Relatively Easy Criteria for Success Enhances Motor Learning by Altering Perceived Competence

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine whether enhancing success expectation by providing relatively easy criteria for success would, in turn, enhance motor learning outcomes. Thirty university student participants threw soft-golf balls towards a circular target, using their non-dominant arm; they performed seven blocks of 12 trials from a distance of 5.5 meters on Day 1, and one block of 12 trials on separate retention and transfer tests on Day 2. After the first block on Day 1, participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups in which they practiced the remaining six blocks of 12 trials: (a) one with relatively easy success (RES) criteria or (b) one with difficult success (DS) criteria. After the practice, we administered a perceived competence scale, a sub-scale of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI). On Day 2, participants in the RES group outperformed those in the DS group on both the retention and transfer tests, showing enhanced motor learning. The RES group also self-reported higher perceived competence than the DS group, indicating that the mechanism for benefiting from easier success criteria may have been an alteration in participants’ perceived competence.

Keywords

expectation perceived task difficulty perceived competence throwing

Introduction

Motivational aspects of motor skill learning have been an important recent research focus. According to OPTIMAL theory (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016), expecting to perform well or to learn motor skills well – enhanced expectancy – is one of two motivational factors (the other being autonomy) that aid individuals with motor learning and performance. For instance, providing “better than the actual performance” feedback (false normative information) – social-comparative feedback – has enhanced learning of balance (Lewthwaite & Wulf, 2010) and throwing skills (Ávila et al., 2012). When Ávila et al. (2012) informed participants that their performance was better than the average performance of a similar group, participants rated their perceived competence higher than individuals who received feedback of their actual performance. Individuals generally like to feel good about themselves, and solidifying competence is one of the psychological needs in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2008). Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), like OPTIMAL theory (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016), highlights the importance of high levels of perceived competence. Perceived competence is motivating and fundamentally satisfying (White, 1959); it has been positively associated with motor skill learning (Chiviacowsky et al., 2012; Gonçalves et al., 2018; Saemi et al., 2011; Wulf et al., 2014).

Various strategies/interventions have been employed to show that motor performance and learning can be enhanced with an enhanced expectation for success. These interventions have included alterations of mindset and ability conceptions (Chiviacowsky & Drews, 2014; Drews et al., 2013; Wulf et al., 2012), presenting participants with visual illusions (Chauvel et al., 2015; Witt et al., 2012), superstition (Damisch et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2011), placebo effect (Kalasountas et al., 2007; Lidstone et al., 2010; Piedimonte et al., 2015), and manipulations of perceived task difficulty (Palmer et al., 2016).

Palmer and colleagues (2016) used two different criteria for success for non-golfer participants learning a golf-putting task. In this study, one group was informed that their putts into a large circular target (14 cm diameter) were good putting trials, while another group was informed that their putts into a small target smaller circle (7 cm diameter) were good trials. Thus, for one group, a successful (i.e., “good”) performance was easier to achieve. Two days after the practice, those who practiced with the easier large circle outperformed those who practiced with the more difficult small circle on both retention and transfer tests (when the circle was removed from the center target). The authors concluded that enhancing participants’ expectations by providing them relatively easy success criteria led to a more effective learning outcome. However, this study measured only performance (i.e., putting accuracy) and presented no data to support the theorized underlining mechanism of success expectancy.

In the present study, we sought to replicate and extend the Palmer et al. (2016) study by examining both a motor learning and performance outcome and the underlining psychological mechanisms associated with presumed changes in performance expectancy. For the latter measure of performance expectancy, we used a sub-scale of the self-report Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) (Ryan, 1982). Specifically, we sought to examine whether enhancing expectation by providing relatively easy criteria for practice success would enhance both motor learning and participants’ perceived competence – a basic psychological need (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2008) that has been previously associated with effective motor learning outcomes (Ávila et al., 2012; Chiviacowsky et al., 2012; Gonçalves et al., 2018; Saemi et al., 2011). We asked our participants (n = 30) to throw soft-golf balls towards a circular target, using their non-dominant arm, and we had them practice under either a condition in which successful criteria were relatively easy or a condition in which successful criteria were relatively difficult. Two days after the practice test, we assessed motor learning on retention and transfer tests, and assessed perceived competence with the aforementioned IMI sub-scale.

Method

Participants

We used power analysis software, G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2007) to estimate a required participant sample size. We determined that a sample size of 30 participants was needed to detect an estimated medium effect size ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .07) at an α-level of .05 with statistical power value fixed at .90 (Wulf et al., 2018). Thus, 30 university students (14 males and 16 females) participated in this study, with equal sub-sets of participants (7 males and 8 females) randomly assigned to either a relatively easy success (RES) or difficult success (DS) criteria group. Participants averaged 19.20 (SD = 0.81) years of age (RES group: M = 19.33, SD = 0.72 years; DS group: M = 19.07, SD = 0.88 years) and were recruited from an introductory sociology course with an incentive of one course credit to participate in this study. Two male participants were left-hand dominant (with one of these participants in each of the RES and DS groups). Participants were naïve as to the purpose of the study; they were simply informed that their throwing performance would be assessed. All participants completed a written informed consent before beginning the experiment. The experimental protocol was approved by the university’s institutional review board.

Apparatus and Task

The motor learning task was to throw soft-golf balls overhand to a target with the non-dominant arm. We had participants use their non-dominant arms to make the task more challenging and novel. The circular target (2 × 2 meters in diameter) hung on a wall and consisted of a bull’s eye with a 10-centimeter radius and concentric outer radii of 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 centimeters (Figure 1). The center of the bull’s eye was 1.3 meters above the ground. If the ball hit the bull’s eye, we awarded the participant 10 points. If the ball hit the next circle, we awarded 9 points, and so forth. If a ball hit the circular line separating two zones, we gave the participant the higher score. If the ball hit the outside of the target or was a complete miss, we gave 0 points. A similar apparatus and task have been used by other researchers (e.g., Saemi et al., 2012; Wulf et al., 2014).

Figure 1.

Throwing Target.

Procedure

We determined participants’ dominant hand by asking them which hand they used to throw balls. The experimenter demonstrated overhand throws two times prior to the participant’s effort. On Day 1, participants performed seven blocks of 12 trials from a distance of 5.5 meters. All participants performed the first block as a pre-test. Participants were then randomly assigned to the RES or DS groups. Prior to the practice phase, participants in the RES group were informed that a performance higher than 6 points is considered a successful trial, whereas those in the DS group were told that a performance higher than 9 points is considered a successful trial. More than 6 points represented successes with easier throws that hit within one meter of the target, while more than 9 points were successes with more difficult throws that hit within 0.4 meters (or 40 centimeters) from the center of the bull’s eye. We provided a 1-minute rest break after each block of 12 trials. After the third block (half way), participants were reminded of the success criteria for their assigned group. Following Day 1 practice, we administered the self-report perceived competence scale – the sub-scale of Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI: Ryan, 1982). This sub-scale consisted of six statements (e.g., “I think I am pretty good at this activity.”). Participants were asked to rate to what extent, on a scale from 1 (“not at all true”) to 7 (“very true”), they regarded their competence on their Day 1 performance to be. Past researchers have shown this IMI sub-scale’s internal consistency to be good, with a high Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .80 (McAuley et al., 1989). On Day 2 (48-hour delay), participants performed one block of 12 trials from the same distance (5.5 meters) as a retention test and one block of 12 trials from 6.5 meters as a transfer test. Participants were then debriefed and thanked for their time.

Data Analysis

We averaged throwing accuracy scores on each block (pre-test, practice phase, retention, transfer). We analyzed practice data with a 2 (Groups: RES, DS) × 6 (Blocks) repeated-measure analysis of variance (ANOVA), with repeated measures on the last factor. We analyzed group differences on the pre-test, retention test, transfer test, and perceived competence self-report instrument with one-way ANOVAs. We set the level of significance at .05. We used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IMB Statistics 24.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) to perform all analyses.

Results

Group Percentages of Successful Trials

Participants in the RES group averaged 60.38% (SD = 16.73%) successful trials (i.e., 6 points or higher) and those in the DS group averaged 9.26% ± (SD = 0.40%) successful trials (i.e., 9 or 10 points) during the practice phase, confirming that these groups differed in the difficulty of these success criteria as planned.

Group Throwing Performance and Motor Learning Outcomes

Throwing accuracy scores, averaged across blocks, for the RES and DS groups can be seen in Figure 2. On Day 1, the RES group (M = 4.67, SD = 1.45) and DS group (M = 4.31, SD = 1.31) did not differ on the pre-test, F (1, 29) = 1.008, p > .05., η_ρ² = .153., and there was no significant main effect of group on the practice trials, F (1, 28) = 3.740, p > .05., η_ρ² = .118. There was also no significant main effect of block, F (5, 140) = 1.001, p > .05., η_ρ² = .035; and there was no significant group by block interaction effect, F (5, 140) = 1.261 p > .05., η_ρ² = .043.

Figure 2.

Throwing Accuracy Scores of the Pre-Test, Practice Phase, Retention, and Transfer Test. Error bars represent standard errors.

On Day 2, the RES group (M = 5.36, SD = 1.15) had significantly higher throwing accuracy scores than the DS group (M = 4.35, SD = 1.44) on the retention test, F (1, 29) = 7.701, p < .05., η_ρ² = .443. Similarly, on the transfer test, the RES group (M = 4.42, SD = 1.48) had significantly higher accuracy scores than the DS group (M = 3.27, SD = 1.39), F (1, 29) = 9.861, p < .05., η_ρ² = .480.

Perceived Competence

Following the practice trials on Day 1, the RES group (M = 4.65, SD = 1.27) had significantly higher self-ratings of perceived competence on the IMI than the DS group (M = 3.48, SD = 1.24), F (1, 28) = 6.447, p < .05., η_ρ² = .522 (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Ratings of Perceived Competence on a Scale From 1 to 7 (Higher Scores Indicate Higher Perceived Competence).

Discussion

The present study re-examined whether providing different success criteria during motor learning practice trials would positively influence learning outcome as reflected by retention and transfer tests, and our results re-affirmed this effect as previously shown by several researchers (Onushko et al., 2014; Palmer et al., 2016; Trempe et al., 2012). Our experimental manipulation of providing relatively easy criteria for success (i.e., higher than 6 points on a throwing-to-target task) versus difficult criteria for success (i.e., higher than 9 points), led participants in the easy condition to show enhanced motor learning outcomes. We extended prior research by also studying participants’ self-reported perceived competence following these two learning conditions. As we hypothesized, individuals who practiced under relatively easy success criteria had higher perceived competence as compared with those who practiced under difficult success criteria.

Palmer et al. (2016) provided relatively easy or difficult success criteria on a golf-putting task, and participants in their easier success criteria group also showed enhanced motor learning. Palmer et al.’s (2016) participants in the relatively easy criteria group experienced good performance on 22% of the practice trials, while those in the difficult criteria group performed successfully on 8% of the trials. In our present study, participants practicing under the relatively easy criteria experienced 60% success, while those in the difficult criteria experienced 9% success. Despite these participant differences in the degree of success within the relatively easy success criteria condition, the participants’ enhanced motor learning outcomes were similar across these two studies.

Regarding our investigation of the role of perceived competence, competence has been seen as a fundamental psychological (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2008) and biological need (Leotti & Delgado, 2011; Leotti et al., 2010), associated with better motor skill acquisition (Chiviacowsky et al., 2012; Gonçalves et al., 2018; Saemi et al., 2011; Wulf et al., 2014). In the present study, individuals who practiced under the relatively easy criteria for success (RES group) experienced success in 60% of their practice trials while those who practiced under the difficult criteria for success (DS group) experienced success in 9% of their trials. Thus, the DS group were given a consistent impression of being less successful than the RES group. Our finding that the RES group reported higher perceived competence than the DS group suggested that an underlying mechanism for enhanced motor learning was higher perceived competence from this success experience. Trempe et al. (2012) found that after using an easy task object during visuomotor adaptation practice participants showed an enhanced learning outcome on a retention test 24 hours later. Additionally, other researchers have shown that there must be a certain level of participant success to trigger the memory consolidation process that is crucial for enhanced motor skill learning (Abe et al., 2011; Kantak et al., 2010). Thus, practice conditions that provide successful experiences are an important means of enhancing motor skill learning (e.g., Blaesi & Bridgeman, 2015; Bootsma et al., 2018; Ong et al., 2015).

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

An important limitation of this study was that we did not assess the level of our participants’ perceived competence prior to their practice trials. Our single post-practice administration of the IMI subscale that measured perceived competence was necessary because quick back-to-back pre-practice and post-practice administrations of the perceived competence subscale might have influenced post-trial results on the instrument. However, this limitation leaves open the possibility, however unlikely, that the RES and DS groups were already different in their levels of perceived competence and were not different in their perceived competence levels as a result of our experimental manipulation. Future researchers will need to address this limitation by including a baseline assessment perceived competence assessment in order to measure clear changes in perceived competence following varied practice sessions.

Secondly, although we interpret these results as suggesting that easier criteria for success induced perceived competence and enhanced learning outcomes, it is also possible that the effect was on the DS rather than the RES group such that difficult criteria for success induced stress that diminished learning outcomes. Future researchers might help address that possibility by measuring both stress levels physiologically (e.g., through cortisol levels) and psychologically through measures of stress/tension. Additionally, future studies should examine whether the rate of success experience (i.e., 60% in RES, 9% in DS in the present study) influences motor learning. Studies that have examined the influence of task difficulty have generally included two (Ong et al., 2015; Palmer et al., 2016; Trempe et al., 2012) or three groups (Blaesi & Bridgeman, 2015; Bootsma et al., 2018), but including more groups would help address how different task criteria for success, different rates of success experience, and the interaction of these two variables might differentially influence motor learning outcomes.

Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to examine whether enhancing success expectations by providing different criteria for success would influence motor learning. Specifically, we sought to determine whether providing relatively easy criteria for success would (a) enhance the learning outcomes of throwing accuracy and (b) enhance perceived competence. We replicated earlier research by showing enhanced motor learning by providing relatively easy success criteria, and we provided early data supporting the idea that perceived competence was also enhanced, as measured only by a post-practice administration of a subscale for perceived competence on the IMI. While further research is needed to replicate and extend these findings, this study offers empirical support for perceived competence as an underlying mechanism in the enhanced motor learning from practice conditions with relatively easy success criteria. Affording new learners practice under these conditions is apt to yield long term performance benefits.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

We received the IRB approval from the university.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Takehiro Iwatsuki

Author Biographies

Takehiro Iwatsuki PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Kinesiology at Pennsylvania State University, Altoona College. His research focuses on understanding ways of effective motor skill learning and enhancing motor performance.

Claude J. Regis is an undergraduate student in the Department of Kinesiology at Pennsylvania State University, Altoona College. He works as an undergraduate research assistant under Dr. Iwatsuki.

References

Abe

Schambra

Wassermann

E. M.

Luckenbaugh

Schweighofer

Cohen

L. G.

(2011). Reward improves long-term retention of a motor memory through induction of offline memory gains. Current Biology, 21(7), 557–562.

Ávila

L. T. G.

Chiviacowsky

Wulf

Lewthwaite

(2012). Positive social-comparative feedback enhances motor learning in children. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(6), 849–853.

Blaesi

Bridgeman

(2015). Perceived difficulty of a motor task affects memory but not action. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 77(3), 972–977.

Bootsma

J. M.

Hortobágyi

Rothwell

J. C.

Caljouw

S. R.

(2018). The role of task difficulty in learning a visuomotor skill. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 50(9), 1842–1849.

Chauvel

Wulf

Maquestiaux

(2015). Visual illusions can facilitate sport skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(3), 717–721.

Chiviacowsky

Drews

(2014). Effects of generic versus non-generic feedback on motor learning in children. PLoS One, 9(2), e88989.

Chiviacowsky

Wulf

Lewthwaite

(2012). Self-controlled learning: The importance of protecting perceptions of competence. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(458), 1–8.

Damisch

Stoberock

Mussweiler

(2010). Keep your fingers crossed! Psychological Science, 21(7), 1014–1020.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

10.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2008). Self-Determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182–185.

11.

Drews

Chiviacowsky

Wulf

(2013). Children’s motor skill learning is influenced by their conceptions of ability. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 1(2), 38–44.

12.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

Buchner

(2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191.

13.

Gonçalves

G. S.

Cardozo

P. L.

Valentini

N. C.

Chiviacowsky

(2018). Enhancing performance expectancies through positive comparative feedback facilitates the learning of basketball free throw in children. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 36, 174–177.

14.

Kalasountas

Reed

Fitzpatrick

(2007). The effect of placebo-induced changes in expectancies on maximal force production in college students. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(1), 116–124.

15.

Kantak

S. S.

Sullivan

K. J.

Fisher

B. E.

Knowlton

B. J.

Winstein

C. J.

(2010). Neural substrates of motor memory consolidation depend on practice structure. Nature Neuroscience, 13(8), 923–925.

16.

Lee

Linkenauger

S. A.

Bakdash

J. Z.

Joy-Gaba

J. A.

Profitt

D. R.

(2011). Putting like a pro: The role of positive contagion in golf performance and perception. PLoS One, 6(10), e26016–e26017.

17.

Leotti

L. A.

Delgado

M. R.

(2011). The inherent reward of choice. Psychological Science, 22(10), 1310–1318.

18.

Leotti

L. A.

Iyengar

S. S.

Ochsner

K. N.

(2010). Born to choose: The origins and value of the need for control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 457–463.

19.

Lewthwaite

Wulf

(2010). Social-comparative feedback affects motor skill learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 63(4), 738–749.

20.

Lidstone

S. C.

Schulzer

Dinelle

Mak

Sossi

Ruth

T. J.

de la Fuente-Fernández

Phillips

A. G.

Stoessl

A. J.

(2010). Effects of expectation on placebo induced dopamine release in Parkinson’s disease. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(8), 857–865.

21.

McAuley

Duncan

Tammen

V. V.

(1989). Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60(1), 48–58.

22.

Ong

N. T.

Lohse

K. R.

Hodges

N. J.

(2015). Manipulating target size influences perceptions of success when learning a dart-throwing skill but does not impact retention. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1378.

23.

Onushko

Kim

Christou

E. A.

(2014). Reducing task difficulty during practice improves motor learning in older adults. Experimental Gerontology, 57, 168–174.

24.

Palmer

Chiviacowsky

Wulf

(2016). Enhanced expectancies facilitate golf putting. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 229–232.

25.

Piedimonte

Benedetti

Carlino

(2015). Placebo-induced decrease in fatigue: Evidence for a central action on the preparatory phase of movement. The European Journal of Neuroscience, 41(4), 492–497.

26.

Ryan

R. M.

(1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 450–461.

27.

Saemi

Porter

J. M.

Ghotbi-Varzaneh

Zarghami

Maleki

(2012). Knowledge of results after relatively good trials enhances self-efficacy and motor learning. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(4), 378–382.

28.

Saemi

Wulf

Varzaneh

A. G.

Zarghami

(2011). Feedback after good versus poor trials enhances motor learning in children. Brazilian Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 25(4), 673–681.

29.

Trempe

Sabourin

Proteau

(2012). Success modulates consolidation of a visuomotor adaptation task. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(1), 52–60.

30.

White

R. W.

(1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.

31.

Witt

J. K.

Linkenauger

S. A.

Proffitt

D. R.

(2012). Get me out of this slump! Visual illusions improve sports performance. Psychological Science, 23(4), 397–399.

32.

Wulf

Chiviacowsky

Cardozo

P. L.

(2014). Additive benefits of autonomy support and enhanced expectancies for motor learning. Human Movement Science, 37, 12–20.

33.

Wulf

Chiviacowsky

Lewthwaite

(2012). Altering mindset can enhance motor learning in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 27(1), 14–21.

34.

Wulf

Lewthwaite

(2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1382–1414.

35.

Wulf

Lewthwaite

Cardozo

Chiviacowsky

(2018). Triple play: Additive contributions of enhanced expectancies, autonomy support, and external attentional focus to motor learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(4), 824–831.