Automaticity as a hallmark of expertise - is it all it's cracked up to be?

Quick answer: automaticity is important for play, but shouldn't be considered the endgame of skill acquisition

*This blog post is an adapted version of an essay I submitted in March 2022 for my Motor Cognition module at the University of Limerick.

Introduction

A few weeks ago, in the throes of his mock trials and exam preparation, I explained the stages of learning and the significance of reaching the final stage: known as automaticity, to my competitive, rugby-loving, and over-achieving husband, Nick. I highlighted how as he gains expertise with deliberate practice, he should be able to perform things more automatically; cross examining witnesses with sophistication, passing rugby balls with more accuracy. But alas, upon reflection, I feel that I may have nudged Nick toward a simplistic and misunderstood notion about expert performance. Therefore, this brief post is going to explain where I went wrong, and what I might say to him the next time he asks for my advice.

Automaticity as a Hallmark of Expertise

Acquiring a new skill requires practice, and over time, practicing a skill eventually reduces the cognitive load required to perform the overt action, and thus it becomes more automatic (Haith & Krakauer, 2018). Automaticity is the final stage of learning in Fitts and Posner’s Stages of Learning theory (Fitts & Posner, 1967). In the automaticity stage, athletes can be faster and more efficient in the demanding conditions of elite sport and are better able to adapt and make predictions in the moment. This stage is often associated with elite expert performance (Anderson et al., 2014) as novices and recreational athletes do not always reach this stage. In the rugby literature, automaticity has been positively linked changes in skill (Widenhoefer et al., 2019) and is often measured as a domain of performance with the widely used Test of Performance Strategies (TOPS) questionnaire (Lane et al., 2004). Automaticity is also essential for effectively dividing attention between multiples tasks, allowing elite athletes to autonomously perform motor tasks while simultaneously and selectively focusing on external tasks (Wulf et al., 2001). Studies using dual-task methodologies have been used to explore attentional focus and automaticity in rugby, (Gabbett et al., 2011) and findings suggest that testing for automaticity could be a way to discern more skilled rugby players from their peers.

Automaticity in Elites – A Potential Misunderstanding of Expert Performance?

The dual-task methodology for testing automaticity may be of interest to coaches (Kimura & Matsuura, 2020), however, despite what the Stages of Learning theory has to offer, the over-emphasis on automaticity in elite athletes may be too simplistic for understanding their performance. Ericsson (2006) for example, framed automaticity as something to be counteracted, and emphasised how expert performers are distinguished from non-experts from the way they develop more complex mental representations that overcome automaticity. As such, they avoid “arrested development” and willingly return to the associative and cognitive stages of learning. This hypothesis suggests that expertise does not follow a linear path through the stages of learning. Furthermore, the refinement of learned motor skills in the automaticity stage is difficult because the athlete has less conscious control over the action and movements must be de-automated in order to be changed (Carson & Collins, 2011). As such, while the automaticity stage is important for rapid selection of action programmes and dual processing, and is indicative of progress in skill acquisition, it should not be viewed as an end stage or the hallmark for elite performers.

This is especially important to consider given that there are drawbacks to automaticity in elite performance. Toner et al. (2015) described how automaticity may lead to errors via the phenomenon of inattentional blindness, where expert players may miss unexpected cues because their actions are so automatic. Secondly, they and others (Wegner, 1994) have described “ironic processes” where despite correct intentions, an athlete may make an error by focusing what they do not want to do which counterintuitively results in the exact error they try to avoid. For example, when Nick focuses so hard on the number of strides that he must take to keep his momentum when kicking a rugby goal, he then ironically takes too few steps, subsequently losing that momentum and negating the outcome he desires. He calls this overthinking.

When Ireland’s Johnny Sexton misses a penalty kick against the All Blacks in 2013 (Forde, 2020), a moment of motor skill failure, the experts might call it choking (Roberts et al., 2019). Automaticity does not always resolve the potential for errors and does not guarantee superb attentional focus. In fact, lapses in flexible responses and adaptability to challenging conditions can occur in the automaticity stage of learning when performers are in novel conditions (Toner et al., 2015). Again, drawbacks of automaticity are highlighted and the authors hint at how expert performers may be more likely to fluctuate between awareness states to successfully perform, rather than hovering in the automaticity stage. It seems counterintuitive, but perhaps a level of cognitive control is required to overcome the pressures of performance and avoid task-irrelevant distractions.

From this perspective, automaticity alone cannot account for the incredible performance of elite athletes. Taking this a step further, Pacherie and Mylopoulos (2021) suggested there is an intricate interplay between the controlled and automatic stages that occur during skill acquisition and expert performance, and what distinguishes elites is the richness of their complex action representations, rather than their level of automaticity. With this in mind, we could shift our focus to the flow and clutch states that may occur during performance. Expert athletes must maintain various levels of awareness to flexibly adapt to challenges (Toner & Moran, 2021), and these varying levels of cognitive control are associated with the flow and clutch states, which may positively predict expert athletic performance (Jackson, 1995; Swann et al., 2017). It is also important to consider theories that diverge completely from the Stages of Learning. The ecological approach to skill acquisition diverges from informational processing models and posits that skill development is nested in the relationship between the athlete and the environment (Woods et al., 2021). Therefore, automaticity is of less concern to practitioners who operate from an ecological perspective (Scott et al., 2021).

Conclusion

Automaticity is important in skill acquisition and a hallmark of expertise. However, it is important to consider the evident drawbacks to this stage of learning, and alternative explanations for elite performance. The next time almost-Barrister Nick asks about how he can perform better in court or on the pitch, I would direct him to ways that he can prime himself for flow and clutch states and highlight the significance of dual-focused tasks. With the growing debate in the literature about the “virtues” of automaticity, athletes, sport psychologists, and coaches should be considerate of how they can encourage skill acquisition in a way that does not lead to “arrested development.”

References

Anderson, R., Hanrahan, S. J., & Mallett, C. J. (2014). Investigating the optimal psychological state for peak performance in Australian elite athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 26(3), 318-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2014.885915

Carson, H. J., & Collins, D. (2011). Refining and regaining skills in fixation/diversification stage performers: the Five-A Model. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4(2), 146-167. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2011.613682

Ericsson, K. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, 38(685-705), 2-2.3.

Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance.

Forde, A. (2020). When Rugby Players Choke.

Gabbett, T., Wake, M., & Abernethy, B. (2011). Use of dual-task methodology for skill assessment and development: Examples from rugby league. Journal of Sports Sciences, 29(1), 7-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2010.514280

Haith, A. M., & Krakauer, J. W. (2018). The multiple effects of practice: skill, habit and reduced cognitive load. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 20, 196-201. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.01.015

Jackson, S. A. (1995). Factors influencing the occurrence of flow state in elite athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7(2), 138-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209508406962

Kimura, T., & Matsuura, R. (2020). Additional effects of a cognitive task on dual-task training to reduce dual-task interference. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 46, 101588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101588

Lane, A. M., Harwood, C., Terry, P. C., & Karageorghis, C. I. (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Test of Performance Strategies (TOPS) among adolescent athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22(9), 803-812. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410410001716689

Pacherie, E., & Mylopoulos, M. (2021). Beyond automaticity: The psychological complexity of skill. Topoi, 40(3), 649-662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-020-09715-0

Roberts, L. J., Jackson, M. S., & Grundy, I. H. (2019). Choking under pressure: Illuminating the role of distraction and self-focus. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12(1), 49-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1374432

Scott, T. J., Sanctuary, C. E., Tredrea, M. S., & Gray, A. J. (2021). Conceptualising rugby league performance within an ecological dynamics framework: Providing direction for player preparation and development. Sports Medicine - Open, 7(1), 87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-021-00375-x

Swann, C., Crust, L., Jackman, P., Vella, S. A., Allen, M. S., & Keegan, R. (2017). Performing under pressure: Exploring the psychological state underlying clutch performance in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(23), 2272-2280. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1265661

Toner, J., Montero, B. G., & Moran, A. (2015). The perils of automaticity. Review of General Psychology, 19(4), 431-442. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000054

Toner, J., & Moran, A. (2021). Exploring the orthogonal relationship between controlled and automated processes in skilled action. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 12(3), 577-593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-020-00505-6

Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological review, 101(1), 34.

Widenhoefer, T. L., Miller, T. M., Weigand, M. S., Watkins, E. A., & Almonroeder, T. G. (2019). Training rugby athletes with an external attentional focus promotes more automatic adaptions in landing forces. Sports Biomechanics, 18(2), 163-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2019.1584237

Woods, C. T., Rudd, J., Gray, R., & Davids, K. (2021). Enskilment: An ecological-anthropological worldview of skill, learning and education in sport. Sports Medicine - Open, 7(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-021-00326-6

Wulf, G., McNevin, N., & Shea, C. H. (2001). The automaticity of complex motor skill learning as a function of attentional focus. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 54(4), 1143-1154. https://doi.org/10.1080/713756012