’’ and ‘‘task-unrelated’’ thoughts. Associative thoughts includedany thoughts that were related to the task (e.g. bodily sensations, performance instructions andpace monitoring), while dissociative thoughts incorporated those that were not relevant to thetask (e.g. reflective activity thoughts and problem solving). Recognizing that a dichotomoustreatment of attention focus may be too simplistic, Stevinson and Biddle (1998) offered a two-dimensional model, which considers both the direction of attention (internal or external) and taskrelevance (relevant or irrelevant) when classifying athletes’ thoughts. Task-relevant conditions, inwhich attention is focused on something pertinent to the task, are considered associative whiletask irrelevant conditions are considered dissociative. Task-relevant thoughts involving aninternal focus (e.g. physical sensations) are classified as internal association, whereas task-relevantthoughts with an external focus (e.g. strategy) are labeled external association. Similarly task-irrelevant thoughts with an internal focus (e.g. daydreams) were categorized as internal

dissociation and task-irrelevant thoughts with an external focus (e.g. scenery) as externaldissociation. A small pilot sample (n ¼ 10) and a study of 66 sub-elite marathon runners(Stevinson & Biddle, 1998) confirmed that these four categories were ‘‘all inclusive and mutuallyexclusive’’ in terms of the wide range of cognitions available to endurance performers. However,Stanley, Pargman, and Tenenbaum (in press) found that only the associative–dissociativedimension of attention focus contributes meaningfully to perceptions of exertion.

Attention focus and performance

Masters and Ogles (1998) conducted a review of the A/D literature over a 20 yr period, andreached several conclusions. First, the use of association is generally correlated with faster

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.C. Hutchinson, G. Tenenbaum / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 233–245236

running performances, whereas the opposite is true for dissociation. Second, runners generallyprefer dissociation in training runs and association in races. Masters and Ogles suggested thatthese two findings ‘‘are probably two sides of the same coin’’ (Masters and Ogles, 1998, p. 263) inthat training runs are typically conducted at a pace somewhat slower than that of an actual race.To date, the relationship between associative strategy and faster performance times has not beenestablished in a non-running sample, with the notable expectation of Spink and Longhurst (1986)where swimmers using an associative attention focus swam significantly faster than those using adissociative focus.Masters and Ogles (1998) cited the absence of a well-developed theory to account for the use of

A/D cognitive strategies as a major weakness in the literature. Theories that have attempted toaccount for the use of A/D strategies have identified athlete’s skill level and reasons for running aspossible correlates of attention focus. Morgan and Pollock (1977) purported that elite runnerstended to employ associative attentional strategies, while non-elite runners were characterized bydissociative attentional strategies, yet subsequent research has not always supported thisconclusion (Morgan, O’Connor, Sparling, & Pate, 1987; Silva & Applebaum, 1989; Stevinson &Biddle, 1998). Masters and Lambert (1989) suggested that whether or not a person associateswhile running might be primarily related to his or her reasons for running. Specifically, morecompetitive runners tend to associate more than do less competitive runners. This explanation byitself, however, cannot account for the use of association in recreational exercise, and other non-competitive settings.

Attention focus and RPE

Scientific evidence pertaining to the effect of A/D on perceived and sustained exertion has beensomewhat inconsistent. In some studies, dissociation was related to lower ratings of perceivedexertion (Boutcher & Trenske, 1990; Fillingham & Fine, 1986; Harte & Eifert, 1995; Johnson &Siegel, 1987; Pennebaker & Lightner, 1980; Potteiger, Schroeder, & Goff, 2000), and greater taskendurance (Morgan, Horstman, Cymerman, & Stokes, 1983; Weinberg, Smith, & Jackson, 1984),while others have not supported this effect (Couture, Jerome, & Tihanyi, 1999; Delignieres &Brisswalter, 1994; Hull & Pottegier, 1999; Russell & Weeks, 1994). A major limitation affectingmuch of these research findings has been the failure to adequately control for workload intensity(see Noble & Robertson, 1996). Based upon a review of pain management literature, McCaul andMalott (1984) concluded that distraction (dissociation) is only effective for reducing distress whenstimulation is mild. This finding has been supported in an exercise context by Tenenbaum, Lidor,Lavyan et al. (2004), and by Boutcher and Trenske (1990) who concluded the influence ofdissociative strategies on RPE was ‘‘load dependent’’ (p. 167).The use of associative and dissociative strategies by exercisers, whether related to task

performance or RPE, can be accounted for by Tenenbaum’s (2001) model of attention as afunction of exercise intensity. This model stems from the information processing approach toattention, particularly Rejeski’s (1985) parallel processing model. Rejeski (1985) adapted aparallel processing model for pain, originally proposed by Leventhal & Everhart (1979). Theparallel processing model suggests that sensory and emotional information are pre-consciouslyprocessed in parallel, but during conscious processing, where it is difficult to focus attention onmultiple sources of information, only a certain amount of information is processed at a time. In

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.C. Hutchinson, G. Tenenbaum / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 233–245 237

the original model, Levanthal and Everhart distinguished between perception and focalawareness. Whereas perception refers to all the processed material to which one can attend,focal awareness represents that segment of potential stimuli to which one does attend (Rejeski,1985). From a parallel processing perspective, it is hypothesized that dissociative strategies bringrelief from fatigue by occupying limited channel capacity that is critical to bringing a fatiguingperception into focal awareness.Based upon this premise, Tenenbaum (2001) advocated a concept of effort symptomatology

where under conditions of low exercise intensity attention can be shifted voluntarily fromdissociative mode to associative mode, and from wide to narrow spans. However, during highintensity exercise, the voluntary control of attention is severely diminished, and thus, theeffectiveness of external strategies on perceived and sustained effort is limited. As a consequenceof this, manipulation of RPE and exertion tolerance shifts from ‘‘easy’’ at low levels of intensity to‘‘hard’’ at high intensity levels.

Purpose

The current study tests the associative–dissociative dependence on exercise intensity byexamining attention focus at regular intervals throughout the duration of two fatiguing tasks: anisometric handgrip task and a stationary cycling task. Based on Tenenbaum’s (2001) exerciseintensity–attention linkage model, it was expected that during low intensity exercise participantswould be able to manipulate their attention focus relatively easily, as indicated by diverseattentional focus. As exercise intensity intensified, participants’ attention was expected to shift toan associative focus with minimal differentiation among the participants.

Method of study 1

Participants

A total of 35 university students (21 males and 14 females; M age 23.65 yr, SD ¼ 3.23) wererecruited for this study from graduate and undergraduate classes at a major southeasternuniversity in the USA. A break down of the participants by race revealed 88% Caucasian(n ¼ 31), 9% African–American (n ¼ 3) and 3% Asian (n ¼ 1). Participants were moderatelyactive and had no prior experience with the handgrip task. For the purpose of this study‘‘moderately active’’ was defined as an individual engaging in aerobic exercise at least three timesper week for 30min at moderate intensity (60–75% VO2 max) for the past 6 months. TheUniversity’s institutional review board for the protection of human subjects approved this study.

Instrumentation

Thought classification

Participants’ thoughts were classified according to an established classification systemdeveloped by Schomer (1986). This method was selected because our method of data collection(i.e. recording verbalizations during the task) is consistent with the method employed by Schomer

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.C. Hutchinson, G. Tenenbaum / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 233–245238

in developing his system. While the two-dimensional system more recently proposed by Stevinsonand Biddle (1998) offers a more comprehensive classification, we felt that the closed-environmentnature of this study did not lend itself to the direction of attention dimension (internal–external)utilized in Stevinson and Biddle’s method. Recent research (Stanley et al., in press) supports thisassumption.Schomer’s classification system endorses ten valid and reliable attention focus sub-classifications:

feelings and affects (A), body monitoring (B), command and instruction (C), pace monitoring (P),environmental feedback (E), reflective activity thoughts (R), personal problem solving (S), work,career, and management (W), course information (I), and talk and conversational chatter (T).Categories A, B, C and P make up the associative attention focus classification. The dissociativeattention focus classification embraces categories R, S, W, E, T and I.

Manipulation checkFollowing completion of the handgrip task participants were asked three questions pertaining

to their commitment to the task: (a) How committed were you to the task while performing? (b)How well do you think you tolerated the effort associated with this task? and (c) How much effortdid you invest in the task? Participants rated each question on a scale ranging from 0 (none/not at

all) to 5 (very much/very well).

Handgrip dynamometerHandgrip capacity in the dominant arm was measured using a calibrated LafayetteTM handgrip

dynamometer Model 78010 (Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN). The testing rangefor this dynamometer is 0–100 kg. Participants’ maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) wasestablished by taking the strongest contraction out of three attempts. Attempts were performedconsecutively, with a 5min seated rest period between each effort.

Task manipulation and procedure

Written informed consent and a detailed health history were obtained from each participantprior to task involvement. Participants, seated in an isolated room, were asked to squeeze thedynamometer’s handbar at 25% of their MVC for as long as they could sustain it. A decrease inperformance by more than 10% of this value terminated the trial.Sustained submaximal contraction of the handgrip at 25% of MVC requires a considerable

amount of effort. During the task, muscle fatigue and a reduction in local blood flow result in theperception of localized pain and exertion (McArdle, Katch, & Katch, 1991). This particularstrength test was chosen for its ease of administration and because it does not involve excessiveloading of any major joint. Furthermore, it was unlikely that any of the participants hadexperience with this type of exercise, thus eliminating the potential positive effects of experience orfamiliarity with the task, as described by Tenenbaum, Hall, Calcagnini et al. (2001). RPE was notmeasured during the handgrip task because obtaining a rating of any sensation would necessitatean internal (associative) attentional shift, as described by Wrisberg, Franks, Birdwell, and High(1988). However, it is well established that during single joint muscle contractions, the intensity ofperceived exertion increases as a function of contraction intensity and muscle fatigue (Pincivero,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.C. Hutchinson, G. Tenenbaum / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 233–245 239

Coelho, Campy, Salfetnikov, & Bright, 2001; Pincivero & Gear, 2000; Williamson, McColl,Mathews et al., 2002).During each task, participants were instructed to vocally express their current thoughts—in

sentences, phrases or words—continuously during the testing procedure. Participants weregiven the opportunity to practice this vocalizing skill prior to the test conditions andwere advised that there are no correct or incorrect responses. Participants’ statements werewritten down by the examiner and later independently scored by two raters according toSchomer’s (1986) thought classification system. Each statement was categorized as associativeor dissociative, and the categories were mutually exclusive and exhaustive. Interrater agreementwas 100%.

Data analysis

Each participant’s total time on task (from the onset of the task to volitional fatigue) wasdivided into three equal time phases (beginning, middle and end) to denote the increasing taskintensity. Chi-square (w2) tests were performed to examine whether associative and dissociativethoughts were distributed differently, by the same participants, during the beginning, middle andend stages of the handgrip task. Under the null hypothesis all statements should be equallydistributed between associative and dissociative attention categories at each stage.

Results of study 1

Descriptive statistics

Participants displayed very high ratings for the three manipulation-check questions, indicatingthey were dedicated and committed to the task. Means and standard deviations (SDs) were 4.32(.89), 3.88 (.98) and 4.47 (.83) for questions pertaining to task commitment, perceived tasktolerance and effort investment, respectively. Mean maximum grip strength was 40.93 kg(SD ¼ 12.55). Mean time on task was 1:58min (SD ¼ 36.7 s).

Table 1

Frequency and percentage of thoughts classified as associative or dissociative during each stage of the handgrip task

Stage of exercise Attention focus Total

Associative Dissociative

n % n % n %

Beginning 27 29 66 71 93 100

Middle 61 64 35 36 96 100

End 80 94 5 6 85 100

Total 168 61 106 39 —

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.C. Hutchinson, G. Tenenbaum / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 233–245240

Main findings

Table 1 shows the frequency and percentage of classified thoughts during the beginning, middleand end stages of the handgrip task. Chi-square tests were performed to examine whetherassociative and dissociative attention foci were differently distributed during each stage(beginning, middle and end time phases) of the handgrip task. The w2 analyses revealed thatthe frequency counts did differ significantly during the three exercise stages. As expected, thefrequency of associative thoughts was significantly greater during the final exercise stage, w2 (1,N ¼ 35) ¼ 68.76, p ¼ .000, accounting for 94% of total reported thoughts during this stage.Dissociative thoughts were more prevalent at the beginning of the task, accounting for 71% oftotal reported thoughts, w2 (1, N ¼ 35) ¼ 16.36, p ¼ .000, while associative thoughts were moreprevalent during the middle stage of the task, accounting for 64% of total reported thoughts, w2

(1, N ¼ 35) ¼ 7.04, po.01. The hypothesis that associative thoughts dominate attentional focusas task intensity increases was supported in the handgrip task.

Method of study 2

Participants

A total of 13 predominantly Caucasian (92%) participants (seven males and six females; M age26.85 yr, SD ¼ 4.91) were recruited for this study from graduate and undergraduate classes at amajor southeastern university in the USA. Participants were moderately active (as defined instudy 1), and had limited prior exercise experience on a stationary cycle. The University’sinstitutional review board for the protection of human subjects approved this study.

Instrumentation

The same thought classification system (Schomer, 1986) and manipulation check used in study1 were also used in the second study.

Aerobic testing

Aerobic exercise testing was conducted using a Monark 828e mechanically braked cycleergometer (Monark Exercise AB, Vansbro, Sweden). Heart rate (HR) data were collected using aVantage XL Polar HRMonitor (Polar Electro, Finland). Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max) andgas exchange measures were computed using 30 s breath averaging on a Parvo Medics TrueMax2400 Metabolic Measurement System (Parvo Medics Inc., Sandy, UT).

Task manipulation and procedure

Written informed consent and a detailed health history were obtained from each participantprior to data collection. Exposure to the varying demands of physical work was achieved in thisstudy via sustained cycle ergometry. VO2 max was first obtained using a continuous cyclingprotocol on a mechanically braked cycle ergometer. One week later participants returned to cycle

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.C. Hutchinson, G. Tenenbaum / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 233–245 241

for 5min at 50% VO2 max, for a further 5min at 70% VO2 max, and then to volitional fatigue at90% VO2 max. A target HR equivalent to the prescribed % VO2 max was determined by plottingHR responses during the VO2 max test as a function of corresponding VO2 responses. Duringtesting, exercise intensity was manipulated by the examiner until the target HR (73 bpm) wasachieved, ensuring that the prescribed relative metabolic rate was maintained. The task wasterminated when participants were unable to continue working at the set workload. As in theprevious study, RPE was not measured during the cycle task because obtaining a rating of anyphysical sensation would necessitate an associative attentional shift (Wrisberg et al., 1988).During each task participants were instructed to vocally express their current thoughts—in

sentences, phrases or words—continuously during the testing procedure. As in the previous study,the examiner recorded these thoughts and the time they occurred. Participants’ thoughts werelater independently classified by two raters according to Schomer’s (1986) system (interrateragreement was 100%). Scores were calculated for each of the three prescribed task intensity levels:low (50% VO2 max), moderate (70% VO2 max) and high (90% VO2 max).

Data analysis

The data was analyzed separately for low, moderate and high intensity exercise (50%, 70% and90% VO2 max, respectively). Chi-square tests were performed to examine whether associative anddissociative thoughts were distributed differently, by the same participants, during low, moderateand high intensity exercise. Under the null hypothesis statements were expected to be equallydistributed between associative and dissociative attention categories at each workload intensity.

Results of study 2

Descriptive statistics

Participants displayed very high ratings for the three manipulation-check questions, indicatingthey were dedicated and committed to the task. Means and SDs were 4.46 (.78), 4.08 (1.12) and4.70 (.48) for questions pertaining to task commitment, perceived task tolerance, and effortinvestment, respectively. Mean VO2 max (ml kg/min) was 48.09 (SD ¼ 10.83) for males and 41.74(SD ¼ 6.75) for females; these values indicate that the participants were of averagecardiorespiratory fitness for their age range and gender (Nieman, 2003). Mean time to exhaustionfor 90% VO2 max was 8:52min (SD ¼ 4:03min).

Main findings

Table 2 shows the frequency and percentage of classified thoughts during the beginning, middleand end stages of the cycle task. Chi-square tests were performed to examine whether associativeand dissociative attention foci were differently distributed during each stage (low, moderate andhigh intensity) of the cycle task. The analyses revealed that the frequency counts differedsignificantly during the three exercise conditions. As expected, the frequency of associativethoughts was significantly greater during high intensity exercise, w2 (1, N ¼ 13) ¼ 90.13, p ¼ .000,

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Frequency and percentage of thoughts classified as associative or dissociative during each stage of the cycle task

Stage of exercise Attention focus Total

Associative Dissociative

n % n % n %

Low 33 22 114 78 147 100

Moderate 78 61 50 39 128 100

High 112 93 8 7 120 100

Total 223 56 172 44

J.C. Hutchinson, G. Tenenbaum / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 233–245242

accounting for 93% of total reported thoughts during this stage. Dissociative thoughts were moreprevalent during low intensity exercise, accounting for 78% of total reported thoughts, w2 (1,N ¼ 13) ¼ 44.63, p ¼ .000, while associative thoughts were more prevalent during moderateintensity exercise, accounting for 61% of total reported thoughts, w2 (1, N ¼ 13) ¼ 6.13, po .01.The hypothesis that associative thoughts dominate attentional focus as task intensity increaseswas supported in the cycle task.

Discussion

Two studies were aimed at examining attention focus during an isometric handgrip task(n ¼ 35) and a stationary cycling task (n ¼ 13), and at ascertaining the effect of task intensity onattention focus. Based upon Tenenbaum’s (2001) model, it was hypothesized that during lowintensity exercise attention focus would differ among participants. As task intensity increased,participants’ attention was expected to shift to an associative focus with minimal variation amongthe participants.Results revealed that attention focus differed significantly during three exercise stages in both

the handgrip and cycle tasks. In both tasks, attention focus was predominantly dissociative duringthe initial/low intensity exercise stage and became increasingly associative as task intensityincreased. Thus, the notion that participants’ attention would be primarily associative during highintensity exercise was supported in both tasks. These findings are consistent with Tenenbaum’s(2001) model postulating the relationship between physical effort and attention allocation, andRejeski’s (1985) parallel processing model, which maintains that above a given effort thresholdphysiological cues dominate attention focus. It is well documented within the pain perceptionliterature that distracting attention from a painful stimulus reduces pain perception, yetunderstanding of the exact neuronal basis for this modulation remains an enigma (Bantick et al.,2002). Leventhal and Everhart’s (1979) original information processing model proposes fourstages in the processing of sensory stimulation: encoding, elaboration, perception and attentionselection and signal amplification. In the first stage, sensory stimuli are encoded into neuralsignals, and during the second stage the neural signal is elaborated. In the third stage sensoryinformation enters the perceptual field (consciousness), and then during the final stage the signal

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.C. Hutchinson, G. Tenenbaum / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 233–245 243

enters attention channels. Here attention becomes focused and the signal is amplified. This is thestage where the effect of exercise intensity plays its part (Noble & Robertson, 1996). For example,a dissociative thought that may be salient during moderate intensity exercise may drop out ofawareness during high intensity exercise when physiological sensations become the prime focus ofawareness.The findings are congruent with previous studies regarding attention focus and running

performance. Masters and Ogles (1998) conclude that an associative attention focus is generallycorrelated with faster running performances, whereas the opposite is true for dissociation, andthat runners generally prefer dissociation in training runs and association in races. Theoriesderiving from the information processing approach to attention (i.e. Rejeski, 1985; Tenenbaum,2001) can provide a theoretical explanation of mechanisms underlying the use of cognitivestrategies during exercise.These results also indirectly suggest that task intensity is critical to the influence of dissociative

techniques on perceptions of effort. The relative contribution of psychological and physiologicalfactors to self-reports of exertion may depend upon the strength of the exercise stimulus (Noble &Robertson, 1996). Specifically, psychological factors may be salient at light and moderateexercise intensities, but during exercise of high intensity and long duration it is likelythat attention is focused on overwhelming physiological sensations, which dominate focalawareness. Thus, dissociative coping strategies can be influential on perceived and sustainedeffort at low to moderate levels of exercise intensity, but they are not likely to be effective athigher levels of exercise intensity. Failing to adequately account for exercise intensity is alimitation of previous studies in this area, and may account for the inconsistent resultsthey reported. Task intensity should be considered, and appropriately controlled, in futurestudies attempting to examine the efficacy of attentional manipulations on perceived andsustained effort.In evaluating the results of the present studies, one should take into account the following

limitations: (a) The measurement of A/D is inherently difficult. In the present study verbalizedthoughts were assessed as they occurred during two exertive tasks, an approach that ‘‘avoidsretrospective falsification’’ (Schomer, 1986, p. 43). Masters and Ogles (1998) suggest thatverbalizing during task engagement may force participants to remain vigilant about theirthinking, which could prevent dissociative thoughts. Our results demonstrate variability inattention focus across time phases, and since the procedure was consistent across time phases, itobviously did not prohibit us from finding differences in attention focus. Nevertheless, the factthat more invasive methods may increase association reports cannot be ignored. (b) The datacollection method consisted of the examiner writing the participants’ statements down during theexercise task, rather than recording the statements during the task, and later transcribing them.While the examiner did not experience any problems ‘keeping pace’ with the verbalizations, it isnot possible to guarantee accuracy. Furthermore, it is possible that participants may havemodified their remarks based upon the examiner’s ability to record them in a timely manner. It issuggested that tape recording and subsequent transcription be used in future investigations of thistype. (c) The demand characteristics of the laboratory and testing environment may have createda social desirability bias in responses. Moreover, the participant’s may have censored or alteredthe content of their remarks in the immediate presence of another person. To limit this effect theexaminer emphasized that there were no right or wrong responses, and that study participants

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.C. Hutchinson, G. Tenenbaum / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 233–245244

could be most helpful by reporting what they thought, and how they felt as honestly andaccurately as possible.In summary, the results of this investigation indicate that attention focus during sustained

effort is largely dependent on exercise intensity. Specifically, during high intensity exerciseattention is focused on overwhelming physiological sensations, which dominate focal awareness.These findings support Tenenbaum’s (2001) model postulating the relationship between physicaleffort and attention allocation.

Acknowledgments

Presentation of this research at the International Society of Sport Psychology 11th WorldCongress of Sport Psychology in Sydney, Australia was made possible by a faculty travel grantfrom The Institute of Comparative and International Studies, Emory University.

References

Bantick, S. J., Wise, R. G., Ploghaus, A., Clare, S., Smith, S. M., & Tracey, I. (2002). Imaging how attention modulates

pain in humans using functional MRI. Brain, 125(2), 310–319.

Boutcher, S., & Trenske, M. (1990). The effects of sensory deprivation and music on perceived exertion and affect

during exercise. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 112, 167–176.

Couture, R. T., Jerome, W., & Tihanyi, J. (1999). Can associative and dissociative strategies affect the swimming

performance of recreational swimmers? The Sport Psychologist, 13, 334–343.

Delignieres, D., & Brisswalter, J. (1994). Influence of an added perceptual motor task on perceived exertion: A test of

the dissociation effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 855–858.

Fillingham, R., & Fine, M. (1986). The effect of internal versus external information processing on symptom perception

in an exercise setting. Health Psychology, 5, 115–123.

Harte, J. L., & Eifert, G. H. (1995). The effects of running, environment, and attentional focus on athletes’

catecholamine and cortisol levels and mood. Psychophysiology, 32, 49–54.

Hull, G. R., & Pottegier, J. A. (1999). Regulation of exercise intensity using ratings of perceived exertion during passive

visual distraction. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89, 684–694.

Johnson, J. H., & Siegel, D. S. (1987). Active vs. passive attentional manipulation and multidimensional perceptions of

exercise intensity. Canadian Journal of Sports Science, 12, 41–45.

Leventhal, H., & Everhart, D. (1979). Emotion, pain and physical illness. In C. E. Izard (Ed.), Emotions in personality

and psychopathology (pp. 263–298). New York: Plenum.

Masters, K. S., & Lambert, M. J. (1989). The relations between cognitive coping strategies, reasons for running, injury,

and performance of marathon runners. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 161–170.

Masters, K. S., & Ogles, B. M. (1998). Associative and dissociative cognitive strategies in exercise and running: 20 Years

later what do we know? The Sport Psychologist, 12, 253–270.

McArdle, W., Katch, F. I., & Katch, V. L. (1991). Exercise physiology: Energy, nutrition, and human performance (3rd

ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.

McCaul, K. D., & Malott, J. M. (1984). Distraction and coping with pain. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 516–533.

Morgan, W. P. (1978). The mind of the marathoner. Psychology Today, 11, 38–49.

Morgan, W. P., Horstman, D. H., Cymerman, A., & Stokes, J. (1983). Facilitation of physical performance by means of

a cognitive strategy. Cognitive Therapy Research, 7, 252–264.

Morgan, W. P., O’Connor, P. J., Sparling, P. B., & Pate, R. R. (1987). Psychological characterization of the elite female

distance runner. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 8(Suppl. 2), 124–131.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

J.C. Hutchinson, G. Tenenbaum / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8 (2007) 233–245 245

Morgan, W. P., & Pollock, M. L. (1977). Psychological characteristics of the elite distance runner. In P. Milvy (Ed.),

Vol. 301, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences(pp. 382–403).

Nieman, D. C. (2003). Exercise testing and prescription (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Noble, B. J., & Robertson, R. J. (1996). Perceived exertion. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Pennebaker, J. A., & Lightner, J. M. (1980). Competition of internal and external information in an exercise setting.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 165–174.

Pincivero, D. M., Coelho, A. J., Campy, R. M., Salfetnikov, Y., & Bright, A. (2001). The effects of voluntary

contraction intensity and gender on perceived exertion during isokinetic quadriceps exercise. European Journal of

Applied Physiology, 84, 221–226.

Pincivero, D. M., & Gear, W. S. (2000). Neuromuscular activation and perceived exertion during a high intensity,

steady-state contraction to failure. Muscle Nerve, 23, 514–520.

Potteiger, J. A., Schroeder, J. A., & Goff, K. L. (2000). Influence of music on ratings of perceived exertion during

20min of moderate intensity exercise. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91(3), 848–854.

Rejeski, W. J. (1985). Perceived exertion: An active or passive process. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 371–378.

Russell, W. D., & Weeks, D. L. (1994). Attentional style in ratings of perceived exertion during physical exercise.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 779–783.

Sacks, M. H., Milvy, P., Perry, S. W., & Sherman, L. R. (1981). Mental status and psychological coping during a

100mile race. In M. H. Sacks, & M. L. Sacks (Eds.), Psychology of running (pp. 166–175). Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.

Schomer, H. H. (1986). Mental strategy and the perception of effort of marathon runners. International Journal of Sport

Psychology, 17, 41–59.

Silva, J. M., & Applebaum, M. I. (1989). Associative–dissociative patterns of United States Olympic marathon trial

contestants. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13(2), 185–192.

Spink, K. S., & Longhurst, K. (1986). Cognitive strategies and swimming performances: An exploratory study.

Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18, 9–13.

Stanley, C. T., Pargman, D., & Tenenbaum, G. (in press). The effect of attentional coping strategies on perceived

exertion in a cycling task. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology.

Stevinson, C. D., & Biddle, S. J. H. (1998). Cognitive orientations in marathon running and ‘‘hitting the wall’’. British

Journal of Sports Medicine, 32, 229–235.

Tenenbaum, G. (2001). A social-cognitive perspective of perceived exertion and exertion tolerance. In R. N. Singer, H.

Hausenblas, & C. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 810–820). New York, NY: Wiley.

Tenenbaum, G., Hall, H. K., Calcagnini, N., Lange, R., Freeman, G., & Lloyd, M. (2001). Coping with physical

exertion and negative feedback under competitive and self-standard conditions. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 31(8), 1582–1626.

Tenenbaum, G., Lidor, R., Lavyan, N., Morrow, K., Tonnel, S., Gershgoren, A., et al. (2004). The effect of music type

on running perseverance and coping with effort sensations. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5(2), 89–109.

Weinberg, R. S., Smith, J., & Jackson, A. (1984). Effect of association, dissociation and positive self-talk strategies on

endurance performance. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science, 9(1), 25–32.

Williamson, J. W., McColl, R., Mathews, D., Mitchell, J. H., Raven, P. B., & Morgan, W. P. (2002). Brain activation

by central command during actual and imagined handgrip under hypnosis. Journal of Applied Physiology, 92(5),

1317–1324.

Wrisberg, C. A., Franks, B. D., Birdwell, M. W., & High, D. M. (1988). Physiological and psychological responses to

exercise with an induced attentional focus. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66, 603–616.