The Effect of Removing Superstitious Behavior and Introducing a Pre-Performance
Routine on Basketball Free-Throw Performance
Introduction
The use of superstitious behaviour (SB) in sport has become progressively popular especially
when focusing on the elite level. Superstitious behaviour has been defined as a behaviour which
does not have a clear technical function in the execution of skill, yet which is believed to control
luck and/or external factors (Moran, 1996). Superstitions are similar to pre-performance routines
(PPRs) as they both involve formal, repetitive and sequential behaviour, however they are
different in terms of the function. Essentially PPRs differ in that they involve cognitive and
behavioural elements that intentionally help regulate arousal and enhance concentration (Crews
& Boutcher,1986, and thus induce optimal physiological and psychological states (Cohn,1990).
In terms of its usage, Neil, Anderson and Sheppard (1981) found that higher competitive level
and greater involvement in ice hockey correlated with a greater incidence of SB, while
Buhrmann and Zaugg (1983) found that a higher degree of religious involvement (religiosity)
played a part in superstitious belief among basketball players. In Relation to the mechanisms
behind the efficacy of superstitious behavior, Neil (1980) suggested that SBs have a
psychological function as a placebo. Such a placebo effect may reduce levels of anxiety (Becker,
, 1975) and/or help build confidence (Van Raalte, Brewer, Nemeroff, & Linder, 1991). A
possibility for the foundation of SB, outlined by Lahey (1992), is that superstitions may be
created through backward chaining of random events before performance with successful
performance outcomes. Such random events can be contrasted with PPRs where pre-performance
behaviors are deemed to directly affect the technical performance. Boutcher and Crews (1987)
outline three main explanations for the effectiveness of PPRs: 1) attentional control, 2) warm-up
decrement, and 3) automatic skill execution. Control theory suggests PPRs help athletes divert
attention from task-irrelevant cues to task-relevant cues (Gould & Udry, 1994; Weinberg &
Gould, 1995). Warm-up decrement theory argues that routines create psychological and
physiological readiness associated with closed skills, which are lost during rest periods (Schmidt,
1988). A final explanation outlines how PPRs prevent the performer from consciously
controlling specific movements that can inhibit smooth and coordinated skill, thus promoting
automatic functioning (Boutcher, 1990). PPR usage has been extensively studied across a range
of sports including archery, basketball, golf, and tennis (Moran, 1996; Predebon & Docker,
1992). A general finding suggests that skill level may interfere with the effectiveness of PPRs. A
study in basketball free-throws (Wrisberg & Pein, 1992) demonstrated how elite athletes take a
consistently longer time period in their throw routines, a reason for this could be at the elite level
of competition performers have to get every edge they can over their opponents, so if they can
take a longer PPR period to get results then this could be the difference between winning and
losing.
