Matrix homepage recommendation
Matrix is a minority writing community. We advocate sharing real product experiences, practical experiences and thoughts. We will occasionally select Matrix’s highest-quality articles to showcase the most authentic experiences and opinions from users.
The article represents the author’s personal views, and the minority party only slightly modified the title and formatting.
Imagine you are a professional football player, standing on the twelve-yard foul line with tens of thousands of eyes watching you. This goal is likely to determine an important championship. The opponent’s goalkeeper makes various interference actions on the goal line, trying to interfere with your decision-making, running and ball play. This is undoubtedly a time of great pressure for everyone.
What strategy will you choose to guide the next shot?
- Ignore the goalkeeper’s movements, aim at a fixed angle, and volley hard.
- Watch the goalkeeper’s reaction carefully and try a push or even a clever shot.
If you were a coach, how would you coach your athletes? Would you tell him or her during the tactical planning session, “Don’t think too much, just play where you want to go”, or would you ask him or her to “Don’t relax and observe every detail carefully”?
No one strategy is guaranteed to win. In the first situation, someone takes a run-up and swings his legs in one go, and the ball hits the dead center like a cannonball. There are also people who pursue the angle too much and kick the ball directly into the stands.
In the second situation, someone keenly caught the slight movement of the goalkeeper’s center of gravity, calmly deceived the goalkeeper, and scored a goal. Some people tried their best, but the ball they finally kicked was weak and was saved by the goalkeeper.
“Optimal strategy” cannot be separated from the two elements of “task” and “people”
With the same strategic choice, some people made the final decision under pressure, while others simply collapsed and ruined the game. If we extend the perspective from twelve-yard penalty kicks to other technical actions in football, other sports, and even military and police technical tactics and personal defense, we will see many similar disputes about strategy selection and execution.
Simply labeling a strategy as “simple is better (don’t think too much)” or “the more comprehensive/complex/refined the better (actuarially successful)” is meaningless. What really determines success or failure is (1)How complex is the information processing required in the task environment itself?and (2)Whether the athlete himself has sufficient cognitive capacity and execution stability to support his chosen strategy under high pressure。
That is to say, the question is not which strategy is better, but “who, facing what tasks, choose which strategy is more conducive to achieving results.”
The latest theoretical article published by Dr. Laura Voigt from the Sport University Cologne in Germany and others in Trends in Cognitive Sciences is precisely to explore such a core proposition. The co-author, Professor Markus Raab, is the director of the Department of Sports Psychology at the University of Sport in Cologne. The other two co-authors, Arne Nieuwenhuys and Rich SW Masters, are also experts in the field of “choking under pressure” respectively.
In this article titled “Beyond Attention: Performance Pressure Modifies Information Processing Complexity (Beyond attention: performance pressure shifts information-processing complexity)”, the authors jumped out of traditional theoretical controversies and proposed a new integration framework:
What pressure really changes is not the abstract “mentality” or the “performance” of specific movements, but the athlete’s information processing complexity level.
When the athlete’s information processing complexity level approaches the complexity required by the task, the athlete will withstand the pressure and perform “exceptionally”; conversely, if the information processing complexity level deviates from the complexity required by the task, the athlete will show abnormal performance.
Theoretical framework: When action control encounters “bias-variance trade-off”
In order to accurately characterize this mechanism, the author introduces three interlocking core concepts:
The first concept isInformation-processing rules & complexity. Any high-level sports performance is inseparable from the information processing process of the nervous system. What information the brain selects, how much weight it gives, and how to integrate this information to guide action selection and execution are all dependent on the “rules” learned by specific athletes. Different athletes will acquire rules of varying complexity through their own practice and coaching.
The higher the complexity of the rule, the more information and reference conditions are called, and the more complex the calculation steps are.
Take the familiar martial arts novels as an example. The Taishan sect described by Jin Yong has a move called “How is Daizong?” which essentially requires the user to transform into a human computer, accurately calculate all conditions, and defeat the enemy with one move. This is a complex rule.
On the contrary, the flying swordsman in Gu Long’s works never calculates, but just pierces the opponent’s throat with one sword. That’s the simple rule.
The second concept comes from statistics and decision science and is calledBias-Variance Trade-off. Similar to the formula proposed by Daniel Kahneman in the book “Noise”, the author breaks down the error in action control into three parts:
Square of bias + variance + irreducible error
Bias means systematic error. High bias means that the rules are too simple, or that enforcers tend to ignore critical information. For example, some players always blindly kick towards a habitual corner and ignore the goalkeeper’s movements. This is high deviation and low variance. Such a player may have consistent shooting movements and is less likely to make on-the-spot mistakes, but he may be easily caught by his opponent by studying them in advance. The original author specifically emphasized that the reason why the deviation must be squared is to match the dimension of the variance and eliminate directionality.
Variance represents the instability of execution. High variance means the rules are too complex and susceptible to external noise and cues. For example, some players will simultaneously calculate the goalkeeper’s position, movement and past habits, and observe the details of the goalkeeper’s various movements. Although this helps reduce information omission (low bias), the amount of calculation may exceed the capabilities of the human brain and is susceptible to on-the-spot interference. This is high variance and low bias. Such a player may have flashes of inspiration to perform superbly, but at other times he can be so amazing that it is surprising.
This leads to the third core concept of the whole article——Task-matched complexity. In a coordinate system with complexity as the horizontal axis and error as the vertical axis, as the complexity increases, the deviation curve decreases and the variance curve increases. The total error formed by the superposition of the two forms a U-shaped curve. The “golden sweet spot” located at the bottom of the curve represents the task matching complexity, that is, the complexity that is most suitable for the current sports task – no more, no less, just right.
The author believes that this sweet spot is not an immutable constant, but a dynamic equilibrium point determined by two factors. That is,The objective needs of the task itself,and individual athlete factors (such as skill proficiency and working memory capacity).
Two options, four processing results
The aforementioned two strategic choices each correspond to two completely different directions of cognitive regulation. Each direction has a distinction between “appropriate” and “excessive”, or “reasonable direction” and “unreasonable direction”, which largely determines the results of action execution.
Under pressure, will the brain “go to the left (simplify)” or “go to the right (complicate)”? The theory states that this depends on the specific psychological responses induced by stress within the individual player.
In stressful situations, some athletes think about bonuses, results or social evaluation, mobilizing their own efforts (effort mobilization) and increasing their motivation levels, making it easier for them to choose complexity. On the contrary, other athletes have more anxiety and worry, and their attention turns to the subjective experience of being “threatened”, and it is easier to choose to simplify. In addition, if athletes can subjectively perceive that their computing power is tight, they will also actively choose strategic simplification as a compensation strategy.
In non-stressful situations, different athletes have different information processing styles. Some people usually tend to “overthink” and “actually”, and the baseline complexity is higher than the theoretical sweet spot. Some people always like to “rely on feeling” and “take a reckless step”, and the baseline complexity is lower than the sweet spot. This baseline level, superimposed on how the individual feels under stress, and the resulting choices to simplify or complicate, yields four different outcomes.
It is reasonable for athletes who usually think too much to take the initiative to reduce complexity in stressful situations and volley vigorously to preset blind spots.Simplification: Give up the step-by-step control of the run-up and leg-swinging movements, and ignore the goalkeeper’s distracting fake movements. Instead, the shooting movement is packaged into a highly automated “higher-order movement chunk” to avoid brain overload in high-pressure situations.
If this kind of simplification occurs to athletes who usually rely more on feelings, it will become oversimplification: completely ignoring the goalkeeper’s movements, not considering the opponent’s research on their own technical characteristics, and just falling into the opponent’s prediction; or, not paying attention to the on-site conditions and their own physical status, being overly obsessed with blind spots and strength in their minds, and kicking the ball away directly.
In contrast, it is reasonable for athletes who are usually more casual to take the initiative to increase complexity in stressful situations and choose to calmly observe the goalkeeper before shooting.Complexification strategy。
Obviously, not every player (or every player in all game situations) is capable of such complex information processing. If you tend to think too much, or if your brain is overwhelmed even though you try to think too much, you will fall into the pit of overcomplexification through over-analysis of “both needs and wants”. This will cause the shooting action itself to tend to be broken, resulting in a half-high ball or a soft ball on the ground, giving the opponent a big gift.
Both theories may be correct, but they differ depending on the person and the situation.
The above-mentioned new theoretical framework is proposed to help solve two problems in the field of choking under pressure research.
The world of sports psychology has two main camps regarding theories of dysfunction. Co-author Masters himself is the originator of the “Self-focus/Reinvestment Theory”. This theory is based on the three-stage theory of motor learning “cognition-connection-automation” and believes that stress may or may not increase anxiety levels. Regardless of anxiety or not, as long as the performance seems very important or there is a gap with the expected results, the athlete may initiate self-focus, invest extra effort, and gradually and excessively monitor the originally automatic movements, which will lead to de-automatization and movement disintegration.
Another co-author, Nieuwenhuys, has conducted extensive research based on Distraction accounts/Attention Control Theory (ACT). This school of thought believes that stress will increase anxiety levels, and then focus on external threatening stimuli and ignore task-related information, leading to the degradation of movement control and execution.
These two seemingly opposite theories have each been supported by some empirical research results, leaving the academic community at a loss. This article can be seen as an attempt by two groups of researchers to reach a consensus. Self-focus and distraction may not be an either-or competition. People can work hard to mobilize or become anxious under pressure; they can try to simplify or continue to complicate. The two reactions move left and right on the same complexity spectrum, and then based on the sweet spot determined by the nature of the specific task, four reactions will occur:
If the movement to the right is close to the sweet spot, it is “reasonable complication”; if it is far away from the sweet spot, it is “over-complication” or the so-called “reinvestment”.
Distraction or interference corresponds to leftward movement, which is also divided into “oversimplification” away from the sweet spot and “reasonable simplification/strategic simplification” close to the sweet spot.
This four-point result can also explain another problem that often arises in practice: it is also pressure, so why do some athletes choke at certain times and other athletes perform beyond their normal performance at other times? The new theory keenly points out that the direction of complexity shift and the final performance results can be independent of each other. In other words, it is not enough to simply discuss “don’t think too much” or “think more”. The human element must be included and analyzed in a specific situation.
Enlightenment: From laboratory modeling to on-field stress training
The first author of this article, Dr. Laura Voigt, is my master’s thesis supervisor at the Sport University Cologne in Germany. My thesis is a sub-topic of Voigt’s doctoral research project. Its main purpose is to summarize and analyze the experimental results of “The Effect of Stress on Sports Performance.”
Interestingly, the results of my preliminary analysis seem to indicate that the factors that can influence the impact of stress on sports performance are not the sports task, the athlete’s experience, or the specific stress source, but “who conducted the experiment” and “in which country/region/culture the experiment was conducted.”
This result is consistent with the direction of the new theory: the same stress factors and experimental paradigms, when used by different researchers on subjects with different cultural backgrounds, may cause choking, may not work, or may lead to clutching. The following three considerations may have to be taken into consideration when designing future pressure manipulation studies:
- For a specific task, at what level does the task match the information processing complexity? That is, is the task itself relatively simple, without confrontation and games (such as basketball free throws, dart throwing, Olympic shooting, golf putting) or relatively complex, with confrontation and games (such as penalty kicks, military and police tactical shooting, e-sports)?
- Is the information processing style and rule complexity of a specific subject above or below the complexity level of the task?
- How do specific stressors shift subjects’ complexity preferences? That is, will there be more effort mobilization (towards complexity) or feelings of threat (toward simplification)?
The author also gave a clear falsification boundary at the end of the original article: If stress steadily changes sports performance, but no independent complexity changes can be measured, or if the athlete’s complexity level is close to the expected task matching complexity, but it leads to a decrease in sports performance, the theory will be falsified.
Even if we do not consider the authenticity of the theory itself, the proposal of this new theory at least provides coaches and athletes with a simple and profound revelation: the analysis, thinking and intervention of sports psychology must not be one-size-fits-all, and must analyze specific problems in detail.
Many coaches, especially those at the grassroots level, are particularly prone to rely on their own experience and use a single prescription to treat all diseases. For example, a fighting coach I met would tell all new students, “Don’t think too much and play based on instinct (blind simplification).” Another tennis coach likes to take the lead and think too much (blindly complicate). Both are undesirable.
The core of “stress resistance training” may first of all bePersonalized diagnosis and precise matching: The coach must find out the starting point of the players’ daily habits, their tendency to react to pressure, and their working memory capacity under high pressure. For athletes who are usually rough, rely on feelings, and tend to ignore and simplify information, coaches should stimulate their efforts, improve their working memory and information processing level, and train these athletes to deliberately complicate their abilities.
On the contrary, for athletes who are usually thoughtful, have many ideas, and tend to pursue details, the coach should design a high-reliability, low-complexity “strategic simplification” plan for them – for example, directly tell them which way to play.
Going back to the suffocating penalty shootout at the beginning, or the final battle of any other sports event, can you let go of your obsession with “big heart” or “win-win strategy” and start thinking about how to match the two? The helplessness of kicking an anti-aircraft gun, or the regret of a weak push, may not mean that “you will definitely not score with this kick”, nor does it mean that “this person is not born to be a winner” – the result of a bad kick may just be because the pressure pushes the specific player away from the equilibrium point, or the deviation is overwhelming, or the variance is out of control.
All confrontational sports are inevitably psychological games. Even if you are near the eye of a typhoon, you can still recognize yourself, clarify your tasks, and firmly hit the sweet spot of “task matching complexity.” The so-called concentration and the so-called winner are probably like this.
Related reading:Voigt, L., Nieuwenhuys, A., Masters, R. S. W., & Raab, M. (2026). Beyond attention: Performance pressure shifts information-processing complexity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, S1364661326002135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2026.09.008
The author holds a master’s degree in sports psychology from the University of Sport in Cologne, Germany. Currently a doctoral student in martial arts education at Waseda University School of Physical Education, International Krav Maga Federation (IKMF) Expert 1 level, civilian/female/disabled safety and defense instructor.
> Follow Minority Little Red Book and experience the wonderful digital life🍃
> Practical and easy-to-use genuine software, minority group presents it to you🚀
