The usefulness of the useless: How ritualized behavior improves self-control under competition pressure

Abstract

Pre-match ritualized behavior have long been a topic of study in applied sport psychology. However, most of the above studies focus on pre-established rituals that make it difficult to explore the clear causal relationship of the ritualized behavior, particularly its underlying mechanisms. The aim of this study was to explore the effect of athletes’ ritualized behavior on self-control under competition pressure. One hundred and forty-six college athletes were recruited. This study used a two-factor between design 2 (competition pressure: low vs. high) × 3 (behavior type: ritualized behavior vs. random behavior vs. control group). Based on the Shooter-type Go/No-go task, the dependent variable was the average number of loops and the error rates of 10-meter air pistol task in virtual reality. We found that ritualized behavior had a moderate impact on the average number of loops [F(1, 140) = 5.13, p = .007, η_p² = 0.068] and error rates [F(2, 140) = 11.29, p < .001, η_p² = 0.139], and it was more beneficial for error rate under competition pressure [F(2, 140) = 3.18, p = .045, η_p² = 0.043], while the symbolic meaning of ritualized behavior promotes self-control by improving self-efficacy and autonomous motivation via a top-down processing system. The psychological feature of ritualized behavior may serve as an important explanatory mechanism for its enhancing effect on self-control under competition pressure. This study supports and integrates the Precaution Theory and Self-determination Theory. In the future, researchers can design unique ritualized behaviors based on embodied cognition to help athletes in different sports groups.

Lay Summary: In the arena, the audience cannot only see the athletes’ wonderful sports movements, but also, all kinds of ritualized behaviors. Through engaging in ritualized behavior as a “pregame booster”, athletes can improve self-control on shooting performance. Compared with the low-pressure situation, ritualized behavior was more beneficial for self-control under high competition pressure situations.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

• Athletes can improve self-control on sports performance through enacting ritualized behavior. Moreover, under high competition pressure situations produces the greatest benefit.

• Sport psychology practitioners should try to understand psychological feature (symbolic meaning) as the most important component of athletes’ participation in ritualized behavior.

In the arena, the audience cannot only see the athletes’ sports movements, but also, diversity of ritualized behaviors. From the baseball player used the religious ritualized behavior of writing "chai" in the soil before every hit, to the non-religious ritualized behavior of hitting his head against the basketball stands before playing; from the player’s series of complex ritualized behaviors, such as touching his nose, touching the left ear, touching the nose, touching the right ear, and then serving, to the simple ritualized behavior of an athlete tossing powder before each game, and the collective ritualized behaviors of various athletes before entering the stadium. In competitive sports, a simple ritualized behavior, such as crossing one’s fingers, can improves participants’ performance on self-control-related agility tasks (Damisch et al., 2010). In basketball, golf, water polo, and bowling, simple ritualized behavior have been found to enable athletes to exhibit better self-control under pressure (Bonk & Tamminen, 2022; Czech et al., 2004; Jackson & Masters, 2006).

Psychological researchers often view ritualized behavior as characterized by rigidity, stereotyping, and repetition (Foster et al., 2006; Rossano, 2012; Yun et al., 2023). Researchers have identified three core components in ritualized behavior: process-like action (physical feature), symbolic expression (psychological feature) and the lack of direct instrumental purpose, which distinguishes it from a habitual behavior (Brooks et al., 2016; Hobson et al., 2018). The phenomenon of ritualized behavior on the field widely exists in relation to competitive performance (Hagan & Schack, 2019; Schippers & Van Lange, 2006). Despite the propensity of ritualized behavior, few scientific studies have been developed to gather experimental evidence about enacting rituals, their effect on self-control, and to explore the underlying psychological process associated with them in relation to an athletic context.

Self-control refers to the ability of an individual to consciously control the direction of behavior by overcoming impulse, habit, or automated response (Baumeister et al., 2007). Studies on the relationship between ritualized behavior and self-control have shown positive effect (e.g., Koole et al., 2010; Tian et al., 2018; Yun et al., 2023), negative effect (e.g., Hobson et al., 2017; Hobson & Inzlicht, 2016; Vohs et al., 2013) or no effect (Hobson & Inzlicht, 2016). According to cybernetics (see Friston, 2002), ritualized behavior often includes two propositions:

Proposition 1:

Experiencing emotional or goal-driven deficits leads to more ritualized behavior.

Proposition 2:

People reduce emotional or goal-driven deficits by performing the ritualized behavior.

Previous studies were often focused on only one of these propositions (Lang et al., 2015; Tian et al., 2018), but ignored that Proposition 2 should be the premise of maximizing Proposition 1. The consequence has been inconsistent evidence about the influence of ritualized behavior on self-control. Ritualized behavior is a cybernetic system for individual and group behavior, analogous to the feedback system of a thermostat (Friston, 2002). Unstable psychosocial states are first monitored and then compared to the desired goal state. Ritualized behavior is triggered if discrepancy and deficit are found, and the discrepancy with the goal is reduced by continuously monitoring and correcting psychology and behavior (Rappaport, 1971). A deficit context of competition anxiety was constructed in the present study to investigate the enhancement of self-control by ritualized behavior and the corresponding psychological mechanisms from the perspective of competition pressure.

We have introduced three core components of ritualized behavior, among which process-like actions and symbolic meaning are its physical and psychological feature, and ritualized behavior’s physical and psychological feature lead to bottom-up and top-down processing, respectively. Many other frameworks in psychological research use this classification of psychological mechanisms (e.g., Chiesa et al., 2013; Hobson et al., 2018). First, from the perspective of the bottom-up processing mechanism of the physical feature, ritualized behavior is regarded as an Interference Theory-based intervention (Gröpel & Mesagno, 2019; Masters & Maxwell, 2008), which aim to prevent internal or external distraction and promote attention focused on the task during skill execution. These processes derive from the sensorimotor elements of a ritual - the experience or implementation of specific body movements. Additionally, repetitive, stereotypic, and redundant actions can also be used as a compensatory control method to cope with the negative emotional experience brought on by uncertainty, whilst helping people regain a sense of control (Yin et al., 2022; Norton & Gino, 2014). Therefore, task focus and sense of control may serve as mediating mechanisms for ritualized behaviors to improve self-control under pressure.

Second, considering the top-down processing mechanism of psychological feature, Precaution Theory (see Boyer & Liénard, 2006) has revealed that the intrinsic symbolic value of ritual can mitigate the negative effects of uncertainty to enhance positive and self-transcendent emotions (e.g., awe, satisfaction, and self-efficacy) (Heintzelman & King, 2019; Zhang et al., 2014). In addition, the Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) of goal striving developed as a mini theory of SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2020), focuses on the quality of motivation, where successfully internalized behaviors are autonomously regulated and carry a sense of willpower and meaning compared to controlled motivation (Holding et al., 2019). The symbolic expression of ritualized behavior dictates that performing this behavior is perceived by the individual as a more valuable and self-aware expression of the behavior. Thus, ritualized behavior can influence self-control by enhancing autonomous motivation. In conclusion, self-efficacy and autonomous motivation may serve as mediating mechanisms for ritualized behavior to improve self-control under pressure (Table 1).

Table 1. Means (SDs) by different types of behavior under low-high pressure.

	Types of behavior	n	Low-pressure	High-pressure	Overall
The average number of loops (/loop)	Ritualized behavior	51	5.66 ± 1.58	5.86 ± 1.35	5.77 ± 1.45
	Random behavior	48	4.74 ± 1.95	4.73 ± 1.52	4.74 ± 1.73
	Control group	47	4.82 ± 2.02	4.85 ± 2.02	4.84 ± 2.00
Error rate (/%)	Ritualized behavior	51	4.64 ± 3.51	2.35 ± 1.70	3.43 ± 2.92
	Random behavior	48	11.38 ± 10.25	6.34 ± 1.30	8.86 ± 8.61
	Control group	47	8.28 ± 5.69	10.14 ± 9.61	9.19 ± 7.82

In the present study, we assume that the psychological benefits of increased ritualized behavior are produced by psychological features, an assumption that previous studies have supported. Brooks et al. (2016), for example, found that the determining role of psychological feature, which requires the participants to perform an action by the instructions in the presence of the named "ritual" label (provided they were imbued with symbolic meaning) will determine whether the ritualized behavior works. Additionally, work rituals also promote civic organizational behavior through a sense of meaning (Kim et al., 2021). Similarly, the stereotyped and orderly ritualized behaviors that only contain physical feature (described as ‘‘random behaviors) do not improve the performance of self-control (Hobson et al., 2017). Therefore, the psychological feature of ritualized behavior affecting self-control was approached through top-down rather than bottom-up mechanism, that is, ritualized behavior increases self-control by improving self-efficacy and autonomous motivation.

Transparency and Openness. In these studies, we report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the study. All data and research materials are available at [https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DG9UN]. All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of The Ethics Committee of the School of Psychology at a sports university and were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The institutional ethics review board (IRB) at a sports university in China approved the research protocol (ethics approval number 20201005).

Method

Participants

G*Power was used to calculate the sample size for a two-factor between experimental design (f = 0.27, α = 0.05, and power = 0.80; a total of 136 participants were required). A total of 150 participants were recruited. All of them were right-handed college athletes with normal visual acuity or corrected visual acuity. Four participants had more than 50% false trials (1 in the ritual group, 1 in the random group, and 2 in the control group) and were excluded from the study. Therefore, a total of 146 participants (75 men and 71 women, aged 20.55 ± 1.77 years) were included in the analysis. Participants in each group were assigned randomly (https://www.randomizer.org/).

Experimental design

The researchers used a two-factor between design 2 (competition pressure: low vs. high) × 3 (behavior type: ritualized behavior vs. random behavior vs. control group). The dependent variable was inhibitory self-control, and the indicator was the average number of loops and the error rates of 10-meter air pistol task in virtual reality.

Manipulation of independent variables

The three groups of subjects were asked to perform the following actions: (1) Based on previous studies (Brooks et al., 2016; Damisch et al., 2010; Norton & Gino, 2014; Tian et al., 2018; Vohs et al., 2013; Yun et al., 2023), ritualized behavior (two cycles): sit upright and put their palms together on their chest for two seconds → place their hands on their knees and take three deep breaths → use their right hand to touch the inner side of the left ankle and then the outer side → close their eyes and count silently from one to five (one number per second) and then open their eyes; (2) random behavior (free choice of order): sit • place a hand on the abdomen • cough • blink • shake head • look at shoes for a few seconds • blink • shake legs • breathe • close eyes • open eyes; and (3) control group: rest for 1 min.

Task and apparatus

In the simulation of a 10-meter air pistol task, participants completed the shooting in the virtual scene. After each shooting, a small red dot appeared above the target to show the score of the shooting, and the scoreboard on the left of the target showed the accumulated total score. At the beginning of the formal experiment, participants needed to complete 6 blocks of shooting tasks (60 times for each block, 2s for each presentation time) for a total of 360 trials. The participants were then required to shoot when the signal light was red and stop shooting when the signal light turned green or the traffic lights up at the same time (see, Figure 1). The task was ostensibly to measure the ability to shoot, based on the Shooter-type Go/No-go task (Bediou et al., 2012; Xu & Inzlicht, 2015), which requires effective impulse control and rapid motor initiation, and has been widely used in the measurement of self-control tasks.

Figure 1. The left picture is the VR shooting task in the low-pressure scene (the left green area in the scene is the scoreboard), the right picture is the VR shooting task in the high-pressure scene (the left green area in the scene is the scoreboard, and the right green area is the bonus).

Pressure manipulation used a combination of reward and punishment, as follows: 50 RMB as the principal, based on the performance of the participants to increase or decrease, increased 1 RMB when the subject scored more than 7 points, decreased 3 RMB when false started/missed start or undershot, and if athletes scored below 7 points, bonus did not change. There was no bonus for the low-pressure scene, and each participant received 10 RMB for participation. Virtual reality scenes were compiled and presented in Unity (assisted by KingFar International Inc), and the Steam program was run on an HP ZBook 17 G5 mobile workstation. Physiological data acquisition equipment, physiological coherence, and autonomic balance system (SPCS) recorded the participants’ physiological indicators. Each participant’s left earlobe was connected to the device. Meanwhile, three items of the 1-11 Likert Scale of psychological preparation (MRF-3) were used for subjective anxiety (Krane, 1994), including cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and state confidence.

The mediating variables were measured using a 1-7 Likert scale (1 meant not at all, 7 meant very much): Bottom-up mechanism (Norton & Gino, 2014): Task focus: 1) Do you think this task is important to you? 2) How much do you want to finish the task? 3) Do you have a clear goal? 4) Are you engrossed in this task? Sense of control: 1) How much control do you feel in the task? 2) How helpless do you feel? (Reverse score). Top-down mechanisms (Damisch et al., 2010; Holding et al., 2019): State self-efficacy, 1) Do you feel satisfied with your performance? 2) I think I have the ability to finish the shooting task. Autonomous and controlled motivation, 1) I worked hard to complete this task in the hope of receiving a prize or praise from others (external regulation); 2) I worked hard on this task to prevent anxiety or regret (internal regulation); 3) I considered completing this task a challenge to achieve my goal (identity regulation); 4) I thought the task was meaningful and valuable (integrative conditioning); and 5) I thought the task was fun and enjoyable (internal conditioning). The mean score of questions 1 and 2 was classified as controlled motivation, while the mean score of questions 3-5 was classified as autonomous motivation (Holding et al., 2019; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998).

Procedures

Each participant was tested separately following three steps. First, the three groups of subjects were asked to perform one of the following actions, respectively: ritualized behavior, random behavior, or rest for one minute. Second, the participants were asked to wear VR device and physiological equipment, carried out 6 blocks of 60 shooting tasks in each group, and recorded physiological indicators in real time. According to randomization, half the participants completed the low-pressure scenario and half the participants completed the high-pressure scenario. The manipulation check was performed. Third, retrospective measurement of state self-efficacy, task focus, sense of control and motivation during shooting were evaluated.

Data analysis

Data normality for the MRF-L score, physiological indicators and shooting performance (the average number of loops and the error rate) were tested by the Shapiro–Wilk test. The dependent variables were each analyzed using two-way ANOVA 2 (competition pressure: low vs. high) × 3 (behavior type: ritualized behavior vs. random behavior vs. control group) design by SPSS Version 26.0. In these sections, wherever needed, planned contrasts were used with a simple method to perform multiple comparisons. Significance levels were set at p ≤ .05. For significant differences in pairwise comparisons, partial η_p² effect sizes were calculated. Using model 4 of the macro PROCESS for SPSS, a mediation analysis was conducted to determine whether ritualized behavior had an indirect effect on shooting performance through potential alternative variables.

Manipulation checks of pressure

MRF-L scores and physiological indicators were used to test the changes of state anxiety, as follows: for MRF-L scores, ANOVA results showed that, the high-pressure group was significantly higher than the low-pressure group in cognitive anxiety [F(1, 144)=47.79, p < .001, η_p² = 0.249], and somatic anxiety [F(1, 144) = 24.35, p < .001, η_p² = 0.145], but lower than the low-pressure group in the state self-confidence [F(1, 144) = 8.74, p = .004, η_p² = 0.057]. For physiological indicators, the physiological data of 3 participants were not fully recorded. Consequently, a total of 143 physiological data were included in the analysis. The results of ANOVA showed that the high-pressure group was significantly higher than the low-pressure group in HR (F(1, 141) = 12.26, p = .001, η_p² = 0.080), while the difference in the LF/HF was not significant [F(1, 141) = 3.10, p = .080, η_p² = 0.022]. Combined subjective and objective results show that pressure manipulation is effective.

Shooting performance: the average number of loops

The results showed that the main effect of behavior type was significant [F(1, 140)=5.13, p = .007, η_p² = 0.068]. The mean number of loops in the ritualized behavior group (M = 5.77, SD = 1.45) was significantly higher than that in the random behavior group (M = 4.74, SD = 1.73) (p = .004) and the control group (M = 4.84, SD = 2.00) (p = 0.010). Other effects were not significant (Fs < 0.06, ps > .804).

Shooting performance: the error rate

It was found that there was a significant interaction between pressure condition and behavior type [F(2, 140) = 3.18, p = .045, η_p² = 0.043] (see, Figure 2). Simple effect analysis found that under the low-pressure condition, the error rate of different behavior types was significantly different [F(2, 140) = 5.39, p = .006, η_p² = 0.071]. Specifically, the error rate of the ritualized behavior group was significantly lower than that of the random behavior group (p = .004), and there was no significant difference between the ritualized behavior group and the control group (p = .187). There was no significant difference between the latter two groups (p = .399). Under high-pressure condition the error rate of different behavior types was significantly different [F(2, 142) = 8.76, p < .001, η_p² = 0.111], and the trend was more obvious. Specifically, the error rate of the ritualized behavior group was significantly lower than that of the control group (p < .001) and the margin was significantly higher than that of the control group (p = .086). There was no significant difference between the latter two groups (p = .153). The main effect of behavior type was significant [F(2, 140) = 11.29, p < .001, η_p² = 0.139]. The post hoc test found that the error rate of the ritualized behavior group was significantly lower than that of the control group (p < .001) and the random behavior group (p < .001). The main effect of pressure conditions [F(1, 140) = 2.67, p = .104, η_p² = 0.019] revealed no significant difference.

Figure 2. Low-pressure and high-pressure Mean error rates for different behavior type.

Note: Each group shows the computed 95% confidence region (colored area) and the observed data (colored circles and squares). This data visualization can display the dispersion of participants at each test time point (Mccabe et al., 2018).

Mediating mechanisms

The mediation model test of ritualized behavior to improve shooting performance was conducted from the bottom-up and top-down mechanisms, respectively. The dummy variables were set using a bootstrap method (Model 4, Hayes, 2013) for 5000 times of self-sampling. The test process of significant mediating effect is elaborated below. For the average number of loops in the signal shooting task, the mediating effect of self-efficacy on the average number of rings in the ritualized behavior was tested as follows: First, ritualized behavior significantly predicted self-efficacy [a = 1.34, SE = .34, p < .001, 95%CI = 0.679–2.006]. Self-efficacy significantly predicted the average number of loops [b = 0.31, SE = .08, p < .001, 95%CI = 0.141–0.471]. The direct effect of ritualized behavior on the average number of loops was not significant [c‘ = 0.62, SE = 0.35, p = .083, 95%CI = −0.082–1.312], while the mediating effect of self-efficacy was significant [a*b = 0.41, Boot SE = 0.17, 95%CI = 0.125–0.808]. The proportion of mediating effect in the total effect was as follows: a*b/(c‘+ a*b) = 39.80%. The mediating effect of autonomous motivation on the average number of loops in ritualized behaviors was tested by the following methods: First, ritualized behavior significantly predicted autonomous motivation [a = 1.24, SE = .34, p < .001, 95%CI = 0.578–1.915]. Autonomous motivation significantly predicted the mean number of loops [b = 0.39, SE = .08, p < .0001, 95%CI = 0.235–0.551]. The direct effect of ritualized behavior on the average number of loops was not significant [c‘ = 0.54, SE = 0.34, p = .115, 95%CI = −0.133–1.206], while the mediating effect of self-efficacy was significant [a*b = 0.48, Boot SE = 0.19, 95%CI = 0.184–0.902]. The proportion of mediating effect in total effect was as follows: a*b/(c '+ a*b) = 47.06%. The above test results indicate that self-efficacy and autonomous motivation play a complete mediating role in the influence of ritualized behavior on the average number of loops. For the error rate of the signal shooting task, the mediating effect of self-efficacy on the influence of ritualized behavior on the error rate is tested by the methods that follow below. First, ritualized behavior significantly predicted self-efficacy [a = 0.93, SE = 0.34, p = .006, 95%CI = 0.260–1.594]. Significant prediction error rate of self-efficacy [b=-2.00, SE = 0.30, p < .001, 95%CI = −2.598–1.408], the direct effect of ritualized behavior on error rate was significant [c '= −3.91, SE = 1.25, p = .002, 95%CI = −6.372–1.442], and the mediating effect of self-efficacy was significant [a*b = −1.86, Boot SE = 0.81, 95%CI = −3.679–0.545]. The proportion of mediating effect in the total effect was as follows: a*b/(c '+ a*b) = 51.75%. The above test results indicate that self-efficacy plays a mediating role in the influence of ritualized behavior on error rate. Therefore, the psychological features of ritualized behavior affecting shooting performance was through top-down rather than bottom-up mechanism. That is, ritualized behavior enhances self-control by improving self-efficacy and autonomous motivation.

Discussion

In this study, we integrated the existing theories of ritualized behavior and self-control, shifting the ritualized behavior from the macro to micro level, based on the a top-down model (i.e., Precaution Theory, Self-determination Theory) (Boyer & Liénard, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2020) and the bottom-up model (i.e., Interference theory) (Gröpel & Mesagno, 2019; Masters & Maxwell, 2008). At the same time, from the vantage of performance psychology, this study offered concrete support for the application of ritualized behavior as a pre-performance routine in sport. Ritualized behavior is a real “pregame booster”. The results showed that ritualized behaviors improve self-control by enhancing self-efficacy and autonomy motivation. Compared with the low-pressure situation, ritualized behavior was more beneficial for self-control under high competition pressure situations.

This study verifies and integrates Precaution Theory (Boyer & Liénard, 2006) and Self-determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Influenced by the orientation of positive psychology, the related field of self-control has shifted from energy depletion to energy maintenance and promotion (Song et al., 2015), the availability of self-energy depends on subjective vitality. When individuals are engaged in a certain task, if they can feel more autonomy and sense of meaning, their subjective vitality will increase. Conversely, when individuals feel more external influence over the task, their subjective vitality decreases (Inzlicht & Schmeichel, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2008). Ritualized behavior can inspire motivated behaviors related to individuals, which triggers a variety of goal-directed behaviors (Inzlicht et al., 2014; Ryan & Deci, 2020; Shubert et al., 2022). The reason appears to be ritualized behavior motivate individual behavior by focusing attention on goals that individuals are voluntarily involved in and motivating them to act toward. After performing a ritualized behavior, individuals often explicitly and intentionally internalize an ideal goal state and compare their current state with the desired outcome, and this goal regulation process can also be achieved at the implicit level (Koole et al., 2010).

At the same time, compared with physical attributes, the psychological attributes of ritualized behavior determine that self-control plays the most important role, supporting the meaning transfer hypothesis (Kim et al., 2021). When individuals assign increased symbolic expression to their actions, they tend to also increase cognitive effort to complete them at the conscious or unconscious level, and subsequently, task performance improves. Transforming simple actions into symbolic rituals and giving them meaning can also enhance internal motivation, thus fostering higher levels of perseverance (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Most importantly, the irrational perceptions that are common in rituals - making people feel that luck is on their side - can lead to increased self-efficacy and positive expectations of self-confidence, that in turn, improve performance (Damisch et al., 2010). Similar to the placebo effect, when individuals believe that performing rituals will help their performance, just having this belief will increase the probability of success (Garvey et al., 2016; Kramer & Block, 2014).

Does an unstable psychosocial state lead to more ritualized behavior? Although some scholars theorize that differences in goals can directly or indirectly induce ritualized behaviors (Wood & Neal, 2007), observational studies of athletes have revealed evidence to the contrary. Better performing athletes (who may have less divergence from the target) tend to exhibit more ritual or superstitious behaviors, not less (Cotterill et al., 2010; Foster et al., 2006). Damisch et al. (2010) found that athletes in the "lucky" amulet group performed better and reported greater self-efficacy than those who were not provided with the amulet during the experiment. However, the authors did not compare whether the effect was stronger when the goal difference was large. This study reveals the deficit background (i.e., challenges) associated with competition pressure to deeply explore the psychological mechanism of ritualized behavior when seeking to improve self-control. Presently, there are shortcomings in this direction of research given that ritualized behaviors should be evaluated when one is under duress, such as when faced with competition demands. We have found that ritualized behavior has greater psychological benefits when athletes are under pressure, and thus, the topic should be studied and understood further in relation to challenging contexts where self-control might falter. These studies should be undertaken in situ, drawing upon a variety of sport disciplines, various levels of performance, and in vast cultural and sub-cultural contexts. Richer, idiosyncratic understandings of ritualized behavior via a breadth of qualitative methodologies might also be explored with elite athletes to reveal the thoughts, reflections, and interpretations associated with their strategies. These deepened explanations could then inform systematic intervention strategies with prospective clients, furthering science to practice reciprocity.

Applied methodological implications

Pre-match ritualized behavior has long been a topic of study in applied sport psychology (Czech et al., 2004; Jackson & Masters, 2006). Different from the previous focus on cognitive indicators of self-control (e.g., Stroop, go/no-go reaction time, and accuracy rate) (Hobson et al., 2017), the effect of ritualized behavior on self-control within this study is in relation to shooting performance, a highly relevant context through which to further understand the topic as part of psychology in competitive sports and associated augmentations in perceived control via behavioral indicators. Moreover, previous studies have neglected that the prerequisite for the maximum effectiveness of ritualized behavior is gained within pressure conditions (Lang et al., 2015; Tian et al., 2018), primarily competition environments or alternately, training environments where there is a slim margin of error and a reasonable risk of injury.

From the perspective of emotional deficits induced by stress, we explored the role of ritualized behavior in improving self-control and its psychological mechanism under high pressure, to overcome previous shortcomings for this research topic. Concurrently, the design is well-aligned with competitive sports contexts whereby athletes need to perform stably under high pressure on demand. Finally, psychological research has always dealt with tradeoffs between experimental control and ecological effectiveness. VR technology can present real and vivid realistic pressure-filled situations for athletes, which is conducive to effectively inducing experiences akin to athletes’ authentic competition experiences. The 10-meter air pistol task was chosen to measure the ability to shoot, based on the Shooter-type Go/No-go task (Bediou et al., 2012; Xu & Inzlicht, 2015), which requires effective impulse control and rapid motor initiation, and has been widely used in the measurement of self-control tasks.

Practical implications

Although ritualized behavior is a personalized type of pre-match behavior procedure, it has been utilized in the competition field. Athletes have not only performed the traditional pre-match behavior procedure, such as self-talk, appearance, before the competition (see Mesagno & Mullane-Grant, 2010), there are also some habitual actions, such as hand clapping, shoulder shaking) (see Yao et al., 2020). Behavioral procedure is a combination of a psychology and behavioral strategy, which develops into a behavioral procedure when there is consistency in the situation. Behavioral procedures are thus habituated coping styles, not improvizational ones (Cotterill et al., 2010). The biggest difference between these actions and traditional pre-match behavior procedures lies in nonfunctional behavior and symbolic meanings, which are collectively known as a ritualized behavior. The application significance of this study to the sports arena is known. The significance of ritualized behavior to psychological meaning, and exploration into its relationship with the self-control, can help researchers understand the psychology behind the athlete movement function.

Competitive sports are full of the hope of "luck": some athletes perform a set of rituals before each game. These behaviors may seem strange and illogical, but researchers suggest that rituals may be linked to better athletic performance (Brooks et al., 2016; Damisch et al., 2010; Yun et al., 2023). Athletes often understand that certain actions can’t really affect the outcome of a game. However, we have found that once athletes begin to believe that these behaviors to be imbued with personal meaning and power, they may choose to perform them. Ritualized behaviors are important for athletes, helping them adjust their arousal state, and improving self-efficacy and autonomy motivation by shifting their attention away from task-irrelevant cues so that they can perform at their best.

Conclusion

This study was developed to expand on existing understandings of the benefits associated with ritualized behavior. Although ritualized behavior is more common in skill-dominated athletes, it is beneficial for self-control improvement across athletes. The current project focused on a shooting task, however the benefits from ritualized behavior based on embodied cognition can help athletes in diverse sports groups. We see that ritualized behavior is of great help in improving self-control or other psychological functions, but understandings remain relatively uncharted in relation to challenging performance tasks in situ. Execution rituals may play a role in alleviating anxiety in the short term, but in the longer-term, performers may rely on them. Additionally, we ponder whether missing the execution of the ritualized behavior might lead to a decline in performance given diminished perceived control. From the vantage of this project, going forward, ritualized behavior needs to be considered as a performance enhancement tool, when used systematically to augment efficacy and narrowed concentration, contributing to peak performance.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was Supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2019YFF0301600).