Improvements in Cycling Time Trial Performance Are Not Sustained Following the Acute Provision of Challenging and Deceptive Feedback

The provision of performance-related feedback during exercise is acknowledged as an influential external cue used to inform pacing decisions. The provision of this feedback in a challenging or deceptive context allows research to explore how feedback can be used to improve performance and influence perceptual responses. However, the effects of deception on both acute and residual responses have yet to be explored, despite potential application for performance enhancement. Therefore, this study investigated the effects of challenging and deceptive feedback on perceptual responses and performance in self-paced cycling time trials (TT) and explored whether changes in performance are sustained in a subsequent TT following the disclosure of the deception. Seventeen trained male cyclists were assigned to either an accurate or deceptive feedback group and performed four 16.1 km cycling TTs; (1 and 2) ride-alone baseline TTs where a fastest baseline (FBL) performance was identified, (3) a TT against a virtual avatar representing 102% of their FBL performance (PACER), and (4) a subsequent ride-alone TT (SUB). The deception group, however, were initially informed that the avatar accurately represented their FBL, but prior to SUB were correctly informed of the nature of the avatar. Affect, self-efficacy and RPE were measured every quartile. Both groups performed PACER faster than FBL and SUB (p < 0.05) and experienced lower affect (p = 0.016), lower self-efficacy (p = 0.011), and higher RPE (p < 0.001) in PACER than FBL. No significant differences were found between FBL and SUB for any variable. The presence of the pacer rather than the manipulation of performance beliefs acutely facilitates TT performance and perceptual responses. Revealing that athletes' performance beliefs were falsely negative due to deceptive feedback provision has no effect on subsequent perceptions or performance. A single experiential exposure may not be sufficient to produce meaningful changes in the performance beliefs of trained individuals beyond the acute setting.

[1]  T. Mickleborough,et al.  Using Deception to Establish a Reproducible Improvement in 4-Km Cycling Time Trial Performance , 2016, International Journal of Sports Medicine.

[2]  A. St. Clair Gibson,et al.  Application of Decision-Making Theory to the Regulation of Muscular Work Rate during Self-Paced Competitive Endurance Activity , 2014, Sports Medicine.

[3]  F. Koster,et al.  EXPECTATIONS AND PERFORMANCE , 2015 .

[4]  D. Gould,et al.  The Effect of Preexisting and Manipulated Self-efficacy on a Competitive Muscular Endurance Task , 1981 .

[5]  N. Brewer,et al.  The dynamics of threat and challenge appraisals prior to stressful achievement events. , 2002, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  M. Beauchamp,et al.  Affect and self-efficacy responses during moderate-intensity exercise among low-active women: the effect of cognitive appraisal. , 2010, Journal of sport & exercise psychology.

[7]  R. Meeusen,et al.  Guidelines to Classify Female Subject Groups in Sport-Science Research. , 2013, International journal of sports physiology and performance.

[8]  Mark R. Wilson,et al.  Evaluating stress as a challenge is associated with superior attentional control and motor skill performance: testing the predictions of the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[9]  Adrian W Midgley,et al.  Physiological and Psychological Effects of Deception on Pacing Strategy and Performance: A Review , 2013, Sports Medicine.

[10]  A. Bandura.  Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy.

[11]  Kevin Thomas,et al.  Consistency of perceptual and metabolic responses to a laboratory-based simulated 4,000-m cycling time trial , 2011, European Journal of Applied Physiology.

[12]  C. Hardy,et al.  Not What, but How One Feels: The Measurement of Affect during Exercise , 1989 .

[13]  A. St. Clair Gibson,et al.  Effects of deception on exercise performance: implications for determinants of fatigue in humans. , 2012, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[14]  Justy Reed,et al.  The Effect of Placebo-Induced Changes in Expectancies on Maximal Force Production in College Students , 2007 .

[15]  T. Hubbard.  Forms of Momentum across Time: Behavioral and Psychological , 2015 .

[16]  Gabriele Wulf,et al.  Enhanced expectancies improve movement efficiency in runners , 2012, Jurnal sport science.

[17]  Adrian W Midgley,et al.  Deception has no acute or residual effect on cycling time trial performance but negatively effects perceptual responses. , 2016, Journal of science and medicine in sport.

[18]  G. Wulf,et al.  Enhanced Expectancies Improve Performance Under Pressure , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[19]  T. Åkerstedt,et al.  Psychological and psychophysiological effects of shift work. , 1990, Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health.

[20]  Benjamin L. M. Smits,et al.  Pacing and Decision Making in Sport and Exercise: The Roles of Perception and Action in the Regulation of Exercise Intensity , 2014, Sports Medicine.

[21]  Robert W. Patton,et al.  The effect of beliefs on maximum weight-lifting performance , 1979, Cognitive Therapy and Research.

[22]  J J de Koning,et al.  Relative importance of pacing strategy and mean power output in 1500-m self-paced cycling , 2009, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[23]  David T. Martin,et al.  Lying to win-placebos and sport science. , 2013, International journal of sports physiology and performance.

[24]  E. McAuley,et al.  Self‐Efficacy Relationships With Affective and Exertion Responses to Exercise , 1992 .

[25]  L. Mcnaughton,et al.  Altered Psychological Responses to Different Magnitudes of Deception during Cycling. , 2015, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[26]  T. Noakes,et al.  Previous experience influences pacing during 20 km time trial cycling , 2009, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[27]  Jim Blascovich,et al.  Predicting athletic performance from cardiovascular indexes of challenge and threat , 2004 .

[28]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. , 1977, Psychology Review.

[29]  Adrian W Midgley,et al.  Competitor presence reduces internal attentional focus and improves 16.1km cycling time trial performance. , 2015, Journal of science and medicine in sport.

[30]  G. Tenenbaum,et al.  The Effect of Manipulated Self-Efficacy on Perceived and Sustained Effort , 2008 .

[31]  D. Sheffield,et al.  A Theory of Challenge and Threat States in Athletes , 2009 .

[32]  R. Thelwell,et al.  Influence of competition on performance and pacing during cycling exercise. , 2012, Medicine and science in sports and exercise.

[33]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. , 1977, Psychological review.

[34]  W. Hopkins,et al.  Variation in performance of elite cyclists from race to race , 2001 .

[35]  Chris R Abbiss,et al.  Describing and Understanding Pacing Strategies during Athletic Competition , 2008, Sports medicine.

[36]  Robert Weinberg,et al.  Expectations and Performance: An Empirical Test of Bandura's Self-efficacy Theory , 1979 .

[37]  G. Borg.  Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. , 2019, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[38]  Traci Sitzmann,et al.  A Meta‐Analytic Investigation of the Within‐Person Self‐Efficacy Domain: Is Self‐Efficacy a Product of Past Performance or a Driver of Future Performance? , 2013 .

[39]  D. Sheffield,et al.  Cognitive and affective components of challenge and threat states , 2013, Journal of sports sciences.

[40]  Romain Meeusen,et al.  Guidelines to classify subject groups in sport-science research. , 2013, International journal of sports physiology and performance.