Abstract

In their position paper, Mesagno and Hill (M&H) argue that there is a discrepancy between how the term ‘choking’ is used by the media and researchers and propose that the term should be reserved for more acute and significant declines in performance than tend to be studied by researchers. Specifically, they assert that researchers may have failed to investigate the phenomenon by considering any (statistically significant) drop in performance to be choking. In response, M&H propose to re-conceptualise choking in a manner that also includes reference to the proposed underlying causes. In this commentary, the author argues that the crux of their position is a valid question that should be re-stated as a hypothesis, the testing of which requires a clear distinction between ‘moderate’ and ‘major’ under-performance under pressure. Second, the author argues that defining these terms, together with the collective term ‘choking’, must be independent of any hypothesised explanation to be scientifically meaningful. Verf.-Referat (geändert)