Short communication Evidence for the effectiveness of holistic process goals for learning and performance under pressure Richard Mullen a, * , Andrea Faull b , Eleri Sian Jones c , Kieran Kingston d a University of South Wales, Alfred Russel Wallace Building, Pontypridd, CF37 4AT, UK b Institute of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Worcester, Henwick Grove, Worcester, WR2 6AJ, UK c School of Sport, Health and Exercise Science, Bangor University, Bangor, LL57 2PZ, UK d School of Sport, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cyncoed Road, Cardiff, CF23 6XD, UK article info Article history: Received 11 April 2014 Received in revised form 16 October 2014 Accepted 17 November 2014 Available online 25 November 2014 Keywords: Goal setting Attention Learning Competitive anxiety abstract Objectives: Research has suggested that holistic process goals might help avoid the effects associated with conscious processing of task relevant information by skilled but anxious athletes. This experiment compared the efficacy of holistic and part process goal strategies for novices using a learning paradigm. Design: Laboratory-based experimental design incorporating practice, retention and transfer phases. Method: Twenty-four males were randomly assigned to a part process goal, holistic process goal or control condition and performed a simulated race-driving task in practice, retention and transfer tests. Results: Analyses of variance revealed that performance during practice was similar in all conditions but that the holistic process goal group outperformed the part process goal group at both retention and transfer. Conclusions: Compared to part process goals, holistic process goals result in more effective motor learning and performance that appears to be more robust under pressure. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction Process goals specify the behaviors, skills and strategies that are essential for effective task execution. According to Kingston and Hardy (1997), process goals can help performers deal with high anxiety by providing them with a means of focusing their attention on important aspects of performance, such as technique, move- ment form, self-regulation or strategy. When focused upon tech- nique or movement form, process goals encourage performers to focus on specific aspects of a task using explicit knowledge about the task. This represents something of a paradox in the context of Masters' (1992) conscious processing hypothesis (CPH), which predicts that a focus on part of a movement underpinned by explicit knowledge (i.e., a process goal) might disrupt the normal automatic task processing of skilled performers (Mullen & Hardy, 2010). Such conscious control of movements is normally associated with the early stages of learning. Kingston and Hardy (1997) suggested that one way of dealing with this apparent paradox is to tailor process goals according to the skill level of the performer. Less able per- formers might use part process goals that focus on key elements of performance; for example, a novice golfer might focus on a firm but relaxed grip of the club when putting. In contrast, more skilled individuals might use more global, holistically focused cues to conceptualize the whole of a movement, thus avoiding conscious processing effects. An example of a holistic process goal might be a golfer using “Smooth” to conceptualize the feeling of the whole movement while putting. Critically, holistic process goals also differ from an external focus of attention (Wulf, 2007), as a holistic focus involves concentrating on the feeling of the movement itself, in effect an internal focus, while an external focus involves a focus on the environmental effect produced by a movement. An additional advantage of using part and holistic goals to examine the CPH is that their use controls for attentional explanations of anxiety ef- fects. Both types of goal can be thought of as using equivalent amounts of attentional space, even though the sub-actions they control differ in magnitude. Although researchers have started to examine the utility of process goals (e.g., Gucciardi & Dimmock, 2008; Jackson, Ashford, & Norsworthy, 2006), the findings from these studies are * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: rich.mullen@southwales.ac.uk (R. Mullen), a.faull@worc.ac.uk (A. Faull), eleri.s.jones@bangor.ac.uk (E.S. Jones), kkingston@cardiffmet.ac.uk (K. Kingston). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Psychology of Sport and Exercise journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.11.003 1469-0292/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 17 (2015) 40e44