The effects of attentional focus instructions on approach jump performance

Introduction

During the past few decades, a growing body of research has explored the effects of attention on performance. Attentional focus instructions have been categorized based on whether they direct attention internally or externally. Internal focus instructions direct the performer's attention toward body movements or details of their movements during performance. ¹ External focus instructions direct attention toward the effects of one's movements on the environment or on some implement. ¹ For example, an internal cue for a snatch, an Olympic weightlifting movement, may be to “concentrate on moving your elbows high and to the side rapidly,” while an external cue may be to “concentrate on moving the barbell back and up rapidly.” ² External instructions have been shown to yield advantages for both immediate performance and learning over time. ³ Specifically, external focus instructions commonly result in greater movement accuracy, ⁴ power output, ⁵ speed, ⁶ and repetitions to failure, ⁷ compared to internal focus instructions. The most common explanation for the benefits of external focus on motor performance is the constrained action hypothesis. ⁸ This hypothesis suggests that an external focus of attention allows automatic and reflexive movement control, while an internal focus may disrupt the body's automaticity by constraining the neuromuscular system. Evidence has supported this hypothesis, showing enhanced neuromuscular efficiency and automaticity with an external focus. For example, Kal and colleagues (2013) ⁹ reported greater movement fluency and regularity when participants were given an external focus instruction in a cyclical knee flexion and extension task. Additionally, participants were able to maintain performance during a dual task situation in the external focus condition whereas secondary task performance was degraded in the internal focus condition. Tests of balance performance have also yielded faster probe reaction times ⁸ and more frequent movement adjustments^8,10 under external focus conditions, suggesting increased automaticity and greater coordination between conscious and reflexive control mechanisms.

Another explanation for the commonly observed benefits of external focus highlights the informational value of instructions. Herrebrøden (2023) ¹¹ proposed that directing attention externally can foster alignment with more specific, task-relevant information compared to internal focus directives. This alignment results in enhanced performance, as internal focus instructions tend to convey vaguer information that is more challenging to understand and attend to. For instance, in motor tasks such as basketball free throw ¹² and golf shot ¹³ where information from the external world is relied upon heavily, adopting an external focus of attention is often advantageous.

An external focus is also thought to support movement flexibility and effective interaction between the performer and the environment. According to Bernstein's well-known concept, “repetition without repetition,” no two repetitions are ever identical. ¹⁴ Various movement elements are organized in innumerable ways to achieve the same goal, supporting flexibility of action ¹⁵ and consistency of results. Furthermore, a circular relationship exists such that when the system (i.e., performer) takes action within the environment to achieve a goal, it initiates changes in the environment. These changes are then conveyed back to the system in the form of information or feedback, prompting the system to adapt accordingly and creating a continuous cycle of interaction and adjustment. ¹⁶ External focus instructions apparently direct performers’ attention toward the environment, facilitating interaction and automatic self-organization according to the task goal. This allows them to spontaneously find solutions to unanticipated variations within both the body and the environment.

It is important to consider that different types of cues within the broader categories of internal and external focus may elicit unique behavioral responses. One such distinction is whether instructions direct attention toward the technique (i.e., process) of a skill or toward the result (i.e., outcome) of a skill. While research specifically addressing this distinction is relatively scarce, certain findings in the attentional focus literature point toward differential effects of process- and outcome-based cues, particularly in high versus low skilled populations. For example, Perkins-Ceccato and colleagues ¹⁷ tested highly skilled and low skilled golfers under two focus conditions and found that the highly skilled group performed most consistently when instructed to focus on hitting the target, whereas low-skilled golfers performed best when they were asked to concentrate on the form of their swing. These findings were interpreted based on the effects of cue direction (external vs. internal). However, participants in the internal focus condition were asked to concentrate on the technique and force of their swing without any specific instructions to focus on their body. Thus, rather than reliably prompting an internal focus on body mechanics, it is possible that this condition induced a more general focus on the process of executing the swing. In line with this reasoning, results could be interpreted to show that low skilled players benefitted more from focusing on the movement process rather than the movement outcome (hitting the target). Similar results have been observed in volleyball. A study by Singh and Wulf ¹⁸ assessed the effects of two process cues (internal and external) and an external outcome cue on passing accuracy. They found that novices excelled with the externally focused process cue, but advanced players excelled with the outcome cue.

The aforementioned studies provide initial support for the use of externally directed process cues for novices. However, these studies featured relatively simple tasks (i.e., a golf pitch shot, passing a volleyball to a target), and prior research has shown that principles derived from studying simple skills may not generalize to complex skill learning.^19,20 While a universally accepted scale for assessing the complexity of motor skills does not exist, the number of sequential movement components and degrees of freedom involved represent important factors for consideration. ²⁰ For example, skills such as an approach jump require several steps and powerful coordination of multiple joints (e.g., hips, knees, angles, shoulders) for successful execution. It is possible that focusing on the process of such a complex skill might overload novice performers’ attention and impair performance. ¹⁸

Furthermore, research to date has not thoroughly tested whether process- and outcome-based cues (i.e., less vs. more goal-relevant information) might interact with the direction of focus (i.e., internal vs. external) to yield distinct performance effects. Specifically, it has been demonstrated that external process cues can facilitate performance in novices compared to external outcome cues,^17,18 but it is unknown whether internal process cues may also produce advantages in this population compared to internally and externally directed outcome cues. Addressing these limitations will be important for practitioners as it is often necessary to instruct novices regarding particular elements of execution for complex skills, rather than just the desired outcome.

The approach jump is critical for success in several sports such as volleyball and basketball. This skill involves a three-step approach ending with a countermovement, and a foot-planting phase accompanied by an arm swing to convert horizontal momentum into a powerful vertical jump. ²¹ Because of its complexity, it provides a useful platform for further exploring the effects of process and outcome focus cues for novice performers. Therefore, the purpose of the proposed study is to examine the effects of internally and externally directed process and outcome focus cues on approach jump height and approach speed in novice participants. Based on prior research, we hypothesize that external focus cues will lead to greater jump-and-reach height, jump height by flight time, and approach speed compared to internal focus cues. We also hypothesize that the external process cue will lead to performance advantages compared to the internal and external outcome cues.

Methods

Apparatus and task

The experimental task was a three-step approach jump. To complete this task, participants started with their non-dominant foot forward and performed three steps into a maximal vertical jump.^21,22 They took off and landed on two adjacent force plates (AMTI, Model BP400600, 40*60 cm, MA, USA). Participants remained standing on the force platforms for approximately two seconds after landing each jump. At the peak of the jump, participants touched the highest possible rung on a Vertec™. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the task.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Approach jump procedures.

The Vertec™ measurement device was used to measure approach jump-and-reach height. The device consisted of a series of horizontal rungs spaced in 0.5 in (1.3 cm) increments. Prior to executing the jumps, the Vertec™ was adjusted so that the lowest rung was 12 inches (30.48 cm) above the extended fingertips of the participant. Estimated jump height by flight time was assessed using the force platforms and Noraxon 3.16 software. Timing gates (Brower TCi Wireless Timing System, Draper, UT, USA) were used to assess approach speed during the final half-meter of the approach. One set of timing gates was situated at the proximal border of the force platforms. The second set of gates was placed parallel to the first set and 50 centimeters closer to the participant's starting location. Figure 2 shows the arrangement of the timing gates, force plates, and Vertec™.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Arrangement of timing gates, force plates, and Vertec™.

Procedures

All participants completed three sessions: Familiarization, Test Session 1, Test Session 2. According to NSCA guidelines for plyometric training, ²³ sessions were separated by a minimum of 48 h. Participants were asked to abstain from intense exercise for 72 h prior to each session. All trials took place within seven days for each participant.

Familiarization

Participants were told that the purpose of this session was to learn and practice the approach jump task. They were shown a demonstration video and given brief instructions for the approach jump. They then completed a brief warmup, including five minutes of jogging on a treadmill at participants’ preferred speed, followed by five repetitions of lunges with overhead side reach, heel-to-toe walk, and spiderman crawl on each side. ²⁴ Following the warmup, participants watched the demonstration video again and then practiced a minimum of ten submaximal repetitions of the approach jump. Participants were encouraged to watch the demonstration video as often as needed to gain familiarity with the movement. The researcher ensured that participants were practicing the correct task (i.e., taking three steps, moving through timing gates, and landing on force platforms). However, no instructions related to specific technique (e.g., optimal trunk angle) were provided.

Participants found their preferred starting distance during the submaximal repetitions. Specifically, they began on the force plates and moved away from them to avoid altering their movement patterns by targeting the force plates. Participants then practiced their remaining submaximal jumps moving toward the force plates from their preferred distance with the understanding that their first step should not pass the first timing gate. Following submaximal repetitions, participants practiced three maximal effort jumps from their preferred starting location and were able to adjust the location if necessary. Their final preferred distance was recorded for use in Test Sessions 1 and 2. The rest period between maximal repetitions was one minute, according to NSCA guidelines. ²⁵

Test sessions

Test Sessions 1 and 2 took place following familiarization, with a minimum of 48 h between each session. Across the two testing sessions, participants performed approach jumps in a baseline condition and four experimental conditions (baseline and two experimental conditions during Test Session 1, baseline and two experimental conditions during Test Session 2).

Experimental conditions were External Focus-Outcome (EFO), Internal Focus-Outcome (IFO), External Focus-Process (EFP), and Internal Focus-Process (IFP). In each condition participants were instructed to jump as high as possible while focusing on a specific attentional cue. See Table 1 for specific cues given in each condition. The cue for the baseline condition was “perform the approach jump to the best of your ability.”

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Attentional focus instructions for each condition.

	Outcome condition	Process condition
External focus	“When you jump, focus on the rungs of the Vertec™, reaching as high as possible.”	“Focus on moving toward the Vertec™ as fast as possible on the approach.”
Internal focus	“When you jump, focus on your fingertips, reaching as high as possible.”	“Focus on moving your legs as fast as possible on the approach.”

Participants began each testing session with the same warm up that was used during familiarization. They then watched the demonstration video again and performed three submaximal jumps from their preferred starting location. Each testing session involved a total of nine maximal effort jumps (three baseline jumps followed by three jumps in each of two experimental conditions), each separated by 1-min rest intervals. Attentional focus cues were given before each trial. The order of experimental conditions within and between sessions was counterbalanced based on direction (internal vs. external) and content (outcome vs. process). At the end of each testing session, participants responded to a brief questionnaire to assess the extent to which they were able to focus on the given cues.

Results

Experimental conditions

Table 2 shows means and standard deviations for jump-and-reach height, jump height by flight time, and approach speed in each experimental condition.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Means and standard deviations of jump-and-reach height, estimated jump height by flight time, and approach speed in each experimental condition.

Condition	Jump-and-reach height	Estimated jump heightby flight time	Approach speed
EFO	52.9 ± 9.6 cm	31.3 ± 8.4 cm	4.4 ± 0.6 s
IFO	52.1± 8.9 cm	31.1 ± 7.5 cm	4.5 ± 0.7 s
EFP	50.7 ± 7.5 cm	30.1 ± 7.5 cm	5.2 ± 1.6 s
IFP	49.9 ± 7.4 cm	30.2 ± 8.0 cm	5.2 ± 1.0 s

Jump-and-reach height

There was a significant main effect for focus, F (1,11) = 9.128, p = .012, η p 2  = 0.454, such that reach heights in external focus conditions were higher than in internal focus conditions and for cue content, F (1,11) = 7.448, p = .02, η p 2  = 0.404, such that reach heights in outcome conditions were significantly higher than in process conditions. The focus x content interaction was not significant, F (1,11) = .014, p = .908, η p 2  = .001. Figure 3 shows the mean jump-and-reach heights for each condition.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Mean jump-and-reach height in internal focus (IF), external focus (EF), process, and outcome conditions.

Results of the separate repeated measures ANOVA's and ICC's revealed no systematic bias between trials in the EFO, EFP, and IFP conditions (all p > .05). The ICC's estimates for these conditions ranged from .975 to .989 with all lower bound 95% confidence intervals above 0.90, indicating a high degree of reliability across trials. For the IFO condition the first trial resulted in greater jump-and-reach height (53.62 ± 9.63) compared to trials 2 and 3 (51.5 ± 8.77 and 51.18 ± 8.55, respectively). This was supported by a significant effect for trial, F (1,22) 5.852, p < .01, η p 2  = .347. However, the ICC (.979) still indicated a high degree of reliability across trials in this condition. ICC values for each condition are displayed in Figure 4.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Intraclass correlation coefficients for trials within external focus outcome (EFO), internal focus outcome (IFO), external focus process (EFP), and internal focus process (IFP) conditions.

Jump height by flight time

The highest estimated jump heights by flight time were seen in the EFO condition while the lowest were seen in the IFP condition. However, the focus x content interaction was not significant, F (1,11) = 1.231, p = .291, η p 2  = .101. The main effects for focus, F (1,11) = 3.90, p = .074, η p 2  = 0.262) and cue content, F (1,11) = 1.567, p = .237, η p 2  = 0.125, were also not significant. Figure 5 shows the mean jump height by flight time in cm for each condition.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5.

Mean estimated jump height by flight time in internal focus (IF), external focus (EF), process, and outcome conditions.

Approach speed

Participants approached fastest in the IFP condition and slowest in the EFO condition. There was a significant main effect for cue content, F (1,11) = 23.073, p < 0.001, η p 2  = .677, where process conditions yielded significantly faster approaches than outcome conditions. However, neither the main effect for focus, F (1,11) = .074, p = .791, η p 2  = 0.007, nor the focus x content interaction, F (1,11) = 0.000, p = .988, η p 2  = 0.000, were significant. Figure 6 shows the mean approach speed for each condition.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 6.

Mean approach speed in internal focus (IF), external focus (EF), process, and outcome conditions.

Adherence to instructions

Participants were asked to report the degree to which they were able to focus on each instruction using a scale ranging from “1” (not able to focus on it at all) to “5” (able to focus on it fully). The majority of participants selected “4” or “5” for each instruction. Results can be found in Table 3.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Number of participants reporting each level of adherence to each instruction.

Instruction	Levels of Adherence
	1 Not able to focus at all	2	3	4	5 Able to focus fully
EFO	0	0	2	8	2
IFO	0	0	3	6	3
EFP	0	0	3	5	4
IFP	0	1	2	4	5

Responses to open-ended questions

Most responses to the question, “What, if anything, was difficult about following each instruction?” were related to taking off and landing on the force plates and focusing on multiple aspects of the skill at once. Most responses to the question “What else, if anything, do you remember focusing on during today's session?” were related to taking off and landing on the force plates and various aspects of approach jump performance. Example responses and the number of responses in each category are presented in Table 4.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Responses to survey questions.

Response category	Number of responses	Example responses
Q1: “What, if anything, was difficult about following each instruction?
Taking off and/or landing on force plates	9	“Hard to focus on the cues while trying to stay on the force plate.”
Focusing on multiple aspects of the skill	7	“It's difficult to focus on moving quickly in the horizontal direction while still jumping vertically.”
No difficulties	7	“Nothing was difficult.”
Q2: What else, if anything, do you remember focusing on during today's session?
Taking off and/or landing on force plates	9	“Also focused on taking off and landing on the force plates.”
Various aspects of performance	14	“Focusing on putting power in my legs to reach the higher rungs on the Vertec.”

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of internally and externally directed process- and outcome-based focus cues on approach jump height and approach speed in novice participants. Overall, external and outcome-based cues elicited higher jump-and-reach heights, while process-based cues yielded faster approach speeds. These findings partially supported our hypothesis that performance would be best with external and process-based cues.

The external focus benefit for jump-and-reach height aligns with our hypotheses and with previous research. For example, Wulf et al. ²⁶ demonstrated increased jump-and-reach height in maximal countermovement jumps with an external focus cue compared to an internal cue. A similar effect was also observed during a drop jump task with externally instructed participants outperforming the control group. ²⁷ It is possible that the beneficial effects of an external focus in the present study could have emerged due to enhanced automaticity as suggested by the constrained action hypothesis. ⁸ This line of reasoning suggests that the external focus conditions prompted participants to exert less conscious control over their movements compared to internal focus conditions, thus freeing the motor system to effectively self-organize and produce a more successful outcome. The constrained action hypothesis provides a feasible explanation for external focus advantages in jump-and-reach height. However, the results for jump height by flight time and approach speed cannot be explained by this hypothesis as no external focus benefit was observed for these variables. Another plausible explanation, rooted in ecological dynamics,^11,14,16,28 is that the external focus cue supplied more task-relevant information and promoted more effective interaction between the individual and the surrounding environment. Such reasoning aligns with findings in previous research ²⁹ and is consistent with results ³⁰ in the present study. The superiority of external and outcome conditions for jump-and-reach height may be explained by the congruency between the information emphasized in the external focus outcome cue (reach for the highest rung possible) and the performance measurement (highest rung moved). A similar congruency may explain the benefits of process-based cues emphasizing movement speed for increasing approach speed.

The finding that participants achieved higher jump-and-reach heights with outcome-based versus process-based cues deviates from our predictions and past research. That is, some previous findings suggest that while skilled individuals tend to perform better when focusing on movement outcomes, novices may benefit from focusing on the technique or process of the movement.^17,18 This discrepancy may be attributed to skilled performers having automated the movement process, making outcome cues more effective, ¹⁸ while novices, still refining their technique, benefit from process cues. The unique findings of the current study could be explained by the high complexity of the experimental task. Participants had to learn and execute a multi-step movement requiring the coordination of several upper and lower body joints, and likely placing high demands on working memory. It is plausible that attentional demands were amplified by the process instructions which prompted novice performers to process additional information rather than focusing on jumping alone as instructed in outcome conditions. ³⁰

It is also likely that the task's physiological demands and specific technique influenced how participants responded to process and outcome cues. That is, the approach jump is characterized by a faster stretch rate of lower limb muscles ²³ and a shorter downward-to-upward phase compared to a countermovement jump, allowing greater vertical acceleration during push-off and greater activation of the stretch-shortening cycle. ³¹ To optimize this advantage, a higher joint velocity during the approach requires a concurrent increase in muscle force to decelerate the load and produce a seamless transition between phases.^32,33 The study demonstrated that emphasizing process cues led to a significant increase in approach speed. However, participants apparently faced challenges in using their speed to maximize jump height. Prior research suggests that suboptimal techniques may have contributed to these difficulties. Specifically, most participants of present study were female (n = 10 of 12), and research has shown that female athletes possess distinct horizontal velocity utilization strategies compared to male athletes.^31,34,35 For example, females often have a greater vertical impulse during the penultimate step (second-to-last step) induced by a hopping rather than a stepping movement into the planting phase, ultimately producing less efficient velocity transfer. ³⁴ Together, these findings underscore that advocating for increased approach speed, as directed by process cues, may not universally enhance performance for all individuals.

The effects of instructions on approach speed supported our expectation that approach speed would be faster in the process-oriented condition and aligned with previous research indicating enhanced performance on the aspect of the skill that is targeted in the focus instructions. ³⁰ However, contrary to previous studies examining sprint performance,^6,36 approach speed did not significantly differ between internal and external focus cues. Methodological differences may have contributed to this discrepancy. Specifically, the approach distance in the current study was relatively short (only 50 cm) compared to longer distances (e.g., 10 meters sprint) ⁶ in previous studies. Additionally, survey data from the present study suggested that participants commonly focused on taking off and/or landing on the force plates in addition to the instruction. Thus, it is possible that participants partially adopted an external focus toward the force plates in multiple conditions, mitigating performance differences between internal and external conditions. Participants in previous studies have also reported focusing on various aspects of a task in addition to their given instructions,^37,38 highlighting the fluidity of attention and focus.

The study's findings on estimated jump height by flight time diverged from our expectations, showing no differences between conditions. This unexpected outcome could be attributed to the information conveyed in the instructions rather than their direction or focus. Previous research suggests that the impact of internal cues may be influenced by the alignment between the task goal and cue information. ³⁰ As such, any instruction's impact on performance might hinge on how much goal-related information is present in the cue. In our study, none of the cues directly addressed flight time, potentially accounting for null effects on this variable. Furthermore, the discrepancy in results between jump height by flight time and jump-and-reach height suggests that performers strived to attain the instructed outcome. In this case, performers might have coordinated specific joints, such as the shoulder, to reach a higher rung on the Vertec under both external and outcome conditions without an actual increase in jump height. Consequently, practitioners should carefully align sport-specific instructions with the primary performance goal to optimize training effectiveness.

Collectively, the results of the current study align with Herrebrøden's (2023) ¹¹ suggestion that the provision of task-related information may explain the effects of attentional focus cues. Namely, more task-relevant focus instructions should be expected to yield better performance compared to less task-relevant cues.^30,39,40 In our current investigation, outcome-based conditions supplied information (reaching as high as possible) which directly pertained to the primary performance objective (i.e., jump-and-reach height). Process-based conditions, however, supplied information (moving as quickly as possible) that directly pertained to a secondary performance objective (i.e., fast approach speed). Results in each condition were aligned with the information that was emphasized (i.e., higher jump-and-reach height in outcome conditions and faster approach speed in process conditions). This pattern of results underscores the importance of task-relevant information for motor performance.

Limitations and future directions

This study is not without limitations. First, participants reportedly experienced additional attention demands produced by task constraints like the force plates. It is possible that focusing on the force plates, even when instructed to focus on other aspects of the task, could have diluted the expected differences between internal and external conditions for certain outcome measures. Arguably, similar limitations are present anytime a researcher or practitioner attempts to manipulate attentional focus, as it is always possible for participants to become distracted or direct their attention differently than instructed. It will be helpful for future researchers to test attentional focus instructions in more applied settings to determine their effects in the presence of real-world distractions. Consideration of the participant sample is also vital in interpreting our study's results. That is, most participants were female, and considering that previous studies have shown significant gender differences in the approach jump, it is feasible that our findings may be limited to female performers. Future studies should account for gender differences and relevant physiological capabilities such as maximal strength, force-velocity profile, reactive strength index modified (RSImod), and eccentric utilization ratio,^41–44 etc. in analyzing attentional focus effects on motor performance.

Conclusions and practical applications

This study holds relevance for instructing complex motor skills demanding maximal power output like volleyball spike jump, basketball dunk, and high jump. Our findings support the strategic use of both process- and outcome-based external focus cues to optimize novice performance in such tasks. Matching instructional content to practice goals is crucial, where outcome-focused cues enhance overall task performance, while process-focused cues can target specific technique-related weaknesses such as approach speed in approach jumps or stride frequency in sprints. Furthermore, incorporating process cues early in practice to enhance technique and action capacity may translate to improved overall performance. In line with recent work on periodization for motor skill acquisition,^45–47 it is plausible that different types of focus instructions may serve distinct functions throughout an athlete's development. Practitioners should explore optimal ways of integrating various types of instructional cues to enhance athletes’ learning and performance.

Supplemental Material